Written by Andrew Horn of Amherst, NH.
 |
Update on HB 511 (Sanctuary Policy Ban):
Although last Friday, the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee placed HB 511 on the Consent Calendar, today’s House Calendar has moved it to the Regular Calendar:
 |
Executive Summary of the 7 Most Notable Bills and Resolutions
HB 109-FN (House Criminal Justice & Public Safety):
Why Notable: Criminalizes knowingly false reports of misconduct against the police. Opponents contend it could chill legitimate complaints, noting that false reporting is already a crime.
HB 146-FN (House Criminal Justice & Public Safety):
Why Notable: Enhances police accountability by mandating the preservation and prompt disclosure of body camera footage from traffic stops, which supporters say is key to ensuring fair trials and transparent policing.
HB 698-FN (House Criminal Justice & Public Safety):
Why Notable: Imposes a class B felony for impersonating law enforcement while not in uniform. Supporters argue it’s critical for public trust, while some fear unintended consequences in emergency scenarios.
HB 162-FN (House Criminal Justice & Public Safety):
Why Notable: Expands informed consent requirements for warrantless searches of homes and property. It sparks debate over civil liberties versus effective policing.
HB 468-FN (House Criminal Justice & Public Safety):
Why Notable: Addresses the growing drone industry by setting criminal penalties for improper or dangerous drone use, including interference with manned aircraft.
HB 264-FN (House State-Federal Relations & Veterans Affairs):
Why Notable: Penalizes (with a felony) any delegate to an Article V convention who votes for amendments not authorized by the legislature. Critics say this stifles debate at a potential convention.
HCR 3 (House State-Federal Relations & Veterans Affairs):
Why Notable: Calls for an Article V convention to limit federal power and impose fiscal restraints/term limits. Opponents fear a “runaway” scenario altering fundamental constitutional protections.
HCR 5 (House State-Federal Relations & Veterans Affairs):
Why Notable: Seeks to rescind a 2012 call for an Article V convention, emphasizing the risk of sweeping and unpredictable constitutional changes if such a convention takes place.
Contents
Quick Summary - All Bills
Screenshot of House Calendar
In-Depth Analysis - All Bills
Quick Summary - All Bills
House Criminal Justice and Public Safety
HB 59-FN (6 sponsors, Republican)
Summary: Establishes felony-level offenses for assaults on law enforcement and emergency responders, including attacks specifically targeting officers due to their profession.
Online Testimony: 6 in support, 41 opposedHB 109-FN (5 sponsors, Republican)
Summary: Makes it a crime to knowingly make false or baseless allegations of police misconduct while performing official duties.
Online Testimony: 1 in support, 50 opposedHB 146-FN (1 sponsor, Republican)
Summary: Requires law enforcement agencies to preserve and disclose body-worn camera recordings of motor vehicle stops if a defendant pleads not guilty, with dismissal if footage is not provided.
Online Testimony: 20 in support, 0 opposedHB 698-FN (4 sponsors, Republican)
Summary: Criminalizes falsely claiming law enforcement status while not in uniform and failing to provide official ID upon request.
Online Testimony: 8 in support, 0 opposedHB 162-FN (2 sponsors, Bipartisan)
Summary: Expands existing informed consent rules for warrantless searches to include homes and other property, clarifying the right to refuse.
Online Testimony: 3 in support, 6 opposedHB 468-FN (3 sponsors, Bipartisan)
Summary: Establishes criminal penalties for unlawful or dangerous drone operations, including violating FAA rules or endangering aircraft.
Online Testimony: 5 in support, 0 opposedHB 640-FN (8 sponsors, Republican)
Summary: Directs the Attorney General to request and publish anonymized data on federal investigations, surveillance, and arrests in New Hampshire.
Online Testimony: 9 in support, 3 opposed
House State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs
HB 264-FN (3 sponsors, Republican)
Summary: Makes it a class B felony for a delegate at an Article V convention to propose or support amendments not authorized by the state legislature.
Online Testimony: 5 in support, 13 opposedHCR 3 (1 sponsor, Republican)
Summary: Applies for an Article V convention to impose fiscal restraints, limit federal power, and enact term limits on federal officials.
Online Testimony: 46 in support, 54 opposedHCR 5 (3 sponsors, Bipartisan)
Summary: Rescinds a 2012 request for a constitutional convention, citing risks of a “runaway convention.”
Online Testimony: 35 in support, 13 opposedHJR 1 (3 sponsors, Republican)
Summary: Affirms that natural rights exist apart from government authority and that state and federal governments are established to protect these rights.
Online Testimony: 5 in support, 4 opposed
Screenshot of House Calendar
 |
In-Depth Analysis - All Bills
House Criminal Justice And Public Safety
HB 59-FN
AN ACT relative to
6 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Dennis Mannion (R), Rep. Mark Proulx (R), Rep. Stephen Pearson (R), Rep. Terry Roy (R), Rep. Sheila Seidel (R), Sen. Daryl Abbas (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Subparagraph; Criminal Code; First Degree Assault; Elements of Offense. Amend RSA 631:1, I by inserting after subparagraph (d) the following new subparagraph:
(e) Knowingly or recklessly causes a serious bodily injury to law enforcement officer, a paid firefighter, volunteer firefighter, on-call firefighter, or licensed emergency medical care provider as defined in RSA 153-A:2, V, acting in the line of duty; or commits such an act against a law enforcement officer whether or not the officer is on duty, where the purpose was to harm the officer because of his or her present or previous employment as a law enforcement officer.
2 New Paragraph; First Degree Assault; Arrest and Bail. Amend RSA 631:1 by inserting after paragraph III the following new paragraph:
IV. A law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that a person has violated subparagraph I(e) may immediately arrest such person, without a warrant, and shall cause such person to be brought before a judge or magistrate, either in person or otherwise, for a determination of bail. If the court finds probable cause to believe such person has violated subparagraph I(e), that finding shall constitute prima facie evidence that the defendant is dangerous under RSA 597:2, III(a)(1).
Summary:
This bill establishes felony-level offenses for assaults on firefighters, emergency medical care providers, and law enforcement officers, including attacks specifically targeting law enforcement officers due to their profession.
Argument For:
This bill enhances protections for emergency responders and law enforcement by ensuring that those who commit violent assaults against them face serious legal consequences. By imposing felony charges, it serves as a deterrent to attacks on public safety personnel and reinforces the state's commitment to protecting those who risk their lives to serve the community.
Argument Against:
This bill has the potential to criminalize individuals experiencing mental health crises, leading to incarceration rather than necessary medical intervention. It could also discourage individuals from reporting instances of police misconduct due to fears of retaliation under the new felony provisions. Additionally, elevating the legal consequences for assaults against government employees over those against ordinary citizens creates an imbalance that undermines the principle of equal justice.
Online Testimony
Currently, 6 people support and 41 people oppose the bill. 87% oppose of 47 people
Support
There is nothing wrong with requiring a background check and waiting period to get a firearm. This would save time and lives and that matters.
Opposition
Having means for holding law enforcement to standards of decency is needed. This bill would serve to intimidate people who feel they’ve been roughly treated from being able to report on police mishandling.
with the amount of people in need of mental health help and not having their needs met and may have to call 911 for help. this could possibly leave people with mental health issues such as ODD would be left with a much higher likely hood of incarceration for something they cannot control.
This bill is not bad as a concept, but needs amending to take into account that the assault might be the result of a mental health episode.
A warrant is needed and its our right to require one. Its unjust to try and take away our rights!
No one deserves to be assaulted, and public servants who protect us and health care personnel deserve to feel safe from assault. However, this bill has the potential to criminalize people having a mental health episode. Please do not approve this bill for passage.
This wrongly sets the worth of government employees above the value of any other citizen. Only government employees would want such elevation above others ... to have existence superior to those who they have authority over.
I believe that being proactive and addressing mental health issues and increasing state resources is a better option for everybody
While no one deserves to be assaulted, this bill has the potential to criminalize people experiencing a mental health crisis.
No one deserves to be assaulted, including emergency personnel but this bill has the potential to criminalize people experiencing a mental health episode.
I oppose this bill
Hearing: Friday, Jan 31 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 202-204 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 109-FN
AN ACT relative to false reports to law enforcement.
5 sponsors, Lean Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Dennis Mannion (R), Rep. Mark Proulx (R), Rep. Stephen Pearson (R), Rep. Terry Roy (R), Rep. Jonathan Stone (r)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Criminal Code; False Reports to Law Enforcement. Amend RSA 641:4 to read as follows:
641:4 False Reports to Law Enforcement.
I. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if he or she:
…
II. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if he or she knowingly reports to a law enforcement officer or agency, by word or action, false or baseless information regarding an allegation of misconduct by a law enforcement officer in the performance of such officer's duty.
III. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if he or she knowingly reports to a law enforcement officer or agency, by word or action, false or baseless information regarding an allegation of criminal conduct by a law enforcement officer in the performance of such officer's duty.
Summary:
This bill makes it a crime to knowingly make false or baseless allegations of misconduct or criminal conduct against a police officer performing official duties.
Potential Argument For:
This bill ensures that law enforcement officers are protected from false accusations that could harm their careers and reputations, reinforcing trust in the justice system.
Argument Against:
This bill could discourage citizens from reporting police misconduct by creating a chilling effect, making people afraid of legal repercussions if their claims are not substantiated. False reporting is already a crime, and this measure appears unnecessary, potentially serving more to intimidate complainants than to address a real problem.
Online Testimony
Currently, 1 people support and 50 people oppose the bill. 98% oppose of 51 people
Opposition
This bill could discourage people from reporting police misconduct. Please vote against bringing it forward.
The changes to this bill will discourage citizens from reporting suspected police misconduct.
No further erosion of reproductive rights!
I oppose this bill
This bill could discourage people from reporting police misconduct.
False reporting is already a crime and has penalties; It evenly applies to citizens and cops. This would pit a citizens report of misconduct against the blue brotherhood, known to manufacture false evidence and do crime coverup. Don't cops have cop-cams; so why be afraid of situation of which you hold all the trump cards to disprove allegation?
This bill seems meant to only discourage filing complaints. It is ALREADY against the law to lie to police, or to file false charges.
It is already against the law to lie to the police. Why is this needed, other than to discourage people from filing complaints?
To the members of the house who are putting forward these redundant and frivolous bills, please put your effort towards doing some real good. It is already illegal to lie to police. This smacks of intimidation.
WHAT PROBLEM IS IT MEANT TO SOLVE?
Hearing: Friday, Jan 31 at 11:00 a.m. in Room 202-204 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 146-FN
AN ACT relative to the use of body-worn cameras.
1 sponsor, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Jack Flanagan (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Use of Body-Worn Cameras. Amend RSA 105-D:2, XVII to read as follows:
XVII. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph XVI:
…
(c) If a person pleads not guilty to a violation-level offense alleging a violation of any law in RSA 265 following a motor vehicle stop, the law enforcement agency involved in the motor vehicle stop shall preserve any body-worn camera recordings relating to the motor vehicle stop until the case concludes, including any appeal. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the law enforcement agency shall provide the defendant with the camera recording within 5 days of a request by the defendant. Failure by the law enforcement agency to preserve or disclose the recording as required by this subparagraph shall result in the violation being dismissed with prejudice.
Summary:
This bill requires law enforcement agencies to preserve and disclose body-worn camera recordings of motor vehicle stops when a defendant pleads not guilty to a violation-level offense under RSA 265, ensuring the footage is available until the case concludes and mandating dismissal if the footage is not provided upon request.
Argument For:
This bill ensures accountability in law enforcement by requiring the preservation of body-worn camera footage, allowing defendants access to crucial evidence that may impact their case. By maintaining footage, officers can also review and improve their procedures, fostering safer and more ethical traffic stops. Additionally, preserving recordings protects vulnerable communities by enabling oversight and remediation of any inappropriate police actions.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill could impose additional administrative and financial burdens on law enforcement agencies, as maintaining and disclosing body-worn camera footage for extended periods may require extra resources and infrastructure.
Online Testimony
Currently, 20 people support and 0 people oppose the bill. 100% support of 20 people
Support
Bodycam footage is essential in holding law enforcement accountable to fulfilling their duty of conducting safe and ethical traffic stops. Additionally, by preserving bodycam footage, law enforcement will be provided with film to look back upon and learn from, becoming more skilled at their jobs. For these reasons, I support HB146.
Police officers are public servants first and foremost, underscoring the Protect and Serve mindset that they adopt when training for and accepting their role and responsibility. With this in mind, the lack of accountability of police officers has negatively impacted our low-income, and communities of color in our state. Requiring that body cam footage be preserved will off set this, by creating the opportunity for inappropriate actions by police officers towards the public to be remediated. I support this bill, and I encourage the committee to as well.
Hearing: Friday, Jan 31 at 12:00 p.m. in Room 202-204 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 698-FN
AN ACT criminalizing the act of a person claiming to be a member of law enforcement when the person is not in uniform and cannot produce identification proving the claim.
4 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Travis Corcoran (R), Rep. Mike Belcher (R), Rep. Tom Mannion (R), Rep. Michael Granger (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Section; False Claim of Authority. Amend RSA 104 by inserting after section 104:28-a the following new section:
104:28-b Unsupported Claim of Authority.
Any person who knowingly claims or holds themselves out to be a law enforcement officer of any state or federal law enforcement agency with the intent to exercise power vested in such officer, while not wearing their official uniform and not providing official proof of membership in that agency upon demand, shall be guilty of a class B felony. This section shall not apply to law enforcement officers engaged in legitimate pre-approved undercover activity.
Summary:
This bill establishes a class B felony for falsely claiming to be a law enforcement officer while not in uniform and failing to provide official identification upon request, with an exception for approved undercover officers.
Potential Argument For:
This bill strengthens protections against impersonation of law enforcement, ensuring public trust in legitimate officers and preventing potential abuses of power by individuals falsely claiming authority.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill may lead to unintended consequences, such as penalizing individuals in legitimate emergency situations or those mistakenly perceived as impersonating law enforcement due to misunderstandings.
Online Testimony
Currently, 8 people support and 0 people oppose the bill. 100% support of 8 people
Hearing: Friday, Jan 31 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 202-204 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 162-FN
AN ACT relative to informed consent for law enforcement searches of houses or other property.
2 sponsors, Bipartisan
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Terry Roy (R), Rep. Buzz Scherr (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Search Warrants; Informed Consent Exceptions Expanded. Amend RSA 595-A:10 to read as follows:
595-A:10 Informed Consent Exception for [Motor Vehicles] Searches of Houses and Other Property.
I. A law enforcement officer may legally conduct a search of a person's home or any other property, including a motor vehicle, without a warrant [under this chapter] if the law enforcement officer expressly informs the [operator of the motor vehicle] person that:
(a) The [operator] person has the right to refuse to consent to a search; and
(b) The person’s exercise of that right cannot be used against him or her in court, as part of a criminal investigation, or as grounds for further detention. [Any refusal to consent to a search shall not constitute a basis either for probable cause to arrest the operator or reasonable suspicion to detain the operator;
(c) The operator cannot be charged with any crime or violation for refusing to consent to a search; and
(d) The operator cannot be further detained for refusing to consent to a search.]
II. If the [operator of a motor vehicle] person refuses to consent to a search, the law enforcement officer shall cease any further questioning concerning consent to a search unless a significant period of time has passed, or the subject is raised by the person. A significant period of time shall mean the person and the law enforcement agency involved have ceased to interact with one another and a new set of circumstances or facts have arisen that justify a new interaction.
Summary:
This bill expands the informed consent law to include searches of houses and other property, modifies what law enforcement officers must inform individuals of before obtaining consent for a search, and clarifies exceptions where a warrantless search is permitted.
Potential Argument For:
This bill strengthens individual rights by ensuring that people are explicitly informed of their right to refuse a search of their home or property, preventing coercion and promoting fair law enforcement practices.
Argument Against:
This bill undermines the constitutional right to require a warrant for searches, making it easier for law enforcement to bypass due process and erode civil liberties.
Online Testimony
Currently, 3 people support and 6 people oppose the bill. 67% oppose of 9 people
Opposition
A warrant is needed and its our right to require one. Its unjust to try and take away our rights!
Hearing: Friday, Jan 31 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 202-204 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 468-FN
AN ACT establishing the crime of and penalties for unlawful use of unmanned aircraft systems.
3 sponsors, Bipartisan
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Terry Roy (R), Rep. Jonah Wheeler (D), Sen. Regina Birdsell (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Section; Unlawful Operation or Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Amend RSA 644 by inserting after section 22 the following new section:
644:23 Unlawful Operation or Use of Small Unmanned Aircraft System.
…
II. A person is guilty of a violation for a first offense, and a misdemeanor for a second or subsequent offense, if such person operates a small unmanned aircraft system in violation of laws and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), including but not limited to 14 C.F.R. part 107.
III. A person is guilty of:
(a) A class A misdemeanor if such person negligently operates a small unmanned aircraft system in a manner so as to interfere with or disrupt the flight of a human-occupied aircraft, or otherwise impede the normal course of operations of any international, regional, municipal, or general aviation airport.
(b) A class B felony if such operation results in damage to a human-occupied aircraft in flight.
(c) A class A felony if such operation causes said aircraft to crash and such crash results in death or serious bodily injury.
IV. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if such a person operates a small unmanned aircraft system in FAA-restricted airspace over the property of a federal or state correctional, penal, or detention facility, and a class B felony if such operation is done with the purpose of delivering contraband into the facility or to aid in the escape of a prisoner.
V. A person is guilty of a class B felony if such person is knowingly in possession of or operates a small unmanned aircraft system equipped with a device capable of causing serious bodily injury, death, or property damage or is otherwise capable of firing or releasing a projectile. Federal, state, and municipal public safety bomb squad personnel are exempted from this provision for the limited purpose of use of a small unmanned aircraft system for the disposal of explosives, bombs, and hazardous devices. Law enforcement's use of a small unmanned aircraft system to deploy distraction or disorientation devices is exempt from this provision.
VI. This provision shall not apply to any law enforcement officer acting pursuant to his or her lawful authority.
Summary:
This bill establishes criminal penalties for the unlawful operation or use of small unmanned aircraft systems, including violations of FAA regulations, interference with manned aircraft, operation over correctional facilities, and possession of weaponized drones.
Argument For:
This bill strengthens public safety by ensuring that drones are operated responsibly and within federal regulations, reducing the risk of interference with manned aircraft and preventing their use for illegal activities. Additionally, it addresses concerns about personal privacy and harassment by penalizing improper drone usage, including potential amendments to protect wildlife.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill could impose unnecessary restrictions on drone operators and hobbyists, potentially leading to unintended penalties for minor infractions.
Online Testimony
Currently, 5 people support and 0 people oppose the bill. 100% support of 5 people
Support
Time to get these drones under penalty of law. Bring voyeurism and infraction of personal privacy to an end. Amendment needed to stop harassing wildlife; animals are already under stress from weather and predators.
Hearing: Friday, Jan 31 at 2:30 p.m. in Room 202-204 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 640-FN
AN ACT relative to the transparency of federal agency operations within New Hampshire.
8 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Keith Ammon (R), Rep. Jim Kofalt (R), Rep. Erica Layon (R), Rep. Tom Mannion (R), Rep. Shane Sirois (R), Rep. Travis Corcoran (R), Rep. Matt Drew (R), Rep. Matt Sabourin dit Choinière (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Subdivision; Attorney General; Federal Agency Report. Amend RSA 7 by inserting after section 48 the following new subdivision:
Federal Agency Reports
7:49 Federal Agency Notification and Reporting.
I. The attorney general shall formally request that federal government agencies with law enforcement, investigatory, or operational activities in New Hampshire voluntarily provide the following aggregated, anonymized data quarterly:
(a) Total number of agency facilities in the state.
(b) Total number of permanent staff positions in New Hampshire, noting any quarterly changes.
(c) Total number of temporary staff assigned to New Hampshire, noting any quarterly changes.
(d) Total number of completed surveillance operations in the state during the previous quarter.
(e) Total number of completed investigations involving New Hampshire residents during the previous quarter.
(f) Total number of federal warrants executed in New Hampshire during the previous quarter.
(g) Total number of no-knock warrants executed in New Hampshire during the previous quarter.
(h) Total number of arrests by federal agencies involving New Hampshire residents during the previous quarter.
(i) Total number of federal refugee relocations in New Hampshire during the previous quarter.
(j) Total number of federal deportations from New Hampshire during the previous quarter.
II. Privacy and data protection.
(a) The data collected under this section shall only be published in aggregated, anonymized form. No personal information or specific location data shall be collected or disclosed.
(b) Only data pertaining to completed operations shall be requested and published to ensure no interference with ongoing activities.
III. The attorney general shall maintain a public website displaying a searchable database of the metrics listed in paragraph I. The website shall also indicate:
(a) Agencies that voluntarily provided data.
(b) Agencies that did not provide data.
(c) Agencies not present or operational in New Hampshire.
IV. To increase transparency, the attorney general shall compile and publish a quarterly summary showing which federal agencies cooperated with the data request and which did not. This information shall also be shared with New Hampshire’s congressional delegation to encourage federal action on transparency.
V. The attorney general shall submit an annual report to the state-federal relations and veterans affairs committee detailing:
(a) Federal agency participation rates.
(b) The effectiveness of the transparency initiative.
(c) Recommendations for improving the act or addressing challenges.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2026.
Summary:
This bill directs the Attorney General to request, collect, and publish anonymized data on federal law enforcement and investigatory activities in New Hampshire, including agency presence, surveillance operations, arrests, and warrants executed.
Argument For:
This bill increases transparency by providing the state and the public with valuable insight into the activities of federal agencies operating within New Hampshire. Without this data, the state has no visibility into federal operations, which can impact residents' rights, law enforcement coordination, and public trust. A publicly accessible, searchable database ensures accountability and helps New Hampshire policymakers make informed decisions.
Argument Against:
This bill imposes significant costs on the state by requiring new staff and infrastructure to collect and manage data that the federal government should already be providing. The estimated expenditure of over $230,000 annually may not be justified given the uncertain benefits, especially if federal agencies refuse to cooperate.
Online Testimony
Currently, 9 people support and 3 people oppose the bill. 75% support of 12 people
Support
NH State has no visibility into the presence of federal agents and operations for any cause. The public website displaying a searchable database is a good idea.
Opposition
Although this bill seems to be for a worthwhile goal, the potential benefits do not seem to be worth the high cost. The federal government should provide this information to the state without the state needing to hire extra employees.
Hearing: Friday, Jan 31 at 3:30 p.m. in Room 202-204 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
House State-Federal Relations And Veterans Affairs
HB 264-FN
AN ACT relative to delegates to an Article V convention.
3 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Jordan Ulery (R), Rep. Bill Ohm (R), Rep. Maureen Mooney (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Section; Unfaithful Delegates to an Article V Convention. Amend RSA 643 by inserting after section 2 the following new section:
643:3 Unfaithful Delegates to an Article V Convention.
…
II. A delegate from the state to an Article V convention shall not support or approve the proposing of an unauthorized amendment to the United States Constitution by the convention.
III. A delegate who knowingly violates this section shall be guilty of a class B felony.
Summary:
This bill makes it a class B felony for a delegate to an Article V convention to support or approve proposing an amendment not authorized by the state legislature.
Argument For:
This bill ensures that delegates from New Hampshire follow the specific instructions of the legislature when participating in an Article V convention, preventing unauthorized constitutional changes. By establishing clear legal consequences, the bill safeguards against rogue delegates undermining the state's intent and protects the rights of all citizens. Given the increasing likelihood of a constitutional convention, it is prudent to establish legal guardrails now to control New Hampshire’s participation.
Argument Against:
This bill imposes extreme criminal penalties, including a felony conviction, on delegates simply for engaging in the democratic process of proposing constitutional amendments. Such restrictions could discourage qualified individuals from serving as delegates and stifle legitimate debate at a convention. Additionally, opponents argue that the entire idea of a Constitutional Convention is dangerous and unnecessary, making this bill an overreach based on a premise they do not support.
Online Testimony
Currently, 5 people support and 13 people oppose the bill. 72% oppose of 18 people
Support
It is only a matter of time when a proposal convention happens in this nation. It makes sense to have legislation controlling NH's participation already in place before commencing. Thank you, Sponsors, for your foresight!
Please amend to make a capital crime. Treasonous act to "support or approve proposing an amendment not authorized by the legislature"
I urge a yed vote on this legislation to protect the rights of all citizens, any conventions called.
Opposition
This is shenanigans. You want to convict someone of a FELONY when they are trying to make things better? Absolutely not. This is garbage and you know it.
NO CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS
I recommend voting against a Constitutional Convention. Given the present highly polarized state of our democracy at this point, I think a Constitutional Convention could just be a very difficult set of arguments and possibly even lead to violence. Given my position, HB264 is a moot point. Vote against it.
Hearing: Friday, Jan 31 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 206-208 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HCR 3
A RESOLUTION applying for a convention of the states under Article V of the Constitution of the United States.
1 sponsor, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. JD Bernardy (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the legislature of the state of New Hampshire hereby applies to Congress, under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for the calling of a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the Unites States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.
That the house clerk is hereby directed to transmit copies of this application to the president and secretary of the United States Senate and to the speaker and clerk of the United States House of Representatives, and copies to the members of the said senate and house of representatives from this state; and to the presiding officers of each of the legislative houses in the other states, requesting their cooperation.
That this application constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States until the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states have made applications on the same subject.
Summary:
This bill applies for a convention of the states under Article V of the U.S. Constitution to propose amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit federal power, and establish term limits for federal officials and members of Congress.
Argument For:
This bill provides states with a constitutional mechanism to check federal overreach, restore fiscal responsibility, and implement term limits that Congress is unlikely to impose on itself. Supporters argue that the federal government has exceeded its intended powers, accumulating unsustainable debt and eroding state sovereignty, making this convention necessary to rebalance the system. By allowing states to propose amendments, this bill empowers citizens to have a direct role in shaping their government and ensuring its accountability.
Argument Against:
This bill risks triggering a "runaway convention" where delegates could propose amendments beyond the intended scope, potentially altering fundamental rights and protections in the Constitution. Critics argue that the vague and untested nature of an Article V convention lacks clear procedural safeguards, making it susceptible to partisan manipulation and legal disputes. Additionally, existing legislative processes, such as congressional amendments or state nullification of unconstitutional laws, provide safer and more predictable avenues for addressing concerns about federal overreach.
Online Testimony
Currently, 46 people support and 54 people oppose the bill. 54% oppose of 100 people
Support
A Convention of States is essential to rein in the power of the federal government, restore fiscal responsibility, protect individual freedoms, and return decision-making to the hands of the people and the states. It’s time for citizens to come together and demand the changes necessary to preserve the future of our nation.
It is time to put some restraints on this growth and attempt to return the United States to be governed mainly by the States and other local government. The closer, and smaller, government is the better option for most residents in New Hampshire but also elsewhere in this country. Article 5 is there for a reason; let's attempt to use it.
Supporting a Convention of States allows the people to have a voice and be heard. Getting the 2/3 of the States to pass is a large hurdle and with your help we can be closer to having another checks and balances to our government.
Since Article V has no political party, it is just a gift from the Founding Fathers for all Americans to utilize, it makes sense to pass this resolution. All of NH will benefit, as will all Americans. Thanks for using this check and balance provided in the Republic.
Clearly, that time has come. DC is rife with career politicians that have a vested interest in only themselves, not We the People. It is time for that to change. If not now, then when? The time is now, before it is too late. It is our Republic, only if we can keep it.
This article promotes healthy balancing of power, as the founding fathers advocated for
A convention of states is our constitutional right to place term limits on house and senate. They are not meant to be life long jobs that make them wealthy. They are to serve us you NH please vote yes for a convention of states Bring the power back to the state and NH state interests read article V for your self, it is an easy read.
Members of House State/Federal, Please vote OTP on HCR3. Congress refuses to propose a term limits bill and is recklessly spending our nation into debt, I trust members of this legislature to appoint delegates to an amending convention who will do what Congress will not and I trust you to hold those delegates accountable to the subject matter identified in HCR3.
I urge a yed vote on this legislation to protect the rights of all citizens, to. Be albe to be i to rein in the powers, i've government that has gotten way out of control.
Our constitution needs to regain its life and maintain that spark of being a living breathing document by allowing the People of the State and country to be heard directly. Convention of States is a gateway organized body of concerned people that want to uphold individual rights, liberty, and the freedom to pursue our lives in peace.
Opposition
That the Convention is supported by people in favor of Christian Nationalism, capital punishment for homosexuals, book bans, abortion bans, etc. is even more alarming. These people are traitors. This is a power grab by a minority that wants to oppress the majority of Americans. To support it would be unpatriotic and immoral.
Fiscal restraints on government? For whose agenda? Does no one understand this is just so the wealthy have no checks and balances? Let’s point over here so you have no idea what we really are doing.
While HCR3’s goals may seem appealing, the risks far outweigh the benefits. A convention could spiral beyond its intended purpose, leading to unintended consequences. Instead, reforms should be pursued through established legislative processes to protect constitutional stability.
• How would the convention delegates be chosen? • Congress can choose to either allow ¾ of state legislatures or ¾ of conventions of those states to ratify changes. This means that Congress has the option to prevent the elected state legislatures from deciding on whether to ratify the changes proposed by the national constitutional convention
NO CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS
I recommend voting against a Constitutional Convention. Given the present highly polarized state of our democracy at this point, I think a Constitutional Convention could just be a very difficult set of arguments and possibly even lead to violence. Vote against it.
I oppose this bill because if enacted, it would be fraught with peril, in that powerful anticonstitutional and unconstitutional forces could likely use their political and social power to take it over, and eventually achieve changes greatly for the worse. Rather than CHANGE the Constitution, we simply need to insist that the Constitution is more closely and consistently FOLLOWED, as is. Thank you.
Hearing: Friday, Jan 31 at 9:45 a.m. in Room 206-208 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HCR 5
A RESOLUTION rescinding House Concurrent Resolution No. 40 passed by the 2012 New Hampshire General Court asking that Congress call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution.
3 sponsors, Bipartisan
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Matt Sabourin dit Choinière (R), Rep. Timothy Horrigan (D), Rep. Michael Granger (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the New Hampshire general court does hereby rescind HCR 40, passed on May 31, 2012 ,which is an application by the general court of the state of New Hampshire to the Congress of the United States of America to call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, pursuant to the terms of Article V; and
That the Secretary of the Senate prepare and transmit a copy of this resolution to the Vice President of the United States as the presiding officer of the United States Senate, to the Secretary of the Senate, to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, to the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, to each member of the New Hampshire Congressional Delegation, and to be published in the Congressional Record.
Be it further resolved that the general court of the state of New Hampshire urges the legislatures of each and every state which have applied to Congress to call a convention for either a general or a limited constitutional convention, to repeal, and withdraw such applications.
Summary:
This bill rescinds New Hampshire’s 2012 application to Congress for a constitutional convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, citing concerns about the potential for sweeping and unrestricted changes to the Constitution.
Argument For:
This bill prevents the risk of a constitutional convention rewriting or undermining the protections guaranteed in the existing Constitution. The vague language of Article V leaves critical questions unanswered, such as how delegates would be selected and whether Congress could bypass elected state legislatures in the ratification process. Given the current political climate and increasing attacks on democratic institutions, opening the Constitution to broad, unchecked revisions poses a grave threat to civil liberties and the principles of representative government.
Argument Against:
This bill weakens the power of states to propose necessary constitutional amendments and undermines the principle of federalism. With a national debt exceeding $36 trillion and Congress failing to enact fiscal reforms, the states must use their Article V authority to force action. New Hampshire’s 2012 application was part of a larger movement to propose a fiscal responsibility amendment, and rescinding it now signals an endorsement of continued federal inaction on the debt crisis. If legislators trust themselves more than Congress, they should not abandon their equal power to propose necessary amendments.
Online Testimony
Currently, 35 people support and 13 people oppose the bill. 73% support of 48 people
Support
Rescinding prior NH application to the US Congress does not end the matter. At the prior convention, congress counted the rescinded applications toward the two thirds of the State legislatures (that is, 34 of the 50). Some claim that rescission is impossible often also argue that different topics can be combined during a convention's deliberations.
• The convention could completely rewrite the Constitution • Too many elected officials in state and federal governments have already shown disdain and contempt for the Constitution and many have openly supported the replacement of our liberal democracy with a dictatorship.
Opposition
The federal government has yet to produce a credible solution to restore fiscal sanity and sustainability. … There is no other viable political solution. I trust you members of this legislature more than I do members of Congress. Please have trust in yourselves to responsibly exercise your equal power to propose a fiscal responsibility amendment.
NO CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS
I recommend voting against a Constitutional Convention. Given the present highly polarized state of our democracy at this point, I think a Constitutional Convention could just be a very difficult set of arguments and possibly even lead to violence. Leave the decision of 2012 alone and vote against this Resolution.
Hearing: Friday, Jan 31 at 10:30 a.m. in Room 206-208 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HJR 1
A RESOLUTION affirming the natural right of persons and affirming that the state and federal government are established for the purpose of upholding, protecting, and securing these rights.
3 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Mike Belcher (R), Rep. Paul Terry (R), Rep. Shane Sirois (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That it is affirmed and directed to the other branches, political subdivisions, and all magistrates of government that this is the intent and belief of the legislature regarding the understanding, interpretation, and proper exercise of government authority in the state of New Hampshire in our delegated constitutional capacity to establish such policy as contained herein; and
That the house clerk and senate clerk each transmit a copy of this resolution to the President of the United States Senate, United States Senate Majority Leader, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the governor of New Hampshire, the attorney general of New Hampshire and the members of the New Hampshire congressional delegation.
Summary:
This bill affirms that natural rights exist independently of the state and that both state and federal governments are established to uphold, protect, and secure these rights.
Argument For:
This bill reinforces the principles already enshrined in the New Hampshire and U.S. Constitutions, ensuring that government overreach does not infringe upon citizens' natural rights. Supporters argue that reaffirming these rights is necessary in response to increasing government encroachments on personal freedoms. Additionally, it serves as a reminder to all branches of government of their fundamental duty to protect individual liberties.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill is unnecessary because the rights it affirms are already protected under both state and federal constitutions.
Online Testimony
Currently, 5 people support and 4 people oppose the bill. 56% support of 9 people
Support
It breaks my heart that this bill is needed as these inalienable rights are already protected under both NH & US Constitutions. I understand the Sponsors efforts in trying to reinforce both constitutions. This appears to be in response to governments over reach into the citizens' natural rights. Thank you for thinking of "we the people."
It is sad that we actually need this bill. But clearly we do, so I fully support.
It is always good to reaffirm the rights of the state and federal constitutions. Please support this. Thank you
You ought to send this to craven NH AG Formella for his crusade to persecute citizens as "hate crime" for their expressed personal opinions on race, sexuality and other nonsense. Time to wipe out ridiculous "hate crime" laws which heap penalties on to base penalty for citizen having free will to publicly dislike anyone he chooses.
Hearing: Friday, Jan 31 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 206-208 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.