Committee Summary for House Judiciary (01/14/2026)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB1067 00:05:03.920 - 8:03:54 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the mental health courts.	Pearson, Mark(R)[B]2025
HB1384 01:08:42.639 - 9:07:33 AM	Public Hearing	relative to reporting requirements for persons or entities financing lawsuits.	Cole, Brian(R)[A-]2025
HB1333 02:07:33.120 - 10:06:24 AM	Public Hearing	relative to nonconsensual provision of medication intended to terminate a pregnancy and the homicide of a fetus.	Aures, Cyril(R)[B+]2025
HB1230 03:17:19.920 - 11:16:10 AM	Public Hearing	relative to increases in state tax rates and debts.	Ulery, Jordan(R)[A-]2025
HB1436 03:26:44.800 - 11:25:35 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the classification and protection of personal digital information and cloud-stored files.	Spillane, James(R)[A]2025
HB1508 04:20:34.560 - 12:19:25 PM	Public Hearing	permitting one-party consent for audio and video recordings in certain instances.	Barton, Joseph(R)[A-]2025
HB1592 04:34:53.680 - 12:33:44 PM	Public Hearing	relative to compensation for jurors.	Oppel, Thomas(D)[F]2025
HB1615 04:41:46.558 - 12:40:37 PM	Public Hearing	permitting consenting adults to enter into contract-based marriage agreements as an alternative to the requirement of a marriage license.	Sabourin dit Choinière, Matt(R)[A-]2025
HB1508 06:03:28.958 - 2:02:19 PM	Executive Session	permitting one-party consent for audio and video recordings in certain instances.	Barton, Joseph(R)[A-]2025
HB1592 06:05:17.680 - 2:04:08 PM	Executive Session	relative to compensation for jurors.	Oppel, Thomas(D)[F]2025
HB1615 06:06:30.478 - 2:05:21 PM	Executive Session	permitting consenting adults to enter into contract-based marriage agreements as an alternative to the requirement of a marriage license.	Sabourin dit Choinière, Matt(R)[A-]2025

HB1067: Representative Mark Pearson Support00:05:03.920 - 8:03:54 AM; Representative Mark Pearson, the prime sponsor, introduced HB 1067FN, emphasizing his background in health, human services, and law. He collaborated with the Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court and Representative Buzz Sher to develop the bill, which expands mental health courts at the intersection of health and law. The bill is compassionate and cost-effective, providing a pathway for individuals with mental health issues, such as PTSD, to receive treatment without excusing crimes. It allows local courts to tailor programs and involves repurposing existing resources, grants, and funding from charities and federal programs rather than requiring new state money. Pearson highlighted success stories and noted that mental health courts reduce recidivism, saving costs on policing, trials, and incarceration. He addressed questions on prior studies, fiscal notes, and financial benefits, affirming support from the judicial branch and potential savings based on other states' experiences.
HB1067: Representative Alexander Information Only00:11:11.199 - 8:10:02 AM; Representative Alexander asked if the legislature had formally studied mental health courts before and expressed concern about the fiscal note's projected increase in a non-budget year, suggesting possibly holding off to study it further given uncertain revenue estimates.
HB1067: Representative Burch Information Only00:13:07.840 - 8:11:58 AM; Representative Burch clarified that a legislative commission on expanding the mental health court system was established in 2019, involving stakeholders like the Department of Corrections and the court system.
HB1067: Representative Scully Support00:14:33.760 - 8:13:24 AM; Representative Scully, identifying as a conservative, appreciated the potential for mental health courts to be fiscally self-sustaining and asked if other states had quantified financial benefits. Pearson responded affirmatively, citing reduced recidivism leading to savings.
HB1067: Representative Manus Information Only00:15:25.280 - 8:14:16 AM; Representative Manus sought to ask substantive questions about the bill's content on page one, lines two to five, but deferred to Representative Sher for detailed responses.
HB1067: Representative Smith Information Only00:16:37.280 - 8:15:28 AM; Representative Smith noted that the fiscal note was prepared by the judicial branch and asked if Pearson believed they wholeheartedly support statewide mental health courts. Pearson confirmed strong support.
HB1067: Representative Buzz Sher, Portsmouth Support00:17:24.239 - 8:16:15 AM; Representative Buzz Sher, a law professor at UNH Law and soon-to-be chair of the Portsmouth Police Commission, provides a detailed overview of how mental health courts operate. He explains the referral process, which can occur at various stages from pre-arraignment to post-conviction, followed by public safety and clinical assessments to determine eligibility. The court team, including a judge, coordinator, case manager, prosecutor, defense lawyer, and others, decides on acceptance. Participants set goals like employment or counseling, typically for 1-1.5 years, with successful completion leading to graduation. Funding often comes from counties, Medicaid, or community mental health organizations, but many courts are underfunded and partial. HB 1067 aims to formalize them via grants to meet standards and increase funding. He cites Georgia's success, saving over $24,000 per participant, and NH data showing savings in incarceration ($589,470 in Manchester 2024), medication ($93,000 in Hillsborough), and other costs. During Q&A, he addresses bill structure, data collection using existing drug court systems, eligibility (only those arrested or charged), cost-effectiveness requirements, and cautions for violent crimes via safety assessments.
HB1067: Holly Stevens, NAMI New Hampshire Support00:40:13.679 - 8:39:04 AM; Holly Stevens, Director of Public Policy at NAMI New Hampshire, testifies in strong support of HB 1067. She highlights national statistics showing overrepresentation of people with mental illness (44% in jails, 37% in prisons) and substance use disorders (65%) in the criminal justice system, including 55% of incarcerated veterans. In NH, estimates indicate 2 in 5 incarcerated have mental illness, with higher rates among women (66%). Mental illness is not a crime, but untreated symptoms lead to minor nonviolent offenses like disorderly conduct, loitering, trespassing, shoplifting, and drug crimes. She shares stories of successful graduates, like a peer support specialist from Manchester's court who couldn't testify due to work, and others who believe it would have changed their lives. NAMI views mental health courts as life-changing, modeled after successful drug courts, which save counties money (e.g., Hillsborough reinvests savings). She urges support for the bill.
HB1067: Jennifer Dvau, Mental Health Center of Greater Manchester / Community Behavioral Health Association Support00:44:53.840 - 8:43:44 AM; Jennifer Dvau, Vice President of Quality Improvement and Compliance at the Mental Health Center of Greater Manchester, testifies on behalf of the Community Behavioral Health Association representing 10 NH community mental health centers serving over 50,000 individuals. She strongly supports HB 1067 for strengthening mental health courts, drawing from her experience coordinating Manchester's program (Community Connections, operating nearly 15 years). It transforms lives and saves county costs, with a recent video testimonial from a graduate now working as a peer support specialist. The bill aids underserved areas and builds a comprehensive behavioral health system. However, she raises concerns about new administrative and data collection requirements, as centers already handle extensive reporting via electronic health records (EHR). A separate system would require dual entry, lacking interoperability, adding burden without funding for integration, training, or management—creating an unfunded mandate that diverts from patient care. She asks the committee to consider these issues and offers collaboration. In Q&A, she explains current reporting to county coalitions and the judicial branch.
HB1067: Jake Barry, Senior Vice President, New Futures Support00:52:06.400 - 8:50:57 AM; Jake Barry strongly supports HB 1067FN, emphasizing the effectiveness of diversion programs like drug courts, which have operated in nine of ten counties since 2016, graduating nearly 10,000 individuals with high employment rates and recidivism reduction. He highlights cost savings of $75 per day per individual compared to incarceration. Barry notes that 75% of high utilizers in county jails have mental illness, costing $60 million annually, half borne by local taxpayers. Existing 12 mental health courts in the state, including 10 in district courts and 2 in superior courts, reduce jail time, improve treatment access, and save costs, as evidenced by Manchester and Nashua studies showing $1.8 million savings from 2010-2015 and $680,000 in 2023-2024 alone, with 84% reporting improved mental health and 94% fewer legal issues. He urges statewide expansion to ensure equitable access.
HB1067: Lauren Warner and Tanya Pitman, Judicial Branch Information Only00:58:49.199 - 8:57:40 AM; Lauren Warner, Deputy General Counsel, and Tanya Pitman, Mental Health Coordinator, provide information on existing mental health courts without taking a position on the bill. They note collaboration with sponsors on drafting and clarify eligibility: felonies and some violent crimes may qualify depending on circumstances, like psychosis-related incidents, with prosecutor input and victim consideration. Programs vary; some require guilty pleas, others are pre-adjudication. Currently, 13 courts exist, following 2018 legislative guidelines, but resource limitations hinder full compliance. On fiscal impact, the bill assumes but does not provide state funding; estimates cover 11 courts, currently reliant on federal grants. They emphasize leaving policy to the legislature.
HB1384: Representative Brian Cole, Hillsboro Support01:08:42.639 - 9:07:33 AM; Representative Brian Cole introduces HB 1384 to require disclosure of third-party litigation financing (TPLF) agreements, where investors fund lawsuits without personal stake. He explains TPLF is unregulated, attracting hedge funds and foreign entities like those from Russia or China, leading to litigation abuse, higher insurance costs (tort tax), and court expenses up 15-20%. New Hampshire is labeled a lawsuit inferno state with over 1,400 DCYF lawsuits. The bill mandates disclosure, prohibits funding by sanctioned foreign entities (per federal lists), and allows discoverability to restore balance, reduce costs, and prevent foreign influence on sensitive information. It passed the House twice but stalled in the Senate.
HB1384: DJ Bentancourt, Commissioner, New Hampshire Insurance Department Support01:19:06.639 - 9:17:57 AM; Commissioner DJ Bentancourt supports HB 1384 from an insurance perspective, addressing the hard liability insurance market where nonprofits, childcare centers, and DCYF partners struggle with coverage availability and high premiums, impacting behavioral health services and child protection. TPLF opacity leads to conservative pricing, higher costs, and reduced insurer participation. Disclosure improves predictability for actuaries, enhances pricing accuracy without restricting justice access, and attracts capital to soften the market. It's not a prohibition but transparency to reduce volatility, align expectations, and moderate prices for tight-budget entities. He notes industry resistance to non-tort reform ideas but sees this as a helpful tool, based on data calls and discussions with other states.
HB1384: John Reynolds, State Director, National Federation of Independent Business, New Hampshire Support01:31:16.240 - 9:30:07 AM; John Reynolds testified in support of HB 1384, emphasizing its importance for small businesses. He noted that litigation is expensive and time-consuming, often financially ruinous even for winners. The bill promotes transparency and fairness by requiring disclosure of litigation funding agreements, allowing parties to understand motivations behind complaints. He addressed concerns about prejudice, stating disclosure does not mean automatic admission into evidence. Reynolds compared commercial litigation funding to stranger-originated life insurance (STOLI), which distorted markets and led to regulatory action for transparency. He highlighted involvement of similar hedge funds and unseemly practices, such as a case in Louisiana.
HB1384: David Kuzy, Prospect Hill Strategies, on behalf of International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) Oppose01:34:23.760 - 9:33:14 AM; David Kuzy opposed HB 1384 as introduced but suggested minor changes via a redline version circulated to stakeholders. He complimented Representative Cole for collaboration and noted the bill's evolution. ILFA funds only commercial litigation (business-to-business lawsuits costing millions), not consumer cases like slips and falls or abuse claims. He focused on tightening law firm funding provisions, supporting bans on bad foreign actors, and ensuring disclosures do not discriminate against plaintiffs. Kuzy mentioned ongoing work with stakeholders to refine appropriate disclosures.
HB1384: Aaron Jacobs, Partner, Prince Lobel Tye, Adjunct Professor, UNH Law Oppose01:37:15.920 - 9:36:06 AM; Aaron Jacobs opposed the bill, arguing that commercial litigation funding strengthens cases rather than promoting bad ones. He explained that contingency cases funded by litigators undergo rigorous vetting by attorneys, funders, experts, and others to ensure viability and fiduciary responsibility to investors. In contrast, paying clients bear the risk without such scrutiny. Jacobs clarified distinctions in lawyer financing agreements, noting some involve direct funder-client relationships versus firm-only setups. He offered to review the bill further regarding commercial versus consumer limitations.
HB1384: Kirsten Schul, Attorney, Nixon Peabody, on behalf of State Farm Support01:43:28.880 - 9:42:19 AM; Kirsten Schul supported HB 1384 for providing limited disclosure and in camera review of third-party litigation funding (TPLF) in certain cases. She agreed with Commissioner Bettencourt that TPLF is a new industry likely to persist, but opacity in agreements disrupts the civil justice system by hiding financers' influence on strategy and settlements. TPLF operates like venture capital, expecting many failures but profiting from successes, potentially encouraging speculative claims. Schul emphasized that transparency ensures arm's-length conduct without eliminating legitimate funding. In response to a question, she noted mutual disclosures in litigation, such as insurance policies for defense, and that meritorious claims can proceed via contingency fees without TPLF.
HB1384: Marissa Chase and Bill Woodbury, New Hampshire Association for Justice Oppose01:48:07.680 - 9:46:58 AM; Marissa Chase and Bill Woodbury from the New Hampshire Association for Justice oppose HB 1384, arguing it prejudices plaintiffs by providing a roadmap for defense counsel to exploit resource limitations. They highlight the uneven playing field, as insurance companies do not disclose reserves, unlike required policy limits. They assert frivolous lawsuits are rare in New Hampshire due to preliminary motions. Chase emphasizes this is about insurance companies prolonging fights against plaintiffs, not fairness or small businesses, and notes existing discovery rules suffice. She clarifies issues with nonprofits stem from insurers refusing claims, not coverage availability.
HB1384: Lindsey Nato, Director at Orr & Reno Law Firm, representing New Hampshire Association of Domestic Insurance Companies and American Property Casualty Insurance Association Support01:53:09.439 - 9:52:00 AM; Lindsey Nato supports HB 1384 as a step toward transparency in third-party litigation funding, which turns the civil justice system into a profit center. She explains it requires disclosure of funding to plaintiffs or lawyers by non-parties, akin to insurer policy limit disclosures. The bill has been narrowed from prior versions for compromise. It addresses impacts seen in cases like YDC, preventing foreign entities from using litigation for discovery. During questioning, she notes the disclosure is limited to summaries for parties and full agreements for courts, and supports the foreign entity prohibition based on federal definitions.
HB1384: Joan Pejo, New Hampshire Independent Insurance Agencies Support02:00:21.680 - 9:59:12 AM; Joan Pejo urges passage of HB 1384, disagreeing that third-party litigation funding does not affect small businesses and consumers, as it prolongs cases and increases costs passed on through higher premiums or reduced coverage. The bill aligns New Hampshire with other states and federal courts by requiring disclosure, not prohibition, to strengthen the civil justice system's integrity while preserving court access.
HB1384: Sean McLaughlin, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies Support02:02:35.279 - 10:01:26 AM; Sean McLaughlin supports HB 1384, noting New Hampshire's robust insurance market benefits from such reforms. He views third-party litigation funding as a cost driver through abuse, prolonging settlements and increasing litigation expenses, which pressure insurance rates upward. Disclosure would shorten settlement times and put downward pressure on rates. He also endorses the prohibition on funding by foreign entities like those from Russia and China to prevent bad actors.
HB1384: DJ Burke, Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire, State Chamber of Commerce and Manufacturing Association Support02:05:31.600 - 10:04:22 AM; DJ Burke supports HB 1384 for its potential to lower business costs, a primary concern for the chamber. He notes the BIA's consistent support, including last year's unanimous recommendations and consent passage. Benefits include reduced litigation costs, though much has been covered by prior testimony.
HB1333: Representative Sel (prime sponsor) Support02:07:33.120 - 10:06:24 AM; Representative Sel introduces HB 1333FN to protect women from nonconsensual administration of drugs like abortion pills or date rape drugs that force abortions, emphasizing women's rights and autonomy. He cites a Virginia case and notes New Hampshire lags other states. The bill targets intentional harm, particularly to pregnant women wanting to carry their child. He is open to amendments protecting women's health and rights, views it as a criminal bill preventing date rape, and leaves medication parameters to experts.
HB1333: Roy Denah, Knights of Columbus and New Hampshire Right to Life Support02:14:56.160 - 10:13:47 AM; Roy Denah supports HB 1333FN, representing over 7,000 Knights of Columbus members and families, and as a board member of New Hampshire Right to Life. He endorses the bill for forbidding forced abortions via medications without the pregnant woman's knowledge and consent, upholding the sanctity of life from conception to natural death.
HB1333: Russ Green, Belmont, representing himself Oppose02:16:07.600 - 10:14:58 AM; Russ Green opposes HB 1333FN as a concerned citizen, arguing it undermines bodily autonomy and is an abortion bill using homicide language for fetuses. He believes it does not protect women, as nonconsensual drugging is already covered by assault laws, and broadens to limit abortion access. He cites risks in states like Texas where restrictions harm women, urging protection without restricting reproductive care.
HB1333: Bonnie Bruno, representing herself Oppose02:19:05.840 - 10:17:56 AM; Bonnie Bruno opposes HB 1333FN, noting 1464 online sign-ins against it versus 16 for. She argues nonconsensual medication is already illegal under assault and coercion laws, and rare cases (three found) were handled thus. The bill redefines pregnancy and fetus, potentially restricting reproductive health care and paving the way for broader abortion limits, contrary to New Hampshire's stance. She promotes online sign-ins for remote participation.
HB1333: Jim Murphy, orthopedic surgeon from Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical System Oppose02:23:32.720 - 10:22:23 AM; Jim Murphy, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon with four decades of experience at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical System in New Hampshire, expresses multiple concerns with HB 1333FN. He condemns any harm to individuals but recommends the committee find the bill inexpedient to legislate (ITL) due to lack of precedent in New Hampshire, vague language, and potential negative impacts on providers and patients. He notes no known cases of coerced abortion in the state. He emphasizes the importance of informed consent in medical treatments, stating that physicians swear to do no harm and that the Board of Medicine can handle failures in informed consent. He acknowledges situations where consent cannot be obtained, such as emergencies or incapacitation. He suggests clarifying language in section 5 and eliminating the definition of fetus to avoid a slippery slope. He provided written comments and was asked to wrap up.
HB1333: Katherine Tucker, fertility attorney Oppose02:27:20.640 - 10:26:11 AM; Katherine Tucker, an attorney specializing in fertility law and a mother of twins, opposes HB 1333FN, stating it does not support women and will cause problems for fertility and other doctors. She highlights part two of the bill redefining fetus as problematic, citing Alabama where fertility clinics shut down due to similar laws. Focusing on part one, which amends first-degree murder statutes for coerced consumption of abortion medication, she notes that New Hampshire already has first-degree assault (RSA 631:1) as a class A felony covering such acts, providing prosecutors with sufficient tools. She asserts the bill is unnecessary as no cases have arisen where prosecutors lacked adequate laws.
HB1333: Jason Hennessy, representing New Hampshire Right to Life Support02:29:58.880 - 10:28:49 AM; Jason Hennessy, representing New Hampshire Right to Life, supports HB 1333FN. He shares the story of Brooke Fisk, whose doctor partner attempted to coerce an abortion by tampering with her tea at 17 weeks, leading to the loss of her son Mackey; the father pleaded guilty under Virginia's fetal homicide law, but such protection wouldn't apply in New Hampshire. He argues existing assault with miscarriage provisions (RSA 631) focus on harm to the mother and may not cover cases where the child survives or where intent to harm the mother is disputed, citing a Texas case. He notes the increase in forced non-consensual abortions due to relaxed FDA regulations on abortion pills. The bill provides law enforcement tools to address this trend, protects unborn children for pro-life advocates and bodily autonomy for pro-choice ones, without restricting maternal abortion rights. He mentions New Hampshire's 8-year fetal homicide law and examples from other states. During questioning, he acknowledges a 2024 invocation of the fetal homicide law in New Hampshire but clarifies his focus on coerced abortion cases.
HB1333: Dr. Julia Meade, obstetrician-gynecologist from Concord, NH Oppose02:34:10.720 - 10:33:01 AM; Dr. Julia Meade, an OB-GYN trained in New Hampshire and vice chair of New Hampshire ACOG, opposes HB 1333FN on behalf of herself. She argues the bill does not reflect mainstream science and medicine, uses confusing language, and attempts to introduce fetal personhood, threatening pregnant people's autonomy and criminalizing providers. It prioritizes ideology over science and patient needs, giving legislators and courts power over medical decisions. Such measures create legal chaos, leading to surveillance and criminalization of pregnant people, including those with miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, or stillbirths. She describes a recent patient case with uncertain pregnancy status, emphasizing decisions should be made by doctors and families, not legislators. The bill is out of touch with Granite Staters and could hinder retention of OB-GYNs and IVF specialists. During questioning, she confirms she would not provide pregnancy-terminating medication without consent in ER scenarios, opposes the bill even without fetal personhood language, and notes misoprostol acts the same for abortion and miscarriage management.
HB1333: Dr. Maline Fox, resident physician in obstetrics and gynecology Oppose02:38:57.680 - 10:37:48 AM; Dr. Maline Fox, a resident in OB-GYN, strongly opposes HB 1333FN on behalf of herself, fearing its impacts on New Hampshire families and providers. Assigning personhood from conception ignores pregnant people's rights and autonomy, driving a wedge in patient-physician relationships by forcing fear-based treatment over evidence. It affects access to abortion, contraception, infertility treatments, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy management. She describes her rotation in IVF clinics and abortion care, highlighting similarities in patients' family-building goals, unanticipated decisions, costs, relationship worries, pain, empowerment, and gratitude. She commits to fighting for reproductive autonomy and treating patients with dignity. During questioning, she declines to answer on supporting fetal protection after six months.
HB1333: Cooper Albby, sophomore at Bishop Brady High School Support02:41:43.439 - 10:40:34 AM; Cooper Albby, a sophomore at Bishop Brady High School representing himself and the school's incipient Students for Life Club, supports HB 1333FN. He attended the New Hampshire March for Life and learned one-third of his generation has been lost to abortion, imagining absent classmates, teammates, and youth group members. As a strong Catholic and Christian, he believes all human life from conception to death is of infinite value, regardless of conception circumstances. He sees the bill as protecting the baby in the womb, which is beautiful, and notes his joy from his three younger brothers and family, suggesting the bill could allow more people into the world, as people are great.
HB1333: Dr. Amy Lee, OBGYN resident physician, New Hampshire resident Oppose02:44:07.760 - 10:42:58 AM; Dr. Lee opposes HB 1333FN, aligning with ACOG and New Hampshire Medical Society. She argues that informed consent is already the gold standard under existing New Hampshire law, including a patient bill of rights that holds clinicians accountable. The bill introduces fetal personhood and felony charges for providers, effectively endorsing a full abortion ban and driving clinicians out of a state with maternal care deserts. It undermines reproductive health protections and women's bodily autonomy by interfering with informed decisions. She clarifies medication abortion involves mifepristone and misoprostol, administered after consent, and is safe and private. She notes single medications alone typically do not terminate pregnancy.
HB1333: Representative Mary Hacken Phillips, Hanover and Lime, Grafton County Seat 12, Attorney Oppose02:50:27.040 - 10:49:18 AM; Representative Phillips opposes HB 1333FN due to problematic legal drafting, vague language (e.g., provision vs. administer), and failure to address informed consent exceptions like guardianships, powers of attorney, medical directives, incapacitation, or unknown pregnancies. She recommends narrowing the language to the sponsor's intent, questions its constitutionality and placement in RSAs, and notes it litters criminal codes with an extreme subset of assault. Consulting prosecutors, she highlights concerns over burden shifting, vagueness, disruption of case law on viability, and existing assault statutes for coerced abortions. It creates defense issues in false accusations, especially in bad divorces, offending women's autonomy. Politically, it risks litigation, conflicts with the governor's stance, and could make NH extreme on reproductive criminalization, worse than Texas.
HB1230: Representative Jordan Ory, Prime Sponsor Support03:17:19.920 - 11:16:10 AM; Representative Ory supports HB 1230, which requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting at town meetings to approve tax increases, promoting democratic order and broader participation. He argues it ensures equivalency in benefits per the constitution, preventing small minorities from imposing taxes. He references historical examples like Socrates' death by majority and the Russian Revolution to illustrate majority pitfalls. The bill ties increases to inflation and cost-of-living but allows up to specified limits with supermajority approval, countering rising property taxes that displace residents. It's not a strict tax cap but ensures agreement on necessary taxes.
HB1436: Representative James Fain, Prime Sponsor Support03:26:44.800 - 11:25:35 AM; Representative Fain supports HB 1436, building on prior NH laws like the 2017 constitutional amendment (Article 2B) and 2024 consumer data privacy (RSA 507H). It affirms ownership of digital assets in the cloud, treating them as personal papers not subject to third-party doctrine, requiring warrants for access. He explains historical cases (Miller, Smith) don't fit modern cloud storage volumes; recent SCOTUS rulings (Riley, Carpenter) recognize digital privacy needs. The bill presumes bailment for unpublished data, subject to contracts, with exceptions for public info, journalism, officials, and threats. It protects authors, photographers, cryptocurrency, etc., urging Ought to Pass.
HB1436: Jim Harper, Hancock, NH Support03:39:10.799 - 11:38:01 AM; Jim Harper supports HB 1436, sharing his 2016 experience where the IRS used a John Doe summons to seize his cryptocurrency data from Coinbase without notice or suspicion, affecting 10,000+ users. This created risks like the '$5 wrench attack' in crypto, where privacy breaches lead to physical threats; his family faces potential danger from misinterpreted old data suggesting large Bitcoin holdings. He sued but lost due to third-party doctrine overriding contracts and NH privacy rights. The bill establishes bailment presumption for digital info with providers, recognizing property rights like a dog at a kennel or car with a valet. It improves due process under the Fourth Amendment by clarifying ownership, positioning NH as a leader; consistent with intuitions that data remains personal.
HB1436: Jim Harper, Hancock, NH Information Only03:54:28.320 - 11:53:19 AM; Continuing discussion on property rights in digital information, emphasizing the Fourth Amendment's application to personal data like emails and texts, using the Jones case to illustrate bailment concepts in non-owned property.
HB1436: Representative Tur Information Only03:55:17.680 - 11:54:08 AM; Questions the impact of state-level property declarations on federal agencies like the IRS accessing records, and later inquires about whether the bill affects providers' systems for New Hampshire residents or focuses on subpoenas.
HB1436: Jim Harper, Hancock, NH Support03:56:18.400 - 11:55:09 AM; Emphasizes the bill's broader importance beyond crypto to all personal communications; explains property concepts in Fourth Amendment cases like Jones; discusses state influence on property law for digital info; clarifies the bill protects individuals without changing providers' operations, using presumptions of bailment subject to contracts; addresses content vs. non-content distinctions, advocating personal vs. non-personal info divide.
HB1436: Representative McFarland Information Only03:59:24.160 - 11:58:15 AM; Questions separating unpublished personal information into discrete content vs. metadata like logs and IP addresses, suggesting an amendment for palatability.
HB1436: Jim Harper, Hancock, NH Support04:00:24.638 - 11:59:15 AM; Argues content/non-content distinction has broken down in modern internet use, citing Google searches and Carpenter case; prefers personal vs. non-personal info; open to working on refinements; responds to terms of service concerns by noting past company overreaches were corrected, favoring market discussion over prediction.
HB1436: Representative Manos Information Only04:05:52.000 - 12:04:43 PM; Questions application of bailment to non-physical digital copies in the cloud, using examples like valet parking.
HB1436: Jim Harper, Hancock, NH Support04:07:05.360 - 12:05:56 PM; Explains bailment behaviors and expectations apply to digital materials held by providers, akin to physical items; notes digital bailments involve copies but parallel traditional ones, adaptable to permanent storage.
HB1436: Representative Daniel Popovich Miller, Rockingham 17, Windham Support04:09:04.480 - 12:07:55 PM; Co-sponsor opposes third-party doctrine's privacy impact; argues individuals can't negotiate with giants like Google; compares to food safety laws for societal efficiency; notes courts can override private deals under current doctrine, requiring legislative protection; highlights nonpartisan issue protecting vulnerable from fishing expeditions.
HB1436: Representative Scully Information Only04:11:07.840 - 12:09:58 PM; Agrees with intent but questions state vs. national approach for uniformity with companies like Google.
HB1436: Representative Daniel Popovich Miller, Rockingham 17, Windham Support04:12:08.560 - 12:10:59 PM; States federal government unreliable; states must act for citizens, expecting other states to follow.
HB1436: Katherine Barabby, President, New Hampshire Registry of Deeds Association Oppose04:13:27.440 - 12:12:18 PM; Opposes without exemption for registry offices; concerns over records not recorded by owners creating conflicts and liability; requests amendment excluding registries.
HB1436: Representative Burch Information Only04:14:33.600 - 12:13:24 PM; Asks if other government agencies with documents filed on behalf of others face similar issues.
HB1436: Katherine Barabby, President, New Hampshire Registry of Deeds Association Oppose04:14:33.600 - 12:13:24 PM; Yes, examples include court orders, liens, attachments not recorded by property owners.
HB1436: Nate Grace, Business and Industry Association (BIA) Oppose04:15:44.878 - 12:14:35 PM; Opposes due to operational impacts on businesses; focuses on third-party doctrine but notes effects on business; critiques undefined 'unpublished personal information' in amending 507-H; questions bailment application to privacy laws and contracts; prefers seeing current 2025 privacy law enforced.
HB1436: Representative Shur Information Only04:18:15.200 - 12:17:06 PM; Asks if 507-H is wrong statute to modify and suggestions for alternatives.
HB1436: Nate Grace, Business and Industry Association (BIA) Oppose04:19:33.760 - 12:18:24 PM; Clarifies 'unpublished personal information' undefined, unlike 'personal data'; assumes relation to 507-H:1 definitions.
HB1508: Representative Joseph Bartum, Grafton District 1 Support04:20:34.560 - 12:19:25 PM; Introduces bill for one-party consent recording by participants, excluding privacy invasion, harassment, blackmail; aligns with majority states; current two-party rule chills legitimate uses like interviews, domestic violence documentation, journalism; promotes accountability for officials and crimes; fiscal note discretionary, no need for spending.
HB1508: Unidentified Representative Information Only04:23:55.840 - 12:22:46 PM; Asks if bill prohibits law enforcement recording without consent.
HB1508: Representative Joseph Bartum, Grafton District 1 Support04:24:46.160 - 12:23:37 PM; No, allows if party to conversation; protects law enforcement with body cams.
HB1508: Representative Burch Information Only04:26:05.760 - 12:24:56 PM; Questions if bill ends wiretapping law, allowing secret recordings of casual talks; hypothetical on releasing old recording without initial bad intent.
HB1508: Representative Joseph Bartum, Grafton District 1 Support04:27:11.280 - 12:26:02 PM; Requires being party to conversation, not wiretapping; releasing old recording not blackmail/harassment unless extortion; distinguishes from gun analogy.
HB1508: Representative Tur Information Only04:29:48.240 - 12:28:39 PM; Notes bill adds exclusion invalidating existing statute; questions vs. repealing for full one-party consent.
HB1508: Representative Joseph Bartum, Grafton District 1 Support04:31:09.440 - 12:30:00 PM; Preserves exceptions from last year's attempt; open to changes; intends full one-party consent like other states.
HB1508: Representative McFarland Information Only04:31:09.440 - 12:30:00 PM; Hypothetical on publicizing repeated conversation without recording under current law.
HB1508: Representative Joseph Bartum, Grafton District 1 Support04:31:09.440 - 12:30:00 PM; Not violation; recording just documents, subject to hearsay but verifiable.
HB1508: Representative Scully Information Only04:32:19.600 - 12:31:10 PM; Agrees with consenting adults but questions if bill violates that spirit.
HB1508: Representative Joseph Bartum, Grafton District 1 Support04:32:19.600 - 12:31:10 PM; No; adults responsible for who they talk to; limited privacy expectations.
HB1508: Representative Han Information Only04:33:28.240 - 12:32:19 PM; Notes recordings taken out of context or deep fakes; protection if falsified.
HB1508: Representative Joseph Bartum, Grafton District 1 Support04:33:28.240 - 12:32:19 PM; Deep fakes not actual recordings; bill covers real conversations/videos only.
HB1592: Representative (Unknown, Grafton District) Support04:34:53.680 - 12:33:44 PM; The representative introduces HB 1592, explaining that the bill aims to increase state jury pay from $20 to match the federal rate of $50 per day, noting that the current rate has not changed since 1981 and is below minimum wage. They highlight the burden on hourly workers and contractors who lose income without employer reimbursement. The speaker proposes linking state pay to federal adjustments for parity and responds to questions about employer pay practices, suggesting amendments for effective date and fixed mileage rate.
HB1615: Representative Matt Sabornwaner Support04:41:46.558 - 12:40:37 PM; Representative Sabornwaner introduces HB 1615, the Marriage Liberty Act, which allows consenting adults to enter contract-based marriage agreements as an alternative to state-licensed marriage. The bill limits judicial intrusion, enforces contracts under district and superior courts, preserves child welfare laws, and enables adults to define their own marital terms, including religious or moral obligations.
HB1615: Colin Mitchell Support04:43:06.798 - 12:41:57 PM; Colin Mitchell, the bill's author, provides a detailed introduction to HB 1615, criticizing the family court system's unpredictability, corruption, and failure to honor prenups or individual preferences. He explains that the bill offers an optional contract marriage where couples draft enforceable terms under contract law, starting from no obligations and building transparently. It includes optional state filing for benefits like joint taxes, preserves child welfare in family court, prohibits criminal terms, and allows conversion from licensed marriages initially. Mitchell addresses questions on agnosticism to marriage types, court volume, enforceability of terms (e.g., no compelled actions, only negative injunctions), limitations to two consenting adults, distinctions from cohabitation contracts, and potential for reduced costs and contention compared to licensed marriages.
HB1615: Representative Henry Gagnon, Hillsborough District 29, Goshen Support05:08:53.040 - 1:07:44 PM; Representative Gagnon supports the bill, describing marriage as a social and religious contract between two individuals, not involving government profit from licenses and divorce fees. He shares personal experience using trust laws for similar protections in his unwed relationship, which covers hospital visitation and assets but not insurance or taxes. The bill provides a third option to protect interests without government baggage.
HB1615: Vivian Gerard Support05:12:12.160 - 1:11:03 PM; Vivian Gerard strongly supports the bill, drawing from her 10-year family court experience costing $285,000 in attorney fees, leading her to avoid licensed marriage. With her partner, they created a business-like agreement outlining financial responsibilities, assets, and separation terms to protect businesses and independence, filing taxes separately. She criticizes family court's bias and asset division, advocating for contract marriages to reduce emotion, costs, and divorces by setting clear goalposts without judicial interference. She suggests no need for state application of the contract.
HB1615: Felix Schwider, Lebanon, NH Information Only05:17:44.080 - 1:16:35 PM; Felix Schwider, a software engineer and twice-immigrant from the Soviet Union to Israel, begins illustrating the bill's points through his experiences in different societies, but the testimony cuts off.
HB1615: Unknown Speaker Information Only05:18:30.638 - 1:17:21 PM; The speaker discusses their experience as an immigrant moving from various countries to the United States, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, highlighting cultural diversity in family structures. They argue that due to the diversity of modern cultures and traditions, the government and law are no longer in a position to define family, marriage, or rules of divorce.
HB1615: Kim Lawrence, New Hampshire resident Oppose05:20:36.638 - 1:19:27 PM; Kim Lawrence, in her first testimony, opposes HB 1615, expressing concerns about the bill's cost of 3.5 to 4 million dollars and suggesting the funds be used to fix the broken family court system instead. As part of the LGBTQ community, she shares her experience marrying in 2011 when same-sex marriage was not legal nationwide and emphasizes the importance of legal protections for same-sex marriages. She warns that the bill could undermine these protections, potentially leading to second-class citizenship for the community. Additionally, she highlights risks to stay-at-home spouses, elderly spouses, or those in domestic abuse situations, where contracts could be used coercively. She argues that prenups already serve this purpose and that the bill would clog civil courts unnecessarily. During questioning, she addresses the bill's financial implications, the lack of a funding plan, and potential future threats to LGBTQ rights.
HB1615: Mary Krueger, New Hampshire Legal Assistance Oppose05:27:51.200 - 1:26:42 PM; Mary Krueger, an attorney with New Hampshire Legal Assistance, opposes HB 1615 and urges the committee to vote inexpedient to legislate. She explains that the bill could harm children and domestic violence survivors by allowing contract marriages that are difficult to dissolve without mutual agreement or proof of breach, potentially trapping victims in abusive situations through financial abuse and coercive control. She details her experience handling high-lethality domestic violence cases and notes the bill's vagueness regarding parental rights and responsibilities, which might shift jurisdiction to civil courts like superior court, away from family court. This could enforce contract provisions on child-related matters in inappropriate venues, not in the child's best interest. She also warns that contracts could govern intimate aspects like child-rearing and bedroom matters, enforceable in civil court without equitable division, and that proving duress or coercion requires clear and convincing evidence, making escape harder. During questioning, she clarifies the bill's jurisdictional ambiguities and notes it does not explicitly prohibit repugnant terms like enforcing pregnancy.
HB1615: David Smith Support05:38:00.400 - 1:36:51 PM; David Smith shares his personal experience with a contract marriage, having created one with his wife after negative experiences with the family court system from their previous divorces. He describes their comprehensive contract covering household norms, finances, vehicles, life insurance, potential family changes, infidelity, sexual expectations, disability provisions, and more, with built-in review mechanisms every two years or upon significant changes. They use a code word 'fried pickles' to pause unproductive discussions. He argues that this approach allows adults to make informed decisions without court interference, emphasizing communication and commitment. He counters criticisms that it lacks romance by noting it strengthens their bond. In response to questions, he discusses providing a framework for younger couples, referencing his son's recent marriage and the need for alternatives to traditional marriage to avoid societal damage from one-size-fits-all systems. He gets emotional recalling his son's pain from his own divorce.
HB1615: Joseph Barton, Representative Support05:46:30.638 - 1:45:21 PM; Representative Joseph Barton supports HB 1615 as a brilliant alternative to traditional marriage. He distinguishes between superior court (common law) and family court (equity), noting family court's lack of strict procedures and variability by judge, which can lead to unfair outcomes without prenups. He shares his personal financial suffering from not having a prenup and mentions statistics on suicides among divorcees linked to family court experiences but is interrupted for disparaging the system. He argues that child-related matters should remain in family court, but contractual aspects belong in superior court for predictability.
HB1508: Representative Perez Vote06:03:28.958 - 2:02:19 PM; Moved to find the bill Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) without speaking to the motion.
HB1508: Representative Scully Vote06:03:28.958 - 2:02:19 PM; Seconded the motion to ITL without speaking.
HB1508: Committee Clerk Vote06:04:26.320 - 2:03:17 PM; Conducted the roll call vote resulting in 15 yes votes to 1 no, passing the ITL motion.
HB1508: Representative Alexander Vote06:04:26.320 - 2:03:17 PM; Voted yes on ITL.
HB1592: Representative Alexander Vote06:05:17.680 - 2:04:08 PM; Moved to ITL, stating 'It's too much money. It's not a budget year.'
HB1592: Representative Bergeron Vote06:05:17.680 - 2:04:08 PM; Seconded the motion without speaking further.
HB1592: Committee Clerk Vote06:05:17.680 - 2:04:08 PM; Conducted the roll call vote with all 16 members voting yes, passing the ITL unanimously.
HB1592: Representative Alexander Vote06:05:17.680 - 2:04:08 PM; Voted yes on ITL.
HB1615: Representative Smith Vote06:06:30.478 - 2:05:21 PM; Moved to ITL without speaking to the motion.
HB1615: Representative Koutab Vote06:07:21.040 - 2:06:12 PM; Seconded the motion without speaking.
HB1615: Representative Alexander Vote06:07:21.040 - 2:06:12 PM; Voted no on ITL, expressing that there is merit to the bill and it's an interesting idea worth looking into, though not debating to avoid wasting time.
HB1615: Representative McFarland Vote06:07:21.040 - 2:06:12 PM; Voted no on ITL, agreeing with Representative Alexander's opinion.
HB1615: Committee Clerk Vote06:08:37.840 - 2:07:28 PM; Conducted the roll call vote resulting in 14 yes votes to 2 nays, passing the ITL motion. Assigned majority report to Representative Smith with reports due by close of business Friday at 4 PM; no minority report.
HB1615: Representative Alexander Vote06:08:37.840 - 2:07:28 PM; Voted no on ITL.

Lynn, Bob(Chairman)(R)[B]2025	Kuttab, Katelyn(Clerk)(R)[B]2025	Mannion, Dennis(V Chairman)(R)[B+]2025
Smith, Marjorie(D)[F]2025	Bergeron, Dan(D)[F]2025	Horrigan, Timothy(D)[F]2025
Berch, Paul(D)[F]2025	Turer, Eric(D)[F]2025	Scully, Kevin(R)[A-]2025
Tripp, Richard(R)[B]2025	Andrus, Louise(R)[C+]2025	Ball, Lorie(R)[B+]2025
Manos, Zoe(D)[CT]2025	Perez, Kristine(R)[B+]2025	Alexander, Joe(R)[A+]2025
McFarlane, Donald(R)[A]2025	Rombeau, Catherine(D)[CT]2025	Paige, Mark(D)[D-]2025