Committee Summary for House Judiciary (01/28/2026)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB1130 00:17:48.239 - 8:16:34 AM	Public Hearing	relative to judicial performance evaluations.	Lynn, Bob(R)[B]2025
HB1501 00:59:24.960 - 8:58:10 AM	Public Hearing	limiting judicial immunity.	DeRoy, Susan(R)[A-]2025
HB1509 01:40:25.359 - 9:39:11 AM	Public Hearing	relative to judicial immunity and permitting civil actions against judicial officers for certain criminal bail decisions.	Trottier, Douglas(R)[IN]2025
HB1547 01:47:54.000 - 9:46:40 AM	Public Hearing	relative to appeals from convictions in circuit court for certain offenses.	Johnson, Erik(D)[F]2025
HB1501 02:15:46.800 - 10:14:32 AM	Executive Session	limiting judicial immunity.	DeRoy, Susan(R)[A-]2025
HB1509 02:27:43.760 - 10:26:29 AM	Executive Session	relative to judicial immunity and permitting civil actions against judicial officers for certain criminal bail decisions.	Trottier, Douglas(R)[IN]2025
HB1639 03:09:31.920 - 11:08:17 AM	Public Hearing	establishing investigatory grand juries housed under the county sheriffs' offices.	Kelley, Diane(R)[A-]2025
CACR9 04:00:19.120 - 11:59:05 AM	Public Hearing	relating to the retirement age for judges. Providing that the mandatory judicial retirement age shall be increased from 70 to 75.	Lynn, Bob(R)[B]2025
CACR9 04:06:58.320 - 12:05:44 PM	Public Hearing	relating to the retirement age for judges. Providing that the mandatory judicial retirement age shall be increased from 70 to 75.	Lynn, Bob(R)[B]2025
CACR20 04:18:58.798 - 12:17:44 PM	Public Hearing	relating to the power of the supreme and superior courts. Providing that such power is repealed.	Sellers, John(R)[A-]2025
HB1465 04:48:52.320 - 12:47:38 PM	Public Hearing	establishing mandatory reporting of civil rights violations committed by members of the judiciary.	Korzen, Lori(R)[B+]2025
Unclear 05:56:36.878 - 1:55:22 PM	Executive Session	Unclear
HB11465 06:17:16.080 - 2:16:02 PM	Executive Session	Unclear	Likely Text to Speech Error on Bill #

HB1130: Representative Bob Lynn, Windham Rockingham District 17 Support00:17:48.239 - 8:16:34 AM; Representative Bob Lynn introduces House Bill 1130, which proposes changes to the judicial evaluation system. He explains that the bill defines 'judicial officer' for the first time and adds valuable components, including in-court observations and statistical analysis of processing times. The bill also requires that judicial evaluations for each judge be published. He notes that he discussed the bill with Chief Justice McDonald during drafting.
HB1130: Judge John Pendleton, Circuit Court Judge Oppose00:19:23.520 - 8:18:09 AM; Judge John Pendleton sent a letter dated January 26th to the committee members, raising concerns about the provision in HB 1130 that requires the public aspect of judicial evaluations to include comments from people who provide input. Representative Lynn acknowledges receiving the letter and notes Pendleton's reputation as a fine judge.
HB1130: Representative [Unspecified Name] Information Only00:20:09.520 - 8:18:55 AM; The representative concludes Judge Pendleton's testimony, acknowledges valid concerns about public comments in evaluations, offers to answer questions on any issues, and notes judicial branch representatives present for additional information. No questions initially, but then directs one to Representative Pri.
HB1130: Representative Pri Information Only00:21:11.199 - 8:19:57 AM; Asks the witness to describe how the proposed judicial performance evaluation improves upon the current system.
HB1130: Witness (Sponsor) Support00:21:11.199 - 8:19:57 AM; Explains improvements including in-court observations and statistical analysis of time to disposition. Notes potential complications in factoring case complexity, left to judicial branch to design, but believes it's a fair evaluation metric. Emphasizes in-court observations as a valid change.
HB1130: Representative Smith Information Only00:22:31.360 - 8:21:17 AM; Asks the witness to imagine being Chief Justice and how they would feel about deciding evaluations for all judges. References prior conversations with Chief Justice McDonald and questions the appropriateness of the Chief Justice deciding evaluations.
HB1130: Witness (Sponsor) Information Only00:24:06.960 - 8:22:52 AM; Describes conversations with Chief Justice McDonald for input, notes earlier harmful proposals avoided. Agrees Judge Pendleton raises valid points on public comments, offers to share his letter.
HB1130: Unspecified Representative (Judicial Council Member) Information Only00:25:38.000 - 8:24:24 AM; Notes familiarity with judicial evaluation improvements, asks who has been responsible for developing the system in the past.
HB1130: Witness (Sponsor) Information Only00:26:24.719 - 8:25:10 AM; Explains development has been a combination of various judges, including their role as former Chief Justice. Mentions possible internal committees and statute amendments around 2010-2013.
HB1130: Representative Perez Information Only00:26:24.719 - 8:25:10 AM; Expresses confusion as a non-lawyer, asks if the evaluation involves a group or just one person, specifically the judicial performance evaluation committee.
HB1130: Witness (Sponsor) Information Only00:27:39.360 - 8:26:25 AM; Describes current system using Superior Court example: evaluations every three years rotationally by Chief Justice via questionnaires to contacts. Notes issues with low response rates and biased responses from unhappy parties. Unsure if bill fully corrects this.
HB1130: Representative Burch Information Only00:28:51.040 - 8:27:37 AM; States the bill contravenes American Bar Association recommendations against lack of confidentiality in evaluations, asks for comment. Compares to attorney discipline process with preliminary screening before publicity.
HB1130: Witness (Sponsor) Information Only00:30:06.480 - 8:28:52 AM; Was unaware of ABA recommendation but accepts it. Distinguishes evaluation from misconduct investigations in discipline systems. Agrees public comments are a significant change, recommends reading Judge Pendleton's letter, offers to share it and hopes judicial branch can address broader sentiments.
HB1130: Representative Meadows Information Only00:32:08.719 - 8:30:54 AM; Asks about current confidentiality provisions and changes under the bill. Follows up on whether submitters can remain anonymous.
HB1130: Witness (Sponsor) Information Only00:33:16.960 - 8:32:02 AM; Current evaluations are confidential except possibly after two unsatisfactory ones. Bill would make them public, including individual scores and comments. Submissions are anonymized before release to public or judge, so submitter's name not disclosed.
HB1130: Representative Lori Corin Information Only00:34:38.560 - 8:33:24 AM; Introduced as next to speak, but no further testimony in transcript.
HB1130: Representative Lori Corson, Coos County District 7 Support00:36:22.080 - 8:35:08 AM; Representative Corson strongly supports HB 1130, citing the tragic case of Marisol Fuentes, who was murdered by her abuser despite reporting severe crimes including kidnapping, sexual assault, and theft. She details how a magistrate set a $5,000 bail, less than the stolen amount, and subsequent court decisions failed to protect the victim or a minor who later reported stalking by the same man. Corson argues this represents judicial negligence and emphasizes that HB 1130 promotes accountability through evaluations including court observations, statistical analysis, and public questionnaires, without seeking revenge. She urges passage to restore public trust in the judiciary and ensure decisions prioritize human life.
HB1130: Lynn Chalet, Executive Director, New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence Support00:40:41.280 - 8:39:27 AM; Lynn Chalet supports HB 1130, drawing on 30 years in crime victim services to highlight the impact of effective versus ineffective judges. She explains that evaluations focus on impartiality, communication, temperament, and administrative capacity, not case outcomes, and are used in 12 states. Referencing a 2025 report by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, the bill adds data collection like ruling times and neutral observations to reduce biases. Chalet notes only 12% of domestic violence victims have attorneys and stresses the need for accountability, as some judges ignore protocols. She offers copies of her testimony and the report, and during questions, affirms willingness to work on amendments for better access and publication of anonymized data.
HB1130: Lauren Warner, Deputy General Counsel, Judicial Branch Information Only00:47:05.920 - 8:45:51 AM; Lauren Warner provides information on HB 1130, distributing written testimony from three judges in their individual capacities, not on behalf of the branch. She notes concerns about automatically publicizing comments unrelated to performance, which could incentivize misuse for criticizing case outcomes rather than evaluating conduct. She suggests the Judicial Conduct Committee for protocol compliance issues. Referencing ABA guidelines, she advises against public posting of individual comments to focus on self-improvement. Warner highlights that circuit court judges have limited docket control, with scheduling varying by location (e.g., Berlin vs. Brentwood), and recommends careful statistical analysis to avoid tensions. During questions, she clarifies the bill likely does not cover bail commissioners and offers to provide written testimony.
HB1130: Robert Tanguay, Author of New Hampshire Oliver Twist Support00:52:33.199 - 8:51:19 AM; Robert Tanguay supports HB 1130 but calls for broader judicial reforms, criticizing the system's power and alleging political bias, especially in family courts where hearings are private and judges may not follow rules like domestic violence protocols. He claims pro se litigants are dismissed and highlights biases in child support cases (86.4% favoring women) funded by federal grants. Tanguay urges better court funding, more time, and nipping issues early, such as after two unsatisfactory evaluations. He suggests scrutinizing statistical analysis on case processing times due to expedited processes and external influences, emphasizing constitutional accountability to prevent judges from lying or favoring connected parties. He offers to answer questions and notes he'll speak on other bills.
HB1501: Susan Deroy, Representative from New Durham and Middleton Support00:59:24.960 - 8:58:10 AM; Susan Deroy urges reform in the New Hampshire judicial system, highlighting issues like absolute judicial immunity that shields judges from accountability for errors, negligence, or rights violations. She discusses systemic problems including ineffective oversight, lack of transparency, arbitrary rulings, biases, and procedural lapses across court divisions. She references criticisms in family courts, high-profile cases like Marisol, Supreme Court controversies, and Chief Justice Gordon McDonald's admission that the court is broken. Deroy advocates for qualified immunity or exceptions for corruption and bad faith to restore accountability and public trust.
HB1501: Lauren Warner, Deputy General Counsel of the Judicial Branch Information Only01:08:22.719 - 9:07:08 AM; Lauren Warner states that the judicial branch takes no position on HB 1501, leaving policy to the legislature. She clarifies Chief Justice McDonald's 'broken' comment referred to access to justice issues, not the system overall. She notes judges are already not immune from intentional torts, criminal conduct, or corruption, and emphasizes the judicial conduct committee's role in handling misconduct, including disciplinary actions and removal. She mentions written testimonies from judges and welcomes questions.
HB1501: Representative Ellen Reid, Rockingham 10 (Newmarket and Newfields) Support01:11:47.199 - 9:10:33 AM; Representative Ellen Reid supports the concept of HB 1501, emphasizing that no one should be above the law, including judges. She views the bill as a measured precautionary measure to ensure accountability and transparency in government, drawing from principles in American democracy and Federalist essays. Reid notes the fiscal note's potential costs as indicating possible issues and argues the bill aligns with holding taxpayer-funded organizations accountable without blanket prohibition on immunity.
HB1501: Jason Gard, Northfield, NH Support01:16:00.000 - 9:14:46 AM; Jason Gard supports HB 1501 because no one should be above the law, and current punishments for judicial misconduct are often mere slaps on the wrist, eroding trust in government. He references Claire Best's detailed letter on cases like Judge Julie Introvaso's lenient plea deal compared to others, arguing it shows unequal standards. Gard highlights concerns in family courts and lack of legislative investigations, stressing the need for even justice under Article 14.
HB1501: Joseph Nent, Jefferson, NH Support01:20:45.280 - 9:19:31 AM; Joseph Nent supports HB 1501 as a necessary response to unaddressed judicial issues, particularly in family and administrative courts where rights are not upheld. He suggests adding disclosures about limited rights in statutory courts and ensuring laws are not repugnant to the constitution. Nent references the Marisol case as a tragic systemic failure due to a culture of not challenging prior judicial decisions, and criticizes the judicial conduct committee as ineffective, advocating for paper trails to review mistakes.
HB1501: Robert Tanguay Support01:26:00.800 - 9:24:46 AM; Robert Tanguay supports limiting judicial immunity in HB 1501 to allow civil suits and reach juries, addressing preferred litigants and predetermined outcomes. He criticizes the NH Supreme Court's inaction on reported misconduct and references US Supreme Court stagnation on the issue. Tanguay argues constitutional articles (8, 14, 20) already permit such actions, enabling relief through civil procedures, and suggests incorporating torts like malicious prosecution for stronger statutes.
HB1501: Robert Lond Support01:30:42.720 - 9:29:28 AM; Robert Lond supports HB 1501 based on his 1990 wrongful conviction in Cheshire County, where exculpatory evidence was withheld by the prosecutor, violating Brady v. Maryland. He describes the destruction to his life and family and ongoing fights for exoneration with Innocence Project support. Lond argues courts function like contracts requiring fair play, and the bill would prevent similar injustices by ensuring accountability, using his judge's biased comments during depositions as an example of wrongful conduct.
HB1501: Representative Caitlyn Coutab Information Only01:37:43.600 - 9:36:29 AM; Representative Caitlyn Coutab introduces HB 1509 in the sponsor's absence, describing it as relative to judicial immunity and permitting civil actions against judicial officers for certain criminal bail decisions. She declines questions.
HB1501: Robert Tanguay Support01:37:43.600 - 9:36:29 AM; Robert Tanguay supports HB 1509 for providing a legislated opportunity for claims related to judicial immunity in bail decisions, allowing disputes to proceed to mediation or trial without being barred. He notes initial confusion but affirms its value in enabling civil actions.
HB1509: Lauren Warner, Deputy General Counsel of the Judicial Branch Oppose01:40:25.359 - 9:39:11 AM; Lauren Warner testified against HB 1509, explaining that the bill would remove judicial immunity for certain bail decisions if the released individual commits another offense. She noted that Chapter 597 outlines bail guidelines, and imposing civil liability could deter judges from hearing bail cases or lead to overly cautious decisions, refusing bail even when warranted. This would force judges to consider potential lawsuits, violating the judicial code of conduct and Chapter 597. Warner emphasized that judges should focus solely on legal merits without fear of personal liability.
HB1547: Representative Eric Johnson, Strafford District 11 (Lee, Madbury, Dover Ward 4) Support01:47:54.000 - 9:46:40 AM; Representative Eric Johnson introduced HB 1547, which expands on HB 369 by requiring defendants charged with misdemeanor sexual assault (regardless of victim age), simple assault, domestic violence, and stalking to elect either to proceed in circuit court waiving jury trial rights or appeal immediately to superior court for a jury trial. He highlighted the trauma of multiple testimonies for victims and referenced a 2003 legislative report criticizing de novo appeals from outdated lay judge practices. Johnson addressed the fiscal note's estimate of up to $1 million annually, questioning its assumptions and noting potential circuit court savings, with implementation delayed to January 1, 2027. He suggested amendments if needed, like extending the election period beyond 30 days.
HB1547: Representative Kelly Patenaude, Strafford District 19 Support01:57:32.160 - 9:56:18 AM; Representative Kelly Patenaude supported HB 1547, building on HB 369's protections for minor victims to include all ages for the specified offenses, preventing victim retraumatization from duplicate trials. Drawing from her personal family experience with a prolonged case dismissed on speedy trial grounds due to procedural delays, she criticized the fiscal note as overstated and highlighted potential savings from fewer hearings. Patenaude explained the bill requires early defendant election of jury trial via immediate appeal or waiver in circuit court, preserving rights while ensuring a knowing waiver colloquy. She emphasized fairness, dignity, and finality for victims, regardless of age, and urged bipartisan passage, open to tweaks.
HB1547: Representative Kelly Patenaude, Strafford District 19 Support02:05:21.200 - 10:04:07 AM; The representative continues testimony supporting the bill, explaining that it does not require waiving constitutional rights but ensures informed consent in district court proceedings. She notes that many cases do not reach jury trials, and the bill prevents unnecessary delays, especially in misdemeanor cases like sexual assault, which could otherwise drag on for years.
HB1547: Robert Tangway Oppose02:10:00.880 - 10:08:46 AM; As a victim of sexual violence, Tangway opposes the bill, arguing that one is not a victim until conviction and that the system already favors prosecutors and police with immunity. He emphasizes the importance of jury trials to protect the innocent, citing Ben Franklin's principle, and shares a personal story of court at age 5. He suggests amendments for appeals to allow 'second bites at the apple' for reform and preventing biased judges, and questions misdemeanor sexual assault classifications.
HB1501: Committee Chair Information Only02:15:46.800 - 10:14:32 AM; The chair proposes moving to executive session on HB 1501 after closing the public hearing, suggesting general discussion or a motion.
HB1501: Representative Smith Oppose02:17:00.319 - 10:15:46 AM; Representative Smith moves Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on HB 1501, arguing that the current three branches of government have served well for 250 years. He expresses concern that the bill would not improve the judicial system, referencing testimony from judges and the deputy attorney general indicating it fails to remove judicial immunity effectively.
HB1501: Representative F. Support02:19:04.160 - 10:17:50 AM; Representative F. disagrees with the ITL motion, stating that the current system is like 'the fox watching the hen house.' He references concerning issues in New Hampshire's judiciary over the past couple of years that the public is aware of, implying the bill addresses oversight problems.
HB1501: Representative F. Information Only02:19:49.680 - 10:18:35 AM; The speaker expresses frustration with the judiciary's lack of accountability, citing instances where the 'little guy' is repeatedly wronged. Draws parallels to the medical field where professionals protect each other, emphasizing the need for a process to ensure everyone is held accountable without the 'fox watching the henhouse.'
HB1501: Unidentified Speaker Oppose02:21:10.960 - 10:19:56 AM; Acknowledges general concerns about judicial issues but argues the bill is unnecessary as judges are not immune from criminal or civil liability. References the prosecution of Judge Intraaso as evidence. States the bill does not address plea deals and could create mischief, recommending ITL.
HB1501: Representative Skully Oppose02:22:23.359 - 10:21:09 AM; Emphasizes the importance of holding the judiciary to the highest standards due to their power. Votes against ITL to allow for interim study, advocating for absolute immunity within scope of office but accountability for actions outside it.
HB1501: Representative Perez Oppose02:23:31.040 - 10:22:17 AM; Agrees fully with colleagues on existing problems in the judiciary but asserts this bill is not the right vehicle to solve them. Suggests the committee can conduct investigations under its rules and needs another approach.
HB1501: Committee Chair Information Only02:25:34.479 - 10:24:20 AM; Facilitates discussion, notes Representative Ma's schedule, calls for vote on ITL motion, announces 13-5 vote in favor.
HB1501: Representative Perez Support02:26:43.439 - 10:25:29 AM; Moves for minority report with OTP recommendation, believing it better than ITL.
HB1509: Representative Burch Oppose02:27:43.760 - 10:26:29 AM; Moves to ITL the bill after hearing it, declines to speak further.
HB1509: Committee Chair Information Only02:28:37.600 - 10:27:23 AM; Calls for vote on ITL motion for HB1509, announces 16-2 vote in favor, asks Representative Burch to write the report, notes potential minority report.
HB1639: Representative Diane Kelly, Hillsboro 32 Support03:09:31.920 - 11:08:17 AM; Introduces HB 1639, which codifies duties of grand jurors as public officials investigating corruption by politicians, bureaucrats, and corporations. Notes other states provide instructions and handbooks. Introduces petition-initiated special grand juries for public concerns. Refers to educational materials by former Representative Jason Ghard.
HB1639: Sheriff Bill Wright, Belknap County, President of New Hampshire Sheriff's Association Oppose03:11:28.239 - 11:10:14 AM; Sheriff Wright opposes the bill as written, citing issues with federal oversight requirements for county sheriffs and attorneys, which he believes are inapplicable. He notes that inspections of detention facilities are already covered under RSA 30B12 by county commissioners every six months. He argues that the bill's reporting and investigation processes do not align with traditional sheriff duties in criminal and civil investigations, and recommends finding the bill inexpedient to legislate (ITL).
HB1639: Joseph Nent, Jefferson Support03:13:23.920 - 11:12:09 AM; Joseph Nent supports the bill as a means to enhance accountability and checks and balances, referencing proponents like former Rep. Ghart. He views it as a constitutional remedy empowering citizens to make presentments to law enforcement and prosecutors, addressing the lack of traction on issues like judicial conduct. He emphasizes that the bill provides a remedy for citizens' petitions and remonstrances against government.
HB1639: Representative Mike Edgar Oppose03:15:41.680 - 11:14:27 AM; Representative Edgar opposes the bill, describing it as creating a shadow government. He believes existing mechanisms in New Hampshire, such as county meetings and legislative input, provide sufficient checks and balances. As a lawyer, he expresses concerns about the secretive nature of grand juries, where investigated parties may not be notified or given a chance to respond, and argues for using current tools instead of new ones.
HB1639: Richard Sarel, Portsmouth, practicing lawyer Oppose03:19:03.840 - 11:17:49 AM; Richard Sarel, a lawyer with over 30 years in New Hampshire and adjunct professor, opposes the bill in its current form despite its good intentions for oversight. He criticizes using grand juries for this purpose due to their secretive, one-sided nature without records, rebuttal opportunities, or evidentiary standards. He notes grand juries are traditionally for criminal indictments requiring probable cause, not civil reports, and warns of unreliable, unchallengeable outcomes that lack historical basis in New Hampshire for non-criminal investigations. He supports increasing juror pay from $10 a day.
HB1639: Jason Ghart, former state representative Support03:26:08.560 - 11:24:54 AM; Jason Ghart supports the bill, drawing from historical texts like 'The People's Panel' and his Grand Juror Notebook, which he distributes to educate jurors. He highlights the grand jury's investigatory role beyond accusations, citing historical examples and other states' practices (e.g., Florida, Ohio, California). He addresses criticisms, refutes claims of no New Hampshire history, and emphasizes empowering citizens against government unaccountability, including federal jurisdiction and jail inspections. He criticizes the lack of state-provided education for grand jurors and shares personal frustrations with investigations.
HB1639: Bobby Wayne Support03:39:50.240 - 11:38:36 AM; Bobby Wayne supports the bill, agreeing with Jason Ghart that grand juries are essential for addressing corruption, as prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement often fear pursuing such cases due to violence and intimidation. He sees it as a way to involve peers in oversight.
HB1639: Daniel Richard, historian Support03:40:41.200 - 11:39:27 AM; Historian Daniel Richard supports restoring grand jury powers, referencing the 1792 New Hampshire law on local selection and presentment powers under the Fifth Amendment. He explains presentments allow secret investigations of any issues, from truancy to corruption, providing a safety net for reputations and enabling corrective actions or referrals to prosecutors for crimes, contrasting with the current rubber-stamp role limited to prosecutorial indictments.
HB1639: Robert Tangway Support03:44:50.240 - 11:43:36 AM; Robert Tangway supports the bill to hold government accountable, citing Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution and issues like judicial immunity and lack of bonding. He argues grand juries are needed for felonies and to bypass protective networks among police, judges, and attorneys. He suggests studying the bill holistically with prior ones to prevent abuse, emphasizing citizen sovereignty and the need for petitions to access hidden documents via RSA 91-A.
HB1639: Patrick Binder, Manchester, New Hampshire PI First Support03:50:48.560 - 11:49:34 AM; Patrick Binder supports the bill as pro-citizen, adding structure to existing common law grand jury presentments under Article 90 of the New Hampshire Constitution, which have not been repealed. He notes historical use to check prosecutors and government, arguing it's essential for protecting natural rights per Articles 2, 3, and 10, preventing void surrender of rights. He suggests educating grand jurors on both powers as a first step.
HB1639: Theresa Baster Ashloud, New Hampshire Support03:55:21.760 - 11:54:07 AM; Theresa Baster Ashloud, a former foster mom and advocate, strongly supports the bill as exciting legislation for accountability in underfunded courts overburdened with cases like TPR. She sees grand juries, led by elected sheriffs, as a cost-effective way for peers to review decisions, preventing catastrophic outcomes and ensuring tax dollars are used wisely for vulnerable groups, potentially making New Hampshire a national leader in resurrecting this founding mechanism.
CACR9: Representative Bob Lynn, Windham, Rockingham District 17 Support04:00:19.120 - 11:59:05 AM; Representative Bob Lynn introduces and supports CACR9, noting it was previously passed by the House and Senate with required majorities but fell short (65.4%) of the 66 2/3% needed for voter approval last year. He urges support for this constitutional amendment proposal.
CACR9: Representative Kelly Patenza, Strafford, District 19 Oppose04:06:58.320 - 12:05:44 PM; Representative Patenza strongly opposes the bill, noting it was recently put to voters with confusion leading to many blank ballots. She worked the election in Rochester and found universal opposition when explaining it. She argues for consistent age limits across roles like judges and sheriffs, not just judges. She points out judges over 70 are already serving as referees in lower courts without issue, and better ballot explanation is needed rather than resubmitting soon.
CACR9: Robert Tangu, author of New Hampshire Oliver Twist Oppose04:10:52.560 - 12:09:38 PM; Robert Tangu opposes the bill, respecting elders but citing personal negative experiences with older judicial referees who made impossible factual errors in his family court case, leading to retaliation and loss of child access. He argues the judiciary is corrupt, allowing prolonged political appointments, and the bill would exacerbate this. He suggests wisdom is needed but current issues must be addressed first, and offers promotional videos for visibility.
CACR9: Joseph Dugan Oppose04:15:17.680 - 12:14:03 PM; Joseph Dugan opposes CACR9 based on experiences in Carroll County courts where a retired judge lacked mental acumen in a DV case, misinterpreting facts due to gender bias and leading to wrongful outcomes. He describes the difficulty of appealing such errors through the Supreme Court and argues for better checks and balances in administrative courts to prevent atrocities, viewing the age limit removal as worsening these issues.
CACR20: Representative John Sers, Bristol, Grafton 10 Support04:18:58.798 - 12:17:44 PM; Representative Sers supports repealing 72A, enacted in 1966, which stripped the General Court of power to oversee courts, leaving the judiciary to make its own rules unoverrideable. He argues this undermines the republic and people's authority, as legislators are elected while judges are not. He notes 60 years have passed, circumstances have changed, and restoring legislative primacy aligns with constitutional structure listing the legislative branch first for checks and balances.
CACR20: Representative David Love Support04:26:05.840 - 12:24:51 PM; Representative Love supports the repeal, citing concerns from the Children Family Law Committee about excessive judicial discretion in family court rules, like Rule 1.2 allowing waivers of rules for 'good cause.' He argues the legislature ceded rule-making power, enabling judges to bypass due process and evidence rules, likening it to 'the fox guarding the hen house,' and urges reclaiming oversight.
CACR20: Robert Tangu Support04:27:11.200 - 12:25:57 PM; Robert Tangu supports repealing 72A, calling it fraudulent as a sentence giving court rules the force of law was added post-vote without voter knowledge, stemming from cases like Suezy v. New Hampshire. He criticizes court rules allowing arbitrary waivers, leading to biased outcomes in family and superior courts, and argues this enables a lawyer monopoly violating Article 83. He urges repeal to restore constitutional balance and offers historical voting logs.
CACR20: Lauren Warner, deputy general counsel of the judicial branch Oppose04:33:08.320 - 12:31:54 PM; Lauren Warner opposes CACR20, which would remove Supreme and Superior Courts as constitutionally established entities from 1966, subordinating them to the legislature. She references 2012 committee notes opposing it for fracturing separation of powers and altering branch balance, emphasizing the need for judicial independence despite access concerns.
CACR20: Daniel Richard Support04:35:18.480 - 12:34:04 PM; Daniel Richard supports repealing 72A, arguing it was deceptively proposed in 1966 without disclosing surrender of legislative oversight under Part Two, Article 4, violating informed consent per Gerber v. King (1967). He reads the ballot question, noting it omitted key impacts, and cites historical legislative abolitions of rogue courts as necessary checks, retained federally but lost in NH.
CACR20: Joseph Nent Support04:39:20.240 - 12:38:06 PM; Joseph Nent supports repeal, viewing 72A as a 1966 fraud inserted without disclosing alteration of Article 4's 'forever' legislative power to create judicatories. He notes NH's unique pre-U.S. Constitution structure making the General Court supreme, with historical voter guides and ballots leading voters manipulatively. He argues statutory courts violate rights, and restoring power ensures constitutional resolution of controversies.
HB1465: Representative Lori Corson, Coos County District 7 Support04:48:52.320 - 12:47:38 PM; Representative Corson supports HB1465 to mandate reporting of judicial civil rights violations, prompted by a North Country constituent denied custody due to a judge refusing exculpatory evidence, violating due process and U.S. Supreme Court precedents on presenting defenses in child custody cases. She argues court staff lack duty or courage to report, leading to unreported harms, and proposes mandatory reporting by state employees, attorneys, and judges to the AG, akin to abuse reporting in schools and hospitals.
HB1465: Lauren Warner, deputy general counsel of the judicial branch Oppose04:52:57.040 - 12:51:43 PM; Lauren Warner opposes HB1465 for being overly broad, lacking definition of civil rights violations, and diverting judicial conduct issues to the AG instead of the Judicial Conduct Committee. She highlights unintended consequences like mandatory reporting conflicting with attorney-client privilege, potentially subjecting NH bar attorneys to misdemeanors, fines, or incarceration, and complicating internal legal counsel in the judicial branch.
HB1465: Robert Tangu Support04:56:03.520 - 12:54:49 PM; Robert Tangu supports HB1465 but suggests amendments for clarity on civil rights and adding civil causes of action for suing over violations. He notes existing rules like Supreme Court Rule 38 and RSA 311:6 already make judges and lawyers reporters under perjury oaths, but lack enforcement; the bill adds misdemeanor penalties. He argues this addresses judicial bias and monopoly issues, enabling personal injury suits beyond common law torts, and urges passage with tweaks for historical pivotal reform.
HB1465: Marissa Chase, New Hampshire Association for Justice Oppose05:01:04.320 - 12:59:50 PM; Marissa Chase opposes HB1465, arguing it would create impossible situations for attorneys and court personnel. She cites Supreme Court Rule 38 on the code of judicial conduct and provides an example of a criminal case where a judge rules against suppressing evidence from an illegal search. Under the bill, the attorney might be required to report the judge as a mandated reporter for perpetuating a civil rights violation, or risk misdemeanor charges from their client. Court reporters or bailiffs disagreeing with rulings would also be mandated reporters. She warns this would lead to rampant complaints, chill judges' discretion, and strain the court system.
HB1465: Joe Nent Support05:03:47.360 - 1:02:33 PM; Joe Nent supports HB1465, stating he is the constituent for whom Rep. Lori Corson wrote the bill. He quotes the Declaration of Independence on unalienable rights and argues the bill creates mandatory reporters in the judiciary to protect rights violated through administrative law and constitutional changes. He clarifies the bill targets judiciary personnel, not all state employees, and aligns with the canons of judicial conduct under Rule 38, focusing on the appearance of impropriety. He envisions reports going to the Attorney General for determination of violations, providing checks and balances. Drawing from personal experiences and the case of Marisol in Berlin, he emphasizes protecting rights in courts, adding employment protections for reporters, and addressing unaddressed rights issues from the child and family law committee.
HB1465: Joseph Hos, Gilmanton Support05:12:40.320 - 1:11:26 PM; Joseph Hos from Gilmanton supports HB1465 with suggested amendments: add 'civil liberties' after 'civil rights' on line 8, and 'liberty' in line 12. He criticizes the Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC) as ineffective, sharing his failed attempt to file a private prosecution against a judge via the public integrity unit, which redirected him to JCC despite time limits. He recommends reports go to the Attorney General's public integrity unit and include the supervisory judge for superior court issues. He suggests changing the misdemeanor fine to $1,499 for jury trial rights under Article 20, jail time to 10 days like constitutional limits, and adding a penalty clause rewarding whistleblowers a percentage of fines, as in historical private prosecutions. He comments on prioritizing property rights from a 1902 case and quotes on correcting errors to address judicial arrogance.
HB1465: Representative David Love, Derry Rockingham 13 Support05:18:49.440 - 1:17:35 PM; Representative David Love supports HB1465, suggesting amending 'civil rights' to include 'constitutional rights.' He shares a story of his pro se daughter being convicted for running a school bus light; he was excluded from the courtroom despite subpoena, and later discovered the accuser was not the bus driver but a witness not confronted, violating constitutional rights. He argues judges allow such abuses, especially for pro se litigants unable to afford lawyers, undermining 'liberty and justice for all.' He recounts personal judicial abuse in his divorce case, where the judge deemed him voluntarily underemployed despite a severe knee injury needing replacement, illustrating bias against those without representation. The bill could help fix these issues.
Unclear: Chairman Lynn and Committee Members Information Only05:56:36.878 - 1:55:22 PM; The committee reconvenes for executive session on previously heard bills. Chairman Lynn announces no executive session needed on February 6th due to progress, but all remaining early bills must be exec'd next Wednesday alongside new hearings, advising members to prepare for a long day starting possibly at 9:00 AM. They discuss prioritizing early bills.
Unclear: Representative Alexander Oppose05:58:35.760 - 1:57:21 PM; On HB1067 (mental health court bill), Rep. Alexander moves to ITL, citing fiscal note concerns and testimony that violent offenders, including domestic violence perpetrators, could be eligible, which he views as a serious flaw. He opposes allowing violent individuals with mental disabilities into mental health courts.
Unclear: Chairman Lynn Oppose05:59:40.638 - 1:58:26 PM; Chairman Lynn supports the ITL motion on HB1067, confirming financial concerns from the hearing and fiscal note, though he disagrees with the violence eligibility point but agrees on finances. The motion passes 10-8 with ITL.
Unclear: Representative Tur Oppose06:02:54.320 - 2:01:40 PM; On HB1230, Rep. Tur moves to ITL without further comment, stating it's well understood. The motion passes unanimously 18-0 on consent.
Unclear: Representative Alexander Oppose06:04:53.280 - 2:03:39 PM; On CACR25 (constitutional amendment on marriage rights), Rep. Alexander moves to ITL, noting language flaws and lack of examples from hearings of bills threatening marriage rights. He cites Supreme Court case law protecting same-sex marriage and, as a gay man, sees no threat in NH, making constitutional enshrinement unnecessary. The motion passes 11-7.
Unclear: Representative Couture Information Only06:09:12.400 - 2:07:58 PM; On HB1547 (expanding court jurisdictions beyond sexual assault to include simple assault), Rep. Couture moves for interim study to further examine expansions implemented January 1st and assess data. The motion passes unanimously 18-0 on consent.
Unclear: Representative (unspecified) Information Only06:11:01.920 - 2:09:47 PM; On HB1639 (grand jury related), a member notes an amendment to inform grand juries via a simple sheet, potentially dropping the fiscal note significantly, allowing possible passage without finance referral. Consensus may be achievable.
Unclear: Chairman Lynn Support06:12:03.040 - 2:10:49 PM; On CACR9, Chairman Lynn moves for OTP (ote to pass). He references his testimony without adding more, hoping for support. The vote is 10-8 for OTP, with Lynn writing the majority report; minority will be LTP with amendment on retirement age 40.
Unclear: Representative Rambo Oppose06:15:10.718 - 2:13:56 PM; On CACR20, Rep. Rambo moves to ITL without discussion. The motion passes 16-2.
HB11465: Representative Smith Vote06:17:16.080 - 2:16:02 PM; Representative Smith moves for ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) on HB11465.
HB11465: Committee Members Vote06:18:49.760 - 2:17:35 PM; The committee votes unanimously in favor of ITL on HB11465, with all members voting yes, resulting in an 18-0 vote.
HB11465: Unidentified Representative Information Only06:20:10.080 - 2:18:56 PM; A representative requests to remove HB11465 from the consent calendar after the vote, explaining that while they support the intent of the bill, they believe a floor amendment could improve it to make it supportable. They clarify no committee amendment is being submitted.
HB11465: Chairman Lynn Information Only06:21:10.798 - 2:19:56 PM; The Chairman confirms no executive session on February 6th, but hearings on the 4th and executive sessions for remaining early bills. Requests reports from those assigned by end of day tomorrow.

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