Committee Summary for House Judiciary (02/04/2026)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB1671 00:16:30.160 - 8:45:16 AM	Public Hearing	relative to prohibiting state Medicaid payments to facilities that discriminate against employees, students, or trainees for exercising lawful medical or religious vaccine exemptions.	McGrath, Linda(R)[B]2025
CACR23 01:02:23.200 - 9:31:09 AM	Public Hearing	relative to legislative oversight of the judicial branch. establishing legislative oversight of the judicial branch.	DeRoy, Susan(R)[A-]2025
CACR27 01:32:22.560 - 10:01:08 AM	Public Hearing	relating to the authority to establish courts Provided that the sole authority lies within the general court.	Wherry, Robert(R)[A-]2025
CACR29 01:51:40.880 - 10:20:26 AM	Public Hearing	Relating to the supreme court. Providing that the supreme court may not make rules that have the force and effect of law.	Wherry, Robert(R)[A-]2025
HB1001 02:20:24.160 - 10:49:10 AM	Public Hearing	allowing for appointment by county attorneys of investigators with law enforcement powers.	Lynn, Bob(R)[B]2025
HB1671 03:37:08.000 - 12:05:54 PM	Executive Session	relative to prohibiting state Medicaid payments to facilities that discriminate against employees, students, or trainees for exercising lawful medical or religious vaccine exemptions.	McGrath, Linda(R)[B]2025
HB1064 03:41:47.760 - 12:10:33 PM	Public Hearing	relative to liability of governmental units.	Kuttab, Katelyn(R)[B]2025
HB116 2024-0362h 04:28:37.680 - 12:57:23 PM	Public Hearing	relative to reporting requirements for public academies.	Edwards, Jess(R)[B+]2025
HB1127 04:39:39.200 - 1:08:25 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the uniform voidable transactions act.	Lynn, Bob(R)[B]2025
HB1322 05:00:59.200 - 1:29:45 PM	Public Hearing	reestablishing the judicial conduct commission.	Sabourin dit Choinière, Matt(R)[A-]2025
HB1322 2024-1108 05:14:27.440 - 1:43:13 PM	Executive Session	reestablishing the judicial conduct commission.	Sabourin dit Choinière, Matt(R)[A-]2025
HB1322 05:25:51.680 - 1:54:37 PM	Public Hearing	reestablishing the judicial conduct commission.	Sabourin dit Choinière, Matt(R)[A-]2025
HB1322 05:33:03.600 - 2:01:49 PM	Executive Session	reestablishing the judicial conduct commission.	Sabourin dit Choinière, Matt(R)[A-]2025
HB1825 05:38:53.760 - 2:07:39 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the regulation of the practice of law, establishing an independent legal licensing board, and making an appropriation therefor.	Sabourin dit Choinière, Matt(R)[A-]2025
HB1825 06:14:17.280 - 2:43:03 PM	Executive Session	relative to the regulation of the practice of law, establishing an independent legal licensing board, and making an appropriation therefor.	Sabourin dit Choinière, Matt(R)[A-]2025
HB6008 06:19:57.120 - 2:48:43 PM	Public Hearing	relative to grand juries and indemnification of county attorneys	Likely Text to Speech Error on Bill #
HB6008 06:47:18.240 - 3:16:04 PM	Executive Session	relative to grand juries and indemnification of county attorneys	Likely Text to Speech Error on Bill #

HB1671: Representative Linda McGrath (Rockingham District 40, Hampton Seabrook) Support00:16:30.160 - 8:45:16 AM; Representative McGrath introduces HB1671, explaining her personal experience as a pharmacist fired by Walmart for refusing to administer an experimental COVID vaccine to children due to risks like myocarditis in teenage boys. She states she ran for office to protect medical freedom and civil rights. The bill focuses on three core aspects: civil rights, workforce stability, and responsible use of taxpayer dollars. It aligns state Medicaid funding with existing federal protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, ensuring facilities do not discriminate against those exercising lawful medical or religious exemptions. It addresses healthcare workforce shortages exacerbated by COVID-era mandates that excluded qualified workers and students, citing examples like nursing students unable to complete rotations. This leads to fewer providers and reduced patient access. Finally, it promotes stewardship of Medicaid funds by not supporting discriminatory practices. She notes the fiscal note assumes high violation rates but enforcement costs would be minimal.
HB1671: Unidentified Speaker Support00:22:40.720 - 8:51:26 AM; The speaker argues that facilities should be informed of their legal obligations without needing an additional compliance officer, as no provider would risk losing Medicaid eligibility by discriminating against exemptions. They contacted educational institutions like Great Bay Community College and Colby-Sawyer, noting some programs do not honor exemptions, preventing students from applying or completing rotations. The bill aims to ensure exemptions are respected to avoid future mandates and discriminatory practices funded by state Medicaid.
HB1671: Unidentified Speaker (continued) Support00:24:10.000 - 8:52:56 AM; Continuing testimony, the speaker emphasizes the bill is not punitive but seeks to protect lawful exemptions, prevent overreaching mandates, and ensure Medicaid does not support discrimination. It supports patient access, civil rights, and healthcare staffing. They distributed papers on education jobs needing rotations and state authority over vaccine exemptions in Medicaid, offering to answer questions.
HB1671: Committee Member (questioning) Information Only00:25:41.760 - 8:54:27 AM; A committee member questions the bill's scope, confirming it protects employees, students, or trainees from discrimination for having a valid exemption, particularly for clinical rotations. They clarify it prevents employers from firing someone for not wanting the vaccine themselves, but probe if it extends to refusing to administer vaccines to patients.
HB1671: Unidentified Speaker (bill sponsor, responding) Support00:27:51.279 - 8:56:37 AM; The sponsor confirms the bill protects against discrimination for personal exemptions but is unsure if it applies to refusing to administer vaccines to patients, as that might involve private contracts. They appreciate the question and note they hadn't considered that scenario, planning to consult a lawyer.
HB1671: Representative Lucy Weber (Cheshire District 2, Walpole and Surry) Oppose00:31:47.760 - 9:00:33 AM; Representative Weber acknowledges religious exemptions and constitutional protections but expresses concern about the risks to medically frail populations in facilities like county nursing homes from unvaccinated employees. She argues facilities have a duty to protect vulnerable residents, and allowing unvaccinated staff increases infection risks, which she views as unfair and unwise.
HB1671: Unidentified Representative (joined by Reps. Laontaine, Woods, Palmer, Tez, Hartnett, Lucas) Oppose00:34:32.480 - 9:03:18 AM; The speaker opposes the bill, arguing it imposes greater risk on others to assert religious preferences. Facilities like nursing homes have a duty to protect vulnerable patients, and penalizing them by withholding Medicaid funding for alleged discrimination would lead to financial insolvency, facility closures, and inadequate care for Medicaid-dependent patients. This would disproportionately harm medically fragile individuals, with consequences outweighing the bill's intent to address exemptions.
HB1671: Melissa Blazer (Rebuild NH) Support00:44:39.280 - 9:13:25 AM; Representing Rebuild NH, Blazer supports the bill and clarifies it pertains to personal exemptions, not administering vaccines to patients. She highlights issues for nursing students facing stricter exemption policies than staff, sharing testimonies: Priscilla quit her nursing program in 2022 after a hospital rejected her religious exemption for clinical rotations, leaving her with debt but no profession. Another student at NHTI in 2025 was forced to withdraw despite transparency about exemptions, though she eventually found an alternative site. Blazer notes many students cannot find accommodating sites, emphasizing the need for protections.
HB1671: Rob Barry (General Counsel, Division of Medicaid) Information Only00:48:12.800 - 9:16:58 AM; Barry provides information on the bill's implications for Medicaid, expressing strong concerns. He doubts CMS would authorize payment suspensions for discrimination claims, as they typically apply to fraud or license loss. The bill lacks legal standards (e.g., preponderance of evidence), rulemaking authority, reinstatement processes, or appeal rights, complicating implementation. Investigations would involve subjective 'he said, she said' testimony on employment matters, entangling the department in thorny employer-employee disputes and mixing civil rights with Medicaid law.
HB1671: Terrence Hanlin, MD (Internal Medicine Physician, NH since 2001) Support00:53:47.680 - 9:22:33 AM; Hanlin supports protections for exemptions, noting that prior to COVID-19, medical and religious exemptions were granted without issue by hospitals and the NH Medical Society. During COVID, legitimate exemptions led to persecution, coercing physicians against individual patient decisions. He urges addressing this change to prevent discrimination, as it impacts patient care choices.
HB1671: Ben Bradley, New Hampshire Hospital Association Oppose00:55:27.440 - 9:24:13 AM; Ben Bradley from the New Hampshire Hospital Association addressed concerns about vaccination expectations for students and staff in hospitals. He clarified that during COVID, vaccinations were mandated by the CDC, but now hospitals do not mandate the COVID-19 vaccine and provide accommodations for religious and medical exemptions, such as masking in patient-facing areas. He emphasized the need for clear communication with educational institutions like community colleges and universities to align expectations for clinical placements. Bradley expressed opposition to the bill for reasons previously stated by others.
HB1671: Mary Holland, President of Children's Health Defense Support00:59:26.319 - 9:28:12 AM; Mary Holland testified that the exemption processes for medical and religious reasons were corrupted and ineffective during COVID, particularly in hospitals, the military, and universities, where reasonable accommodations were not provided. She argued that HB1671 aligns New Hampshire with federal law, including the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act, and addresses the exclusion of qualified candidates from healthcare professions and the military due to vaccination mandates. Holland stated that the bill does not create new law but brings state law into alignment to prevent future occurrences and helps address shortages in healthcare professionals.
CACR23: Susan Diory, Representative from New Durham and Middleton Support01:02:23.200 - 9:31:09 AM; Susan Diory, representing New Durham and Middleton, emphasized New Hampshire's 'Live Free or Die' motto and the need for checks and balances on all government branches, including the judiciary, which currently lacks routine oversight beyond rare impeachments. She highlighted issues in family courts, such as ignored evidence, parental alienation, and stalled reforms in bills like HB1323, HB652, and HB194. Diory advocated for CACR23 to empower the legislature to investigate judges via a commission, citing examples from Pennsylvania and West Virginia where such oversight led to accountability without chaos. She proposed a nine-member bipartisan panel and clarified the Chief Justice's 2021 remarks on access to justice issues, noting the gap remains unclosed.
CACR23: Lauren Warner, Deputy General Counsel of the Judicial Branch Oppose01:10:15.360 - 9:39:01 AM; Lauren Warner explained that CACR23 proposes a legislative commission to investigate judicial complaints, but the existing Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC), with six public members, already handles investigations, discipline, and recommendations, working with the Supreme Court and legislature under Articles 17 and 73 of the NH Constitution. She questioned what the JCC is failing to address, noting recent investigations and disciplines, and argued the bill creates a redundant parallel process. Warner raised concerns about unclear aspects like who receives commission recommendations, potential separation of powers violations, annual report factors, and complaint handling, suggesting these issues could be addressed without new legislation.
CACR23: Liz Tentterelli, President of League of Women Voters of New Hampshire Oppose01:14:24.080 - 9:43:10 AM; Liz Tentterelli expressed concerns that CACR23 disrupts the balance of powers by granting the legislature investigative and penalty-imposing authority over the judiciary without reciprocal power. She noted a pattern of amendments enhancing legislative power and questioned the commission's composition for bipartisanship, fearing a partisan oversight body that could undermine judicial independence and democracy.
CACR23: Dana Alrech Information Only01:16:52.560 - 9:45:38 AM; Dana Alrech clarified that the discussion is on CACR23, a constitutional amendment, not HB1322, despite topical similarities. He referenced handouts providing comprehensive information and addressed the prior witness by noting the Supreme Court's power over the legislature, such as declaring laws void, citing Senate Bill 197 from 2001 as an example invalidated three years later.
CACR23: Unnamed Speaker Support01:18:25.679 - 9:47:11 AM; The speaker argues that CACR23 is necessary to address a judicial crisis similar to 2000, citing Chief Justice McDonald's divorce, conflicting sworn testimonies between Chief Justice McDonald and Justice Maronei regarding a meeting with Governor Sununu, a $50,000 payout to Diane Martin, and whistleblower reports of orders from the chief justice to eliminate a memorandum of understanding. He criticizes the judicial conduct committee as ineffective, controlled by the Supreme Court, and urges passage of the amendment for legislative investigative power.
CACR23: Vivian Gerard Support01:22:59.440 - 9:51:45 AM; Vivian Gerard shares her personal experience in the high-profile Silva v. Silva divorce case from 2014-2018, involving harassment, unethical judicial comments, and multiple Supreme Court appeals. She notes that two judges involved were later removed from the bench, and her 2022 JCC complaint revealed a pattern of demeaning issues in 14 prior reports since 2000. Despite this, her case remains unresolved after nine years, with no jurisdiction claimed over prior rulings. She emphasizes the ongoing judicial crisis affecting housing, finances, family safety, and children's relationships, and supports the amendment for real remedies.
CACR23: Donald Gilbert Support01:28:02.320 - 9:56:48 AM; Donald Gilbert addresses potential conflicts of interest, noting Chairman Lynn's prior Supreme Court role. He explains that the NH Constitution empowers the House to impeach judges but lacks investigative mechanisms, creating a gap in checks and balances. CACR23 provides modest authority for fact-finding without expanding legislative power over judicial decisions. This protects judicial independence by ensuring deliberate inquiries based on facts, not rumors, and restores balance to the branches of government.
CACR27: Representative Robert Wary, Hudson Support01:32:22.560 - 10:01:08 AM; Representative Wary, representing Hillsboro District 13 in Hudson, introduces CACR27 to correct an improper parenthetical insertion in Part II, Article 4 of the NH Constitution, added without voter approval during the creation of Article 72A for Supreme and Superior Courts. He argues this bypassed required amendment processes under Articles 98, 99, and 100. Key issues include the foundational role of Article 4 to 72A, the 'cart before the horse' sequence, and how the insertion potentially weakens the 'forever full power' granted to the General Court, distancing courts from the people. He uses a hypothetical contract analogy to illustrate corruption of 'forever.' Urges support to allow voters to properly consider amending Article 4.
CACR27: Lauren Warner, Deputy General Counsel, Judicial Branch Oppose01:38:32.400 - 10:07:18 AM; Lauren Warner briefly noted that the language of CACR27 mirrors CACR20, which the committee recently voted Inexpedient to Legislate 16-2. She explained that passing CACR27 would remove the Supreme and Superior Courts as constitutionally created courts.
CACR27: Donald Gilbert Support01:39:28.159 - 10:08:14 AM; Donald Gilbert supported CACR27, arguing it clarifies the General Court's exclusive authority to establish courts by removing references to Article 72A. He emphasized the framers' intent for legislative supremacy, historical legislative control over courts, and that the amendment preserves judicial independence while preventing judicial overreach in court creation.
CACR27: Unknown Speaker (citing Gerber v. King) Oppose01:43:22.800 - 10:12:08 AM; The speaker reiterated testimony from last week on CACR20, citing Gerber v. King and other precedents like Concrete Company v. Ryan Builders, arguing that the ballot language for Article 72A was misleading. They noted that RSA 663 now requires amendment text in the voters' guide, which was not done, questioning the validity of the amendment and urging the committee not to ignore Supreme Court precedent.
CACR27: Dana Albrech Support01:45:27.119 - 10:14:13 AM; Dana Albrech distributed prior testimony on CACR20, noting topical similarity. As an originalist, he praised Article 10 for enabling peaceful reform when government ends are perverted. He urged the committee to fulfill their duty if public liberty is endangered, referencing emails with evidence, and stated CACR20 is superior but CACR27 is good.
CACR27: Vivian Gerard Support01:47:25.920 - 10:16:11 AM; Vivian Gerard shared personal experiences in divorce cases, describing an imbalance of power where rights are violated, individuals are guilty until proven innocent, and biased judges persist despite recusals. She argued that CACR27 protects constitutional rights, especially in family matters, allowing resolution and peace by ensuring legislative control over courts.
CACR29: Representative Robert Wary, Hudson Support01:51:40.880 - 10:20:26 AM; Representative Wary sponsored CACR29 to remove the last sentence of Article 73A, which gives Supreme Court rules the force of law, as repugnant to separation of powers under Article 37. He noted no specific abuses but argued such rules lack constitutional guardrails like veto or judicial review, urging support to restore balance.
CACR29: Lauren Warner, Deputy General Counsel, Judicial Branch Oppose01:55:01.280 - 10:23:47 AM; Lauren Warner warned of unintended consequences: removing the force of law provision would undermine judicial and attorney conduct rules, rules of evidence, and civil procedure, leading to chaos. She argued it would nullify Article 73A, violate separation of powers by leaving court processes unenforceable, and noted legislative statutes provide checks. During Q&A, she clarified rules are limited to administration and procedure, with legislative oversight via bills like judicial performance evaluations.
CACR29: Donald Gilbert Support02:00:41.520 - 10:29:27 AM; Donald Gilbert supported CACR29 to remove the force of law provision in Article 73A, restoring legislative authority and preventing judicial overreach. He discussed historical context, the 1978 amendment's controversial adoption amid judicial advocacy, and examples of infringement like family court rules affecting due process. He argued it reaffirms separation of powers without undermining judicial independence, enabling legislative investigation for impeachment.
CACR29: Daniel Richard Support02:09:38.560 - 10:38:24 AM; Daniel Richard strongly supported repealing the 1978 amendment to Article 73A, arguing it shifts legislative power to the judiciary, violating separation of powers under Article 37. He cited historical legislative oversight pre-1978 and questioned the amendment's validity under Gerber v. King due to misleading ballot language omitting the force of law clause, which was allegedly inserted post-vote under bar pressure, leading to RSA 663.
CACR29: Dana Albrech Support02:14:46.000 - 10:43:32 AM; Dana Albrech, an originalist, argued that for 182 years (1784-1966), the constitution worked without modern provisions like 73A, which enable an imperial judiciary. He countered claims that removal would break the constitution as an insult to founders, referencing emails about fraud schemes by court justices.
CACR29: Unnamed Speaker Oppose02:16:54.960 - 10:45:40 AM; The speaker criticizes the memorandum of understanding, arguing it gives force of law to misconduct in the judicial system, including the judicial conduct committee and family court rules. They urge support for the constitutional amendment to strike this language, calling it abhorrent to a free society. They affirm belief in originalism, citing Federalist Papers and New Hampshire Constitutional Convention debates on separation of powers.
HB1001: Representative Bob Lynn (Sponsor, Windham) Support02:20:24.160 - 10:49:10 AM; As sponsor, Rep. Lynn introduces HB1001, which allows county attorneys, with county commissioners' approval and available appropriations, to appoint investigators with law enforcement authority under their supervision. He explains the need for in-house investigators to address issues with relying on external agencies. He answers questions on certification, clarifying the bill allows both certified and non-certified investigators, but those without certification lack law enforcement powers. He notes the bill originated from Merrimack County and possibly others, emphasizing it makes sense for county attorneys to have this authority.
HB1001: Sheriff Bill Wright (Belmont County Sheriff, NH Sheriff's Association) Oppose02:35:58.479 - 11:04:44 AM; Sheriff Wright, representing the NH Sheriff's Association, opposes HB1001, arguing it blurs separation between prosecution and law enforcement, risks overreach, and creates accountability issues without clear policies for discipline, oversight, or training. He highlights existing collaborations where sheriffs can assign investigators under their control. He notes the bill duplicates services, increases costs, and erodes public confidence, recommending it be found inexpedient to legislate (ITL).
HB1001: Paul Halverson (Merrimack County Attorney) Support02:43:47.920 - 11:12:33 AM; Halverson supports HB1001, clarifying county attorneys as chief law enforcement officers with policy direction authority. He explains certification requirements, noting certified investigators gain powers only after meeting police standards. He cites support from the AG's office, 9 of 10 county attorneys, and Police Standards Director. He addresses costs (no increase in his office), evidentiary gaps between probable cause and beyond reasonable doubt standards, and benefits like bridging investigations, minimizing witness intimidation, and safety for investigators in high-risk areas. He parallels it to AG's investigators under RSA 21-M:3 and notes it provides options without mandates.
HB1001: Stephen Hendris (Attorney, former prosecutor) Oppose03:04:29.200 - 11:33:15 AM; Hendris, with experience in county attorney's offices, opposes HB1001, arguing it creates unaccountable parallel police forces under prosecutors. He notes historical deputization by sheriffs was ceremonial and that sheriffs now hesitate due to liability under RSA 104:28 and increased accountability demands. He raises issues with oversight, as county attorneys aren't subject to police standards reporting; lack of SOPs; complex hiring processes; and potential for personal liability without amendments. He suggests law enforcement should remain supervised by existing frameworks, not elected attorneys.
HB1001: David Croft, Merrimack County Sheriff Oppose03:16:30.800 - 11:45:16 AM; David Croft, serving his third term as Merrimack County Sheriff, testified that he believes he is partially the reason for HB1001 due to his refusal to swear in the county attorney's new investigators without proper accountability measures. He explained past changes in law enforcement accountability and his concerns about deputies assigned to the attorney's office carrying his badge and equipment without oversight. Despite multiple attempts, he couldn't reach an agreement with the attorney on guidelines like a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for weekly check-ins, unlike with the house of correction. Croft opposed the bill, citing his long experience since 1984, the effectiveness of civilian investigators without badges, ongoing cooperation with the attorney's office, and potential costs including retirement benefits for new sworn investigators.
HB1001: Anonymous (works with criminal and civil justice organizations) Oppose03:20:41.040 - 11:49:27 AM; The speaker, who works closely with organizations in criminal justice and the family division with DCYF, shared their background overseeing hundreds of family court cases and nearly a thousand criminal court cases in the last five years. They highlighted three problematic investigators previously on the Laurie List, now recertified as police officers despite past liabilities including millions in federal lawsuits on the Seacoast. These investigators continue creating risks while representing the county, encroaching on private properties in investigations. The speaker viewed HB1001 as highly volatile, emphasizing the need for direct oversight as noted by sheriffs, and noted that while the prosecutor's job is challenging, law enforcement must provide the necessary evidence burden.
HB1671: Representative Smith Vote03:37:08.000 - 12:05:54 PM; Representative Smith moved for interim study on HB1671, explaining that the bill combines civil rights and Medicaid laws, with acknowledged lack of clarity in applicability. The committee agreed it raises important issues needing in-depth consideration before voting.
HB1671: Unidentified Representative Support03:38:17.120 - 12:07:03 PM; An unidentified representative briefly supported the interim study motion, noting agreement with Representative Smith and highlighting the issue of involving Medicaid, suggesting a simpler law against employer discrimination instead, but deferring further discussion.
HB1064: Representative Keaton Coutab Support03:41:47.760 - 12:10:33 PM; Representative Keaton Coutab introduced HB1064, providing historical background from the 1974 Merrill v. Manchester decision abolishing municipal immunity, leading to 1975 legislation (SB4) that limited political subdivision liability to motor vehicles, buildings, and hazardous conditions with notice. He noted the state's liability statute was thoroughly studied in 1976 but political subdivisions were not aligned. Citing a recent case of a high school student paralyzed in a 30-foot fall during a career tech program due to teacher negligence, Coutab argued current laws limit recovery, offending principles of justice. The bill aligns political subdivision liability with the state's, indemnifying employees for non-reckless actions without affecting official immunity, crafted with attorneys to mirror the 1976 state law protecting employees like state troopers.
HB1064: Representative Gabby Gman, Town of Exeter Support03:46:44.239 - 12:15:30 PM; Representative Gabby Gman, a legislator and parent from Exeter, testified in support of HB1064 based on her 17-year-old son Oscar's 30-foot fall on February 5, 2025, during a public high school job site program, resulting in traumatic brain and spinal injuries requiring ongoing rehabilitation. Despite community and medical support, the incident turned a positive learning experience into trauma for her family. She criticized existing statutes' limited liability and damage caps that shield governmental entities, leaving families with insufficient recovery for catastrophic injuries and lifelong care. Gman urged an ought to pass vote, emphasizing accountability, fairness, and safety to ensure public programs meet reasonable standards, benefiting families, schools, and communities. She shared photos of her son pre- and post-accident.
HB1064: Mark Bodwin, New Hampshire Police Association Oppose03:52:00.800 - 12:20:46 PM; Mark Bodwin, representing the New Hampshire Police Association and a retired trooper, echoes concerns from the State Employees Association of New Hampshire's submitted document. He expresses sympathy for the prior speaker's story but opposes HB1064 due to potential unintended consequences, such as expanded liability for municipalities and public employees. He highlights vague language like 'appropriate standard of care' and 'equity and good conscience,' which could lead to court interpretations increasing litigation. Concerns include undermining discretionary function protections, watering down official immunity, rising taxpayer costs, worsening recruitment and retention, and potential constitutional issues under Article 28A. He urges finding the bill inexpedient to legislate.
HB1064: Holly Haynes, Attorney at Abrams, Brown & Duban Support04:00:44.479 - 12:29:30 PM; Holly Haynes, an attorney practicing medical malpractice law for plaintiffs in Manchester, NH, and former president of the New Hampshire Association for Justice, supports HB1064. She addresses concerns from the NH Municipal Association and Police Association, arguing the changes are minimal and won't significantly increase liability or claims. She notes her office couldn't pursue a claim for Rep. Gabby Gman's son due to current restrictions. Haynes explains barriers to frivolous claims: contingency fees with high upfront costs, need for expert testimony on standards of care (similar to medical malpractice), risk of paying costs if losing at trial, and the small NH bar's emphasis on reputation. She shares data from her office: out of 1,800 annual inquiries, they file suit in less than 1% of cases, indicating rarity. Municipal reserves should handle the mild damage cap increase without issue.
HB1064: Bear Christensen, Executive Director, New Hampshire School Boards Association Oppose04:06:11.439 - 12:34:57 PM; Bear Christensen opposes HB1064, arguing it would shift school districts' focus from education to defensive, risk-averse bureaucracy. Schools serve as community hubs with public access to libraries, facilities for groups like Boy Scouts, playgrounds, and annual meetings. Removing immunity provisions could lead to closing playgrounds, restricting outside groups, or halting community events to avoid litigation, undermining schools' role as community centers. The bill introduces a negligence standard, making districts liable for employee actions within scope if the appropriate standard of care is breached.
HB1064: Sarah Burke Cohen, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose04:13:21.120 - 12:42:07 PM; Sarah Burke Cohen opposes HB1064, supporting fair compensation for injuries but arguing the bill excessively shifts financial risks to taxpayers, threatening services, risk pool stability, and small towns' fiscal health. It expands liability to a negligence standard, enabling lawsuits for injuries during community events or on public property, leading to defensive governing. Even if frivolous suits are rare now, the changes could encourage more claims, including self-filed ones settled to avoid litigation costs. This would raise property taxes, insurance premiums due to higher caps, and cause instability in risk pools. Mandatory indemnification removes local discretion. Existing accountability (discipline, termination) and limited current liability suffice; the bill prioritizes money over services.
HB1064: Nicholas Klein, Shaheen Gordon Support04:23:55.279 - 12:52:41 PM; Nicholas Klein testified in support of HB1064, emphasizing the need to update municipal liability caps from $325,000 set in 2018 to align with state caps of $475,000, noting that most claims are not capped and the update is crucial for severely injured individuals. He compared RSA 507-B (municipal immunity) which prohibits most claims except for specific ones like streets and sidewalks, to RSA 541-B:19 (state immunity) which allows broader claims. He highlighted existing municipal immunities for volunteers, recreational use, and legislative functions, arguing that HB1064 would allow claims like a child injured on a ladder during programming, restoring balance and accountability for negligence.
HB116 2024-0362h: Representative Jack Flanigan, Hillsboro District 45 Support04:28:37.680 - 12:57:23 PM; Representative Jack Flanigan, sponsor, introduced HB116 in two parts. The first codifies judicial policy requiring judges to answer subpoenas if they have firsthand information, motivated by Supreme Court Justice McDonald ignoring a subpoena in a case involving Justice Maronei. The second, amended per Judge Kristo's input, establishes a committee to improve the circuit court's e-file and email system for small claims service, reducing delays from 60 days to address inefficiencies allowing defendants to evade judgments. He stressed codifying ignored policies to make violations of law.
HB116 2024-0362h: Representative Jack Flanigan, Hillsboro District 45 Information Only04:34:45.359 - 1:03:31 PM; During questioning by Representative Burch, Flanigan clarified that the bill intends to require judges to testify about firsthand observations within official duties, including personal conversations related to legal cases like advising others, but acknowledged potential complexities with protected discussions under RSA 91-A or confidential matters, suggesting the trying judge would decide relevance, primarily for depositions in legal cases.
HB116 2024-0362h: Lauren Warner, Deputy General Counsel, Judicial Branch Information Only04:37:34.080 - 1:06:20 PM; Lauren Warner provided information on the bill's scope, noting that subpoenaing judges to discuss confidential cases like domestic violence or child protection would violate state statutes, regardless of subpoena, as those matters are legally protected and closed.
HB1127: Representative Lynn Support04:39:39.200 - 1:08:25 PM; Representative Lynn, prime sponsor, introduced HB1127 to update New Hampshire's law consistent with the Uniform Law Commission's Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (formerly Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act), making changes to protect creditors' rights by addressing fraudulent conveyances and transfers.
HB1127: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:40:24.480 - 1:09:10 PM; The speaker expresses familiarity with the general area of law but defers detailed questions to Mr. Mooney. They review the proposed bill's sections, noting it makes appropriate changes to existing law consistent with uniform commissioners' proposals adopted in many states. They raise a concern about potential interference with certain trusts mentioned by Mr. Pllo and suggest an amendment if interference is confirmed as bad public policy.
HB1127: Charles Mooney, Commissioner on Uniform State Laws Support04:42:56.320 - 1:11:42 PM; Mooney introduces himself as one of New Hampshire's commissioners on uniform state laws and explains the Uniform Law Commission's role in providing nonpartisan legislation. He details HB1127's update to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, now called the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, aimed at protecting creditors from transfers intended to hinder, delay, or defraud them. Key changes include a governing law rule based on the debtor's location for certainty, a preponderance of the evidence standard for proof, and clarification on series organizations as divided entities with separate assets and liabilities. He addresses concerns from the New Hampshire Trust Council regarding spendthrift trusts and choice of law, suggesting amendments to preserve status quo for trusts while modernizing the statute generally. He urges support for the bill with necessary amendments.
HB1127: Glenn Pirllo, Director and General Counsel, Jordan Park Trust Company, Portsmouth, NH Oppose04:52:26.958 - 1:21:12 PM; Pirllo submits testimony in opposition but notes ongoing dialogue with Professor Mooney and trust counsel Heather Perman Perkins Auggmanson to reconcile concerns with the bill's goals. He requests time (a week or two) to work with practitioners and provide proposed language amendments in markup format. The committee agrees, noting the March 5th deadline allows for this.
HB1322: Representative Matt Sabordane, Rockingham District 30 Support05:00:59.200 - 1:29:45 PM; Sabordane explains the need for an independent Judicial Conduct Commission due to constituent concerns about court handling of cases and lack of oversight outside the judicial branch. He references a 2001 law (SB197) struck down in 2004 by the Supreme Court, which allowed for legislative investigation of conduct warranting impeachment under constitutional articles 17 and 73. HB1322 creates an 11-member commission (public majority) to receive complaints, investigate, hold hearings, and recommend actions to the legislature without imposing discipline, respecting the court's authority. It operates concurrently with existing systems and fills a structural gap for legislative oversight.
HB1322: Representative Wood Support05:04:52.638 - 1:33:38 PM; Wood testifies based on constituent requests, noting the bill addresses problems in the judicial system by providing a clear avenue for complaints. He observes it doesn't expand much on existing law but allows better control of complaints, helping constituents vent or seek legal action. He leaves his written testimony and hopes for consideration of the bill or similar legislation.
HB1322: Lauren Warner, Deputy General Counsel, Judicial Branch Oppose05:07:33.280 - 1:36:19 PM; Warner describes the existing Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC) process for complaints against judges, which investigates violations of the judicial code within two years, and notes the Attorney Discipline Office for other issues. She highlights constitutional limits on impeachment to judicial officers, not clerks, and potential issues with the bill's expansion to clerks. Concerns include stalling ongoing litigation due to communication prohibitions, risks of tactical complaints, violations of confidentiality in sensitive cases like domestic violence (risking federal funds), parallel processes conflicting with JCC findings, and separation of powers issues similar to the 2004 ruling. The proposed commission mirrors the current 11-member structure. She welcomes questions and notes similarities to the 2001 law but can't confirm exact language differences.
HB1322 2024-1108: Representative Perez Support05:14:27.440 - 1:43:13 PM; Representative Perez briefly supports the amendment, explaining it excludes commentaries from judicial evaluation questionnaires from public reporting while still reporting them to the court. He notes concerns from judges, especially circuit court judges, about scandalous allegations from dissatisfied individuals becoming public.
HB1322 2024-1108: Representative Burch Oppose05:15:45.520 - 1:44:31 PM; Representative Burch opposes the amendment, arguing it does not prevent the evaluation process from becoming political. He compares it to form letters from constituents, noting totals like 300 dislikes versus 20 likes provide no context, turning it into a numbers game.
HB1322 2024-1108: Chairman Lynn Information Only05:16:55.120 - 1:45:41 PM; The Chairman calls for a vote on the amendment by show of hands, counts 8 in favor and 8 opposed, declaring it fails on a tie vote. He then moves ought to pass on the underlying bill, noting the Judicial Branch, including the Chief Justice, has no major issues with it and recognizes the need for upgrading the evaluation process.
HB1322 2024-1108: Representative Smith Oppose05:19:07.840 - 1:47:53 PM; Representative Smith opposes the bill, sarcastically suggesting reciprocal evaluations of legislators by the Judicial Branch. She argues the purpose is to improve judges through education and training, praises the courtroom observation section, but views the bill as misguided, potentially turning evaluations into attacks. She urges voting against it while expecting ongoing improvements from the Judicial Branch.
HB1322 2024-1108: Representative Manion Support05:21:32.240 - 1:50:18 PM; Representative Manion responds to Representative Smith's point, noting elected officials like legislators are already evaluated daily via public comments and social media, with voters able to remove them in elections, serving as their 'judicial review'.
HB1322 2024-1108: Clerk Vote05:22:41.360 - 1:51:27 PM; The Clerk calls the roll on the motion for ought to pass, resulting in 8 yes and 8 no votes, tying. Votes: Vice Chair Manion yes, Rep. Trip yes, Rep. Andrews yes, Rep. Votes yes, Rep. Perez yes, Rep. Skully yes, Rep. Ball yes, Rep. Burch no, Rep. Smith no, Rep. Oregon no, Rep. Paige no, Rep. Manos no, Rep. Tur no, Rep. Rombo no, Rep. Berseron no, Chairman Lynn yes.
HB1322 2024-1108: Clerk Vote05:23:26.958 - 1:52:12 PM; The Clerk calls the roll on a motion to inexpedient to legislate (ITL), resulting in 8 yes (for ITL) and 8 no votes, tying. Votes: Vice Chair Manion no, Rep. Trip no, Rep. Andrews no, Rep. Votes no, Rep. Perez no, Rep. Skully no, Rep. Ball no, Rep. Birch yes, Rep. Smith yes, Rep. Oregon yes, Rep. Paige yes, Rep. Manos yes, Rep. Tur yes, Rep. Rombo yes, Rep. Berseron no, Chairman Lynn changes to no.
HB1322 2024-1108: Chairman Lynn Information Only05:24:44.718 - 1:53:30 PM; The Chairman notes the tie votes result in the bill going without recommendation. He will write the report in favor of ought to pass (OTP), and Representative Paige will write the report for inexpedient to legislate (ITL). No further motions like interim study are made.
HB1322: Dana Alrech Support05:25:51.680 - 1:54:37 PM; Dana Alrech supports HB1322, citing its history from 2001 Senate Bill 197 (RSA 494A), passed overwhelmingly (290-36 in House, 22-0 in Senate) but struck down by the Supreme Court in 2004 as unconstitutional. He argues the bill fixes the defects to make it constitutional, restoring popular external accountability for judicial conduct, quoting the opinion allowing legislative reporting on impeachable conduct. He criticizes the current Judicial Branch self-regulation as the 'fox guarding the hen house' lacking external oversight.
HB1322: Lesie Nixon, Attorney from New Boston Oppose05:30:20.000 - 1:59:06 PM; Lesie Nixon, an attorney from New Boston and former legislator and constitutional convention member, opposes HB1322. As a taxpayer, she objects to the added bureaucracy and costs of another commission. As an attorney, she worries it would expose judges to political complaints rather than ethical or legal standards, undermining the independent judiciary essential to the justice system.
HB1322: Representative Rombo Oppose05:33:03.600 - 2:01:49 PM; Moves for ITL on HB1322, echoing testimony on maintaining judicial integrity and independence.
HB1322: Chairman Oppose05:33:03.600 - 2:01:49 PM; Supports ITL, notes the bill is unnecessary as impeachment procedures exist, references past misuse against Judge Ruof, emphasizes judges should not be impeached over disagreed rulings.
HB1322: Representative Pat Oppose05:35:26.080 - 2:04:12 PM; Notes testimony on constitutionality; suggests CACR23 as the proper vehicle for constitutional changes.
HB1322: Representative Skull Support05:35:26.080 - 2:04:12 PM; Expresses bias for legislative oversight of judiciary; will vote against ITL to maintain checks and balances.
HB1825: Representative Dubor Support05:38:53.760 - 2:07:39 PM; Introduces HB1825 to create multiple pathways to licensure (law school, apprenticeship, direct exam), open bar exam to public including minors, make bar membership voluntary, create mixed licensing board, while preserving Supreme Court's authority. Addresses low attorney numbers in NH, access to justice issues, inspired by pro se litigants; compares to reforms in other states.
HB1825: Marissa Chase, Executive Director, New Hampshire Association for Justice Oppose05:42:11.600 - 2:10:57 PM; Opposes bill as it creates tiered attorneys conflicting with Supreme Court's authority under constitution; allows minors or uneducated to sit for bar, risking abuse; creates competing discipline system leading to logistical issues.
HB1825: Daniel Richard, Citizen Support05:44:09.280 - 2:12:55 PM; Supports based on history: 1873 voluntary bar charter gives legislature authority; 1968 unification violated constitution and monopoly clause; mandatory bar limits access to justice for those who can't afford lawyers, violating right to remedy.
HB1825: Lauren Warner, Deputy General Counsel, Judicial Branch Oppose05:47:43.280 - 2:16:29 PM; Highlights potential unconstitutionality; notes no state houses bar admission outside highest court; concerns on public protection via competency (ABA law school, UBE, MPRE, Daniel Webster program) and character/fitness evaluations; additional costs for deunification, CLE, registration; board lacks attorneys, unclear housing.
HB1825: Veronica Tamasco Silva, Attorney, Cheshire County Oppose05:53:36.958 - 2:22:22 PM; Opposes as current NH Bar Association board ensures county representation, especially in underserved areas; NH committed to NextGen bar exam; existing pathways suffice (UBE, waiver, Daniel Webster, foreign attorneys); creates enforcement risks, contact issues; dues fund pro bono services; board should be volunteer-elected, not compensated.
HB1825: Donald Gilbert, Citizen Support05:58:14.480 - 2:27:00 PM; Supports to break bar's monopoly hijacking judiciary under 73A; historical overview: early open practice, 1873 voluntary bar, 1968 unification for funding violated authority; bar influences nominations, lacks checks; bill reinstates voluntary membership, independent board for oversight; suggests amendments.
HB1825: Dana Albert, Citizen Support06:03:55.840 - 2:32:41 PM; Supports, notes technical amendments possible; clarifies bill decouples bar passing from licensure; questions special treatment of attorneys vs. other OPLC professions; existing law allows non-attorney representation in some cases; aims to expand credential tiers objectively.
HB1825: Leslie Nixon, Attorney, New Boston Oppose06:08:21.520 - 2:37:07 PM; Opposes as taxpayer due to $1M+ fiscal cost for new bureaucracy; as attorney, emphasizes serious oath against falsehood, promoting false suits, delaying for lucre/malice; bill undermines professional standards.
HB1825: Unknown Attorney Oppose06:10:35.760 - 2:39:21 PM; The speaker criticizes the bill for creating a board of non-attorneys without the oath taken by lawyers and judges to regulate licensing, raising concerns about political influence, conflicts of interest, and threats to judicial independence. They note the bill's confusing structure that retains some Supreme Court authority while empowering the board. On bar unification, they reference the 1984 constitutional convention debates and highlight the benefits of the unified bar, including an opt-out provision every five years per RSA 3117G. They urge voting the bill inexpedient to legislate.
HB1825: Representative Page Vote06:14:17.280 - 2:43:03 PM; Moves for inexpedient to legislate (ITL) on HB1825.
HB1825: Representative Andrews Vote06:14:17.280 - 2:43:03 PM; Seconds the motion for ITL.
HB1825: Unknown Representative Oppose06:14:17.280 - 2:43:03 PM; Expresses concern that the bill may be unconstitutional and questions the problem it aims to solve, noting the current attorney licensing system works well. Highlights expansions like the Daniel Webster Scholars program and provisions for paralegals in court, suggesting further changes should go to the Supreme Court. On bar integration, notes periodic votes and personal ambivalence but values services provided, which might otherwise burden taxpayers. Supports the ITL motion.
HB1825: Representative Kout Oppose06:16:40.240 - 2:45:26 PM; Notes the bill is early with a million-dollar fiscal note, needs amendment, and is not ready in current form due to time constraints.
HB1825: Committee Roll Call Vote06:17:45.680 - 2:46:31 PM; Roll call vote on ITL for HB1825 passes 16-0. Members voting yes: Vice Chair Manion, Rep. Trip, Rep. Andrews, Clerk, Rep. Perez, Rep. Skully, Rep. Ball, Rep. Burch, Rep. Smith, Rep. Han, Rep. Paige, Rep. Manos, Rep. Tur, Rep. Rombo, Rep. Berseron, Chairman Lynn.
HB6008: Representative Flanigan, Hillsboro 45 Support06:19:57.120 - 2:48:43 PM; As prime sponsor, explains the bill combines two issues due to timing. First, grand juries originally served defendants but now aid prosecution, often withholding exculpatory information; cites the Gino Marone case where lack of disclosure caused issues. Argues defendants should receive grand jury information if exculpatory. Second, addresses low indemnification limits for county attorneys in Hillsboro County, making them vulnerable to lawsuits from losing defendants, risking loss of good attorneys. Urges support to retain talent without repeated hiring and training.
HB6008: Attorney John Coughlin, Hillsboro County Attorney Support06:24:10.000 - 2:52:56 PM; Supports expanding sovereign immunity indemnification to county attorneys, assistants, and municipal prosecutors, similar to assistant AGs. Shares experience: largest prosecution office in NH, divided into districts, faces frequent complaints weaponized against prosecutors, costing far more than the $5,000 Primex coverage. Notes counties handle this variably; argues county attorneys represent the state (e.g., indictments as State vs. Doe), under AG supervision, pay into state retirement, and are essentially state employees. Seeks fair play and simplified protection across counties.
HB6008: Carl Olsen, Assistant Hillsboro County Attorney, Manchester Information Only06:32:43.920 - 3:01:29 PM; Comments on both parts. Supports indemnification as prosecutors represent the state in serious superior court cases, handling most prosecutions including those needing AG permission; notes weaponization of complaints and disparity with AG's office coverage. Opposes grand jury changes: proceedings rarely involve live witnesses, recordings require court permission and are rare/expensive; existing rules (Brady, open file discovery) ensure exculpatory evidence disclosure; mandating recordings would add cost and slow processes without need.
HB6008: Susan Grandis, Concord MA (mother of prosecutor) Support06:41:07.040 - 3:09:53 PM; Supports the indemnification part, noting county attorneys are uninsured beyond $5,000, insufficient even for a retainer. Shares personal story: her daughter, a prosecutor in Coughlin's office and Daniel Webster Scholar, faced a three-year ADO complaint from a losing defense attorney after an arson case, causing family torment and financial burden despite no suspension risk. Emphasizes prosecutors' difficult, dangerous, low-paid public service enforcing laws; urges indemnification like police have, as they protect NH citizens without adequate backup.
HB6008: Representative Couttop Vote06:47:18.240 - 3:16:04 PM; Moves for interim study on HB6008.
HB6008: Unknown Representative Vote06:47:18.240 - 3:16:04 PM; Seconds the motion for interim study.
HB6008: Representative Couttop Information Only06:47:18.240 - 3:16:04 PM; Notes merit in first part (grand juries) but not a budget year; existing 'may indemnify' law exists, with HB1064 addressing it to 'shall.'
HB6008: Unknown Representative (Chairman?) Support06:47:18.240 - 3:16:04 PM; Agrees with Olsen; opposes mandating grand jury recordings as expensive, not budget year, and would complicate practice like federal courts. Supports indemnification but costly in non-budget year; recommends bringing back next year.
HB6008: Committee Roll Call Vote06:49:22.240 - 3:18:08 PM; Roll call vote on interim study for HB6008 passes 15-0. Members voting yes: Vice Chair Manion, Rep. Trip, Clerk, Rep. Perez, Rep. Skully, Rep. Ball, Rep. Burch, Rep. Smith, Rep. Oregon, Rep. Paige, Rep. Manos, Rep. Tur, Rep. Rombo, Rep. Berseron, Chairman Lynn.

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