Committee Summary for House Judiciary (02/05/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB232 2024-1453h 00:02:44.879 - 8:31:51 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the rights of conscience for medical professionals.	Pearson, Mark(R)[B]2025
HB293 01:37:44.679 - 10:06:51 AM	Public Hearing	preventing minors from accessing obscenity on certain electronic devices with internet access.	Drye, Margaret(R)[B+]2025
HB253 02:44:34.319 - 11:13:41 AM	Public Hearing	relative to interest-bearing pooled trust accounts maintained by lawyers.	Corcoran, Travis(R)[A-]2025
HB391 03:35:47.199 - 12:04:54 PM	Public Hearing	relative to preventing strategic lawsuits against public participation.	Corcoran, Travis(R)[A-]2025
HB400 04:16:57.080 - 12:46:04 PM	Public Hearing	requiring a public body's collective bargaining negotiations to be deemed public meetings and requiring that arguments made and information generated during the meetings be made available to the public under the right-to-know law.	Brown, Pam(R)[B+]2025
HB485 05:46:05.478 - 2:15:12 PM	Public Hearing	authorizing persons who win the state lottery to remain anonymous.	Dunn, Ron(R)[A]2025

HB232 2024-1453h: Mark Pearson, Representative, House of Representatives Support00:02:44.879 - 8:31:51 AM; Representative Mark Pearson, the prime sponsor of HB232, introduced the bill aimed at protecting the conscience rights of health care professionals. He shared his personal background, growing up in a working-class town west of Boston, and his political perspective influenced by 'Good Government Democrats' from Cambridge, Massachusetts. Pearson emphasized the importance of freedom of conscience, drawing historical parallels to oppression in Hungary and Germany. He discussed the current challenges faced by medical professionals and students who fear repercussions for adhering to their ethical convictions, which he termed as 'moral injury'. Pearson highlighted specific cases where professionals have been forced out of New Hampshire due to conscience conflicts. He clarified that the bill does not allow refusal of service based on protected characteristics but focuses on specific procedures. An amendment was introduced to address concerns raised by Chairman Bob Lynn, ensuring that the bill does not protect those who might misuse it to weaponize medicine or in emergency situations where the health care provider is the only one available.
HB232 2024-1453h: Representative Horgan Information Only00:11:39.120 - 8:40:46 AM; Representative Horgan questioned why the bill focuses on a narrow range of medical procedures for exercising the right of conscience, suggesting that there might be other procedures where individuals have ethical qualms. Pearson responded by explaining that the bill addresses the specific issues raised by those his wife and he have spoken with, particularly concerning experiences of being fired in New Hampshire. He noted that other issues could be addressed in future legislation.
HB232 2024-1453h: Representative Penel Information Only00:12:09.760 - 8:41:16 AM; Representative Penel raised concerns about headlines from states like Texas, where physicians allegedly deny treatment to women who have had abortions and are in medical emergencies. He questioned whether the bill would prevent physicians from treating such cases. Pearson clarified that the bill deals with the conscience of performing an abortion, not treating emergencies post-abortion, and includes carve-outs for emergencies.
HB232 2024-1453h: Representative Mos Information Only00:14:44.680 - 8:43:51 AM; Representative Mos inquired about who determines an emergency situation under the bill's amendment, expressing concern over potential delays or litigation in emergency care. Pearson explained that emergencies are typically determined by triage in ERs based on obvious signs of distress, and any physician refusing emergency care in such situations would face sanctions.
HB232 2024-1453h: Representative Perez Information Only00:17:02.240 - 8:46:09 AM; Representative Perez, with experience in emergency and intensive care, confirmed that emergencies are determined by vital signs, supporting Pearson's assertion that the bill's provisions align with medical practice.
HB232 2024-1453h: Representative Tur Information Only00:18:17.120 - 8:47:24 AM; Representative Tur expressed concerns about the bill's wording, which might apply to all facility staff and lacked a clear process for conscientious objection. Pearson acknowledged the concern about staff like schedulers making unilateral decisions based on personal beliefs, admitting that this aspect could be tweaked.
HB232 2024-1453h: Representative McFarland Information Only00:22:53.880 - 8:52:00 AM; Representative McFarland questioned the effectiveness of federal protections like the Wen Amendment in protecting conscience rights and suggested amending the bill's language to clarify expectations when a health care institution hires providers for specific services. Pearson indicated openness to amending the bill and used examples like Sandy Koufax and local firefighters to illustrate workarounds for conscientious objections.
HB232 2024-1453h: Representative Rbo Information Only00:26:14.080 - 8:55:21 AM; Representative Rbo raised a procedural question about whether it is appropriate for a committee member to speak without being recognized by the chair. The response was that it is not appropriate.
HB232 2024-1453h: Representative Tur Information Only00:27:21.480 - 8:56:28 AM; Representative Tur questioned the clarity of the bill, particularly regarding the role of a receptionist or administrative assistant in scheduling appointments. They were concerned that the language could allow these staff members to decline scheduling without informing anyone or referring the patient elsewhere. The response indicated that this was not the intent, but acknowledged that the language might allow for multiple interpretations, suggesting a potential rewrite of the amendment.
HB232 2024-1453h: Representative Tur Information Only00:28:24.559 - 8:57:31 AM; Representative Tur continued by comparing the bill to conscientious objection during the Vietnam War, highlighting the difference in process and approval. They questioned the rights of employers when a facility provides services that an employee declines to schedule due to personal beliefs. The response suggested that such issues should be clarified during the interview process before hiring.
HB232 2024-1453h: Representative Tur Information Only00:29:36.279 - 8:58:43 AM; Representative Tur raised concerns about the bill's implications on contraception, specifically mentioning pharmacies as healthcare institutions. They questioned whether any staff member in a pharmacy could invoke the provision to not assist with contraception, highlighting potential impacts on the majority of pharmacy business.
HB232 2024-1453h: Representative Tur Information Only00:30:55.919 - 9:00:02 AM; Representative Tur expressed appreciation for the inputs received and suggested that while the bill might not go on a consent calendar, they aimed to make it more widely palatable by addressing the concerns raised, without killing the bill.
HB232 2024-1453h: Paige Boschman, representing Nashua Ward 4 Oppose00:31:23.639 - 9:00:30 AM; Paige Boschman, a women's maternal child health nurse from Nashua, opposed the bill, expressing concerns about its impact on women's health, particularly regarding contraception. She provided examples from her experience, including issues with pharmacies and contraception, and the potential complications in small rural towns if providers decline to perform procedures like tubal ligations during C-sections. She also raised concerns about the lack of requirement for providers to disclose their stance beforehand and the potential increase in STIs and STDs if contraception is not provided.
HB232 2024-1453h: Representative Horgan Information Only00:36:49.640 - 9:05:56 AM; Representative Horgan sought clarification on whether the term 'artificial contraception' in the bill would include condoms. The response confirmed that a condom is considered artificial contraception and could be argued to be covered under the bill's definition.
HB232 2024-1453h: Representative Bergeron Information Only00:37:56.599 - 9:07:03 AM; Representative Bergeron asked Paige Boschman about her reaction to the requirement for an 8.5 by 11-inch notice to be posted as mentioned in the bill. Boschman expressed that while she supports informing patients of their rights, she believes that allowing providers to disclose their stance after employment could disadvantage small practices, especially in emergency situations.
HB232 2024-1453h: Representative McFarland Information Only00:39:08.520 - 9:08:15 AM; Representative McFarland questioned the location where notices should be posted according to the bill. Paige Boschman shared her experience that notices related to employee rights are typically posted in staff areas like around a time clock, not in public waiting areas.
HB232 2024-1453h: Representative Panel Information Only00:40:21.040 - 9:09:28 AM; Representative Panel discussed the scenario where patients seeking fertility treatment might be unaware that their physician also performs abortions. They questioned whether facilities should post notices about abortions being performed there. Paige Boschman supported informing patients but noted the difficulty in facilities where some providers perform abortions and others do not. She also mentioned that patients usually inquire about a provider's specialties.
HB232 2024-1453h: Representative Perez Information Only00:43:46.160 - 9:12:53 AM; Representative Perez shared their experience working in Catholic hospitals and the requirement to sign policies regarding procedures. Paige Boschman confirmed that during her recent interview at St. Joseph Hospital in Nashua, she was assured that discussing contraception would not violate hospital policy.
HB232 2024-1453h: Representative Mayos Information Only00:44:16.720 - 9:13:23 AM; Representative Mayos asked about the use of condoms in preventing HIV transmission and whether denying them could increase risk. Paige Boschman affirmed that denying contraception, including condoms, could indeed increase the risk of STIs and HIV.
HB232 2024-1453h: Representative Rmo Information Only00:45:27.880 - 9:14:34 AM; Representative Rmo sought clarification on whether the bill's language could allow a receptionist to turn away a patient without anyone else knowing. Paige Boschman interpreted the bill to potentially allow such action, as there is no requirement for the receptionist to inform anyone else of their decision.
HB232 2024-1453h: Rebecca Hoskins, New London, Derry, Plymouth, Concord Oppose00:46:42.119 - 9:15:49 AM; Rebecca Hoskins, a lifelong resident of New Hampshire, shared her personal health journey to oppose HB232. She described her severe health issues starting from her first period, leading to multiple surgeries and eventually a hysterectomy due to stage four endometriosis. Hoskins argued that if HB232 were law, she might have been denied essential care, including birth control, surgeries, and emergency care, potentially resulting in her death. She highlighted the ethical obligation of doctors to provide care and criticized the bill for prioritizing individual beliefs over patient safety, potentially leading to discrimination and reduced access to healthcare. She urged the committee to vote against the bill.
HB232 2024-1453h: Kate Peters, Manchester Oppose00:51:38.200 - 9:20:45 AM; Kate Peters, a family doctor from Manchester, opposed HB232, expressing concerns about its impact on healthcare access, especially in rural areas. She shared her extensive experience in various healthcare settings and noted that similar conscientious objection rules in other states led to reduced service availability. Peters argued that allowing healthcare providers to opt out of procedures based on personal beliefs could further strain already limited healthcare resources in rural New Hampshire, potentially leading to fewer facilities offering essential procedures. She questioned the practicality of the bill, suggesting that if providers object to certain procedures, they should seek employment elsewhere, not limit patient care.
HB232 2024-1453h: Courtney Tanner, Dartmouth Health Oppose01:02:41.079 - 9:31:48 AM; Courtney Tanner, representing Dartmouth Health, expressed opposition to HB232, citing concerns about the bill's broad definitions and implications. She noted that the bill extends beyond abortion to include contraception, prescription medications, and fertility services, affecting not just hospitals like Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon but also their community hospitals in Lebanon, New London, and Keene, as well as outpatient clinics in Lebanon, Concord, Manchester, and Nashua. Tanner highlighted potential issues with the definition of 'health care provider,' which could encompass nearly all employees, including those in pharmacies and scheduling, leading to potential access issues for patients. She also expressed worries about civil remedies, ethical obligations, and existing medical malpractice laws, suggesting that the bill could create conflicts and challenges for Dartmouth Health's operations across the state.
HB232 2024-1453h: Courtney Reid, ACLU of New Hampshire Oppose01:11:39.040 - 9:40:46 AM; Courtney Reid, speaking on behalf of the ACLU of New Hampshire, opposed HB232, emphasizing the organization's commitment to religious liberty and free speech but expressing concerns over the bill's failure to balance these freedoms with federal and state discrimination protections. Reid argued that the bill's broad definition of 'health care provider' could extend its impact beyond direct medical care to affect scheduling, pharmacy services, referrals, and insurance coverage. She criticized the emergency exemption in the amendment as impractical and highlighted the bill's potential to restrict access to abortion and other crucial services, particularly in rural areas. Reid also noted potential violations of various state and federal laws, including the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, Title IX, and the Affordable Care Act, suggesting that the bill could undermine hard-earned protections and jeopardize federal funding.
HB232 2024-1453h: Jason Hennessy, New Hampshire Right to Life, PhD in computational sciences and statistics Support01:18:41.800 - 9:47:48 AM; Jason Hennessy, president of New Hampshire Right to Life and a PhD holder, enthusiastically supported HB232. He drew a comparison to the Chinese Uyghur story to illustrate the violation of conscience faced by pro-life healthcare practitioners forced to perform abortions or face dismissal. He emphasized the importance of ethical healthcare in New Hampshire and referenced the state's constitutional right to conscience and religious freedoms. Hennessy cited a research letter from the Journal of the American Medical Association indicating that 47 states have conscience protection laws, questioning the lack of examples of issues in those states. He highlighted a case in Vermont where a nurse was forced to assist in an abortion against her conscience, suggesting that federal laws are insufficient, hence the need for a state law. Hennessy also mentioned Dartmouth Hitchcock's policies requiring OBGYN residents to refer for abortions, impacting recruitment and retention of healthcare professionals. He addressed concerns about the bill's application to receptionists and emergency situations, asserting that conscience protections should be broad and that no examples of issues from other states were presented.
HB232 2024-1453h: Holly Haynes, Attorney at Abramson Brown and Dugan in Manchester, past president of the New Hampshire Association for Justice Oppose01:28:33.280 - 9:57:40 AM; Holly Haynes, an attorney from Manchester, opposed HB232, arguing that it is overbroad and unnecessary. She highlighted that the bill has been deemed inexpedient to legislate in previous sessions and criticized the broad immunity it grants to healthcare providers, potentially removing patients' rights to a remedy. Haynes expressed concerns about the slippery slope of extending rights of conscience to various medical decisions, including ignoring do-not-resuscitate orders or refusing to prescribe medications. She pointed out the bill's internal inconsistencies, particularly the lack of notice to patients about a provider's exercise of conscience rights and the provision of a cause of action for providers but not for patients affected by such actions.
HB293: Representative Margaret Dry, Sullivan District 7 (Charlestown, Newport, Unity, Plainfield, and Cornish) Support01:37:44.679 - 10:06:51 AM; Representative Margaret Dry introduced HB293, which aims to protect minors from accessing obscene material by requiring filters on electronic devices. She highlighted the issue of young children being exposed to pornography and explained that this bill was inspired by a similar law in Utah. Dry noted that the bill amends the Consumer Expectation of Privacy Act to assume manufacturers will include filters on devices. She addressed concerns from a previous age verification bill, stating that filters are less restrictive and more effective. The bill includes provisions for private rights of action for parents if filters are disabled or non-existent, and it involves the Attorney General in enforcing consumer protection. Dry emphasized the importance of setting safety as the default for devices to protect young eyes, with adults having the option to disable filters. She responded to questions about the bill's applicability and enforcement, clarifying that the filters are already technologically available and that the bill does not require age verification at the time of content access.
HB293: Representative Perez Information Only01:52:15.880 - 10:21:22 AM; Representative Perez discussed the implications of the bill regarding criminal liability. They posed a scenario where a parent disables an electronic device's filter and asked who would be responsible for charging the parent with criminal liability. They clarified that showing obscenity to a minor is already a crime under state law, and this bill would prevent both parents and other individuals from allowing such exposure.
HB293: Representative Trip Information Only01:53:44.440 - 10:22:51 AM; Representative Trip sought clarification on the section of the bill that requires filters on devices. They asked if the bill mandates that all devices, including tablets and smartphones, must come with the filter software already installed, which only needs to be activated.
HB293: Representative Michael Aaron, Sullivan County District 8 Support01:55:22.560 - 10:24:29 AM; Representative Michael Aaron shared a personal story to support the necessity of the bill. He recounted an incident involving a young girl who accidentally visited a pornographic website while trying to shop for athletic wear. He argued that if the filters proposed in the bill were in place, the girl would not have been traumatized.
HB293: Representative McFarland Information Only01:56:50.360 - 10:25:57 AM; Representative McFarland sought further clarification on the bill's intent from one of its co-sponsors. They questioned how the bill would add to the existing options available to parents and guardians for managing device access and implementing parental controls.
HB293: Representative Rbo Information Only01:58:02.800 - 10:27:09 AM; Representative Rbo shared personal experiences with device filters and sought to understand if the proposed automatic filters would differ from existing ones. They were concerned about the challenges of managing filters and how the bill would affect this.
HB293: Representative Judy Aron, representing the towns of Alstead, Goshen, Langdon, Lempster, and Washington in Sullivan County District 4 Support02:00:06.520 - 10:29:13 AM; Representative Judy Aron spoke as a co-sponsor of the bill and read a statement from Bella Parachi from Stratham, New Hampshire, a public policy research associate with the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. The statement supports HB 293, emphasizing the need to protect children from harmful online material. It compares the necessity of seat belts in cars to the need for protective filters on internet browsers. The statement highlights the ease with which children can be exposed to pornography and its detrimental effects on their development, supported by a Common Sense Media survey and insights from a sexual assault nurse examiner. The bill aims to make it harder for children to access sexually explicit material by requiring manufacturers to activate existing filtering software by default.
HB293: Representative Lisa Merer, representing Hillsborough District 44, Goffstown and Weare Support02:03:48.440 - 10:32:55 AM; Representative Lisa Merer, a co-sponsor of the bill, expressed strong support for HB 293, which aims to prevent minors from accessing obscene content on electronic devices. She highlighted the risks of such exposure on minors' views of relationships, sexuality, and self-image, as well as increased vulnerability to exploitation and unsafe situations. Merer argued that the bill empowers parents to protect their children's online activities without limiting access to knowledge or entertainment, and stressed the collective responsibility to safeguard future generations.
HB293: Barb Patch, Director of All Girls Aloud and representative of the New Hampshire Traffick Free Coalition Support02:05:56.239 - 10:35:03 AM; Barb Patch supported HB 293, emphasizing its straightforward and easy-to-implement nature. She noted that the filtering technology already exists on devices and would relieve the burden on parents to protect children from obscene content. Patch shared a personal story of a child's accidental exposure to pornography and the severe content children can encounter online. She argued that the bill could significantly reduce the risk of child-on-child sexual abuse and other negative outcomes associated with pornography exposure.
HB293: Representative Alexander Information Only02:09:47.920 - 10:38:54 AM; Representative Alexander questioned the focus of the bill on manufacturers rather than retailers, seeking clarification on how it would prevent children from accessing obscene material. He expressed concern about the burden being entirely on parents and the potential need for broader governmental action to protect minors.
HB293: Representative PZ Information Only02:10:50.960 - 10:39:57 AM; Representative PZ inquired about the application of the bill's filters in schools and libraries, asking if the same technology would be implemented to prevent children from accessing harmful content in these settings. The response indicated that while the bill wouldn't solve all exposure issues, it would ensure filters are activated on devices used by minors in schools.
HB293: Representative Smith Information Only02:11:56.119 - 10:41:03 AM; Representative Smith questioned the applicability of the bill to printed material, as the bill's language includes a broad definition of material. The response clarified that the bill focuses on internet devices and that the definition of material in the bill aligns with existing statutes.
HB293: Representative McFarland Information Only02:12:39.639 - 10:41:46 AM; Representative McFarland sought to understand the duration of manufacturer support for the devices under the bill, questioning if devices would need to be bricked after a certain period. The response clarified that the filters are already on devices like iPhones and would be activated by default for minors, with updates ensuring their functionality throughout the device's life.
HB293: Representative Trip Information Only02:14:14.119 - 10:43:21 AM; Representative Trip asked if the filters are provided at no cost and whether they refer to the safe search switch on browsers. The response explained that the technology is more comprehensive, using AI to block obscene content, and would relieve parents of the burden of manually setting filters.
HB293: Rick Fabrio, Senior Director of Advocacy and Public Affairs for the Business and Industry Association Oppose02:15:16.079 - 10:44:23 AM; Rick Fabrio opposed HB 293, arguing that it exposes manufacturers to unfair civil liability and creates unworkable requirements. He stated that devices and operating systems are not designed to meet individual state laws and that the desired level of filtering is not technologically feasible. Fabrio suggested that parental involvement and the use of readily available content blockers are more effective solutions.
HB293: Unknown Oppose02:17:31.718 - 10:46:38 AM; The speaker expressed concerns about the bill, particularly regarding the inclusion of civil liability up to $100,000 and punitive damages in a private right of action. They argued that the goal should be to provide proper safeguards rather than prompt a slew of costly civil actions against manufacturers of operating systems and devices. They also highlighted the issue of reinstalling or installing open-source operating systems on devices, which could potentially make individuals felons if they deactivate the filter for minors.
HB293: Unknown Oppose02:18:44.920 - 10:47:51 AM; The speaker raised concerns about the lack of clear language in the bill regarding age verification for deactivating the default filter on devices. They also expressed broad concerns about the definition of obscene materials in the bill, particularly the inclusion of various mediums and the ambiguity of contemporary standards, which could lead to increased liability.
HB293: Trisha Eastman Support02:20:31.920 - 10:49:38 AM; Trisha Eastman, a mother of three boys, provided a personal testimony in support of the bill. She shared her experience with her son accessing obscene material on a school-issued Chromebook in 2020, despite her efforts to implement filters and blocks. She explained how her son developed an addiction to pornography by 2024, despite strict monitoring and limited screen time at home. Her son's addiction led to residential treatment and ongoing outpatient programs. Eastman believes the bill will help alleviate some of the burden on parents and protect children from the short and long-term effects of viewing obscene and pornographic material.
HB293: Unknown Information Only02:23:47.680 - 10:52:54 AM; The speaker, in response to Representative McFarland, clarified that their testimony highlighted the ineffectiveness of existing filtering mechanisms, which the bill advocates for. They explained that the bill proposes a filter that is constantly updated to address the latest issues on the internet. In response to Representative Trip, the speaker confirmed that they believe the bill should apply to computers in schools, as it includes provisions for charging individuals who disable the filter for minors.
HB293: Patrick Hedger, NetChoice Oppose02:25:38.600 - 10:54:45 AM; Patrick Hedger, Director of Policy at NetChoice, testified against HB293, arguing that it is unconstitutional and bad policy. He stated that the bill would require users to show ID to access common websites, which would not effectively inhibit access to obscene material. He compared it to the Communications Decency Act, struck down in 1996, and mentioned that the bill would face similar constitutional challenges. He also highlighted the potential for unlimited private lawsuits at $50,000 each, which would force device manufacturers to restrict internet access, burdening all users. He criticized the limited scope of the filter required by the bill, noting it would not prevent adolescents from accessing obscene content through unaffiliated apps and search engines. He suggested alternatives like digital literacy education and better promotion of parental control resources.
HB293: Marissa Fernand, New Hampshire Traffic Free Coalition Support02:28:54.399 - 10:58:01 AM; Marissa Fernand, National Director of New Hampshire Traffic Free Coalition and a mother of three, spoke in support of HB293. She presented 174 signatures from New Hampshire parents and concerned citizens gathered the previous day, indicating strong community support for the bill. She shared her focus on the intersection of sex trafficking and pornography and how online obscenity affects children, recounting stories from parents about the inadequacy of current filters. She handed over to Jason Serson for technical details.
HB293: Jason Serson, Dunbarton Support02:30:02.279 - 10:59:09 AM; Jason Serson, a resident of Dunbarton with six children, testified in support of HB293. With his background in cybersecurity and experience with the Department of Defense and Utah's legislation, he argued that the bill does not pose a technical or unreasonable hardship for tech companies. He explained that the bill aims to turn on existing device filters by default for children, simplifying the process for parents. He addressed concerns about the bill's criminal component and the definition of obscene material, emphasizing the bill's focus on turning on existing filters rather than defining what is pornographic. He also clarified that the bill does not apply to Chromebooks in schools and addressed the potential for interstate commerce issues, suggesting state-level action as a step towards federal legislation.
HB293: Ju Lono, Taxpayers Protection Alliance Oppose02:40:42.439 - 11:09:49 AM; Ju Lono, representing the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, opposed HB293, citing its constitutional issues. He argued that by categorizing content as obscene, the government would be tasked with determining what speech is acceptable, infringing on First Amendment rights. He referenced past legal precedents that would likely lead to costly lawsuits for New Hampshire taxpayers. He highlighted existing parental control tools available on devices, online platforms, and through internet service providers, suggesting that legislative efforts should focus on educating parents about these tools rather than imposing new regulations.
HB293: Ju Lono, Taxpayers Protection Alliance Oppose02:40:42.439 - 11:09:49 AM; Ju Lono, representing the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, concluded their testimony opposing HB293. They highlighted concerns about the bill's potential to restrict children's educational opportunities in computing and hacking. Lono suggested that if a child tampers with a device to disable a filter, they could be considered a violator under the bill's definition, which they believe could disenfranchise children.
HB253: Representative Corkran Support02:44:34.319 - 11:13:41 AM; Representative Corkran introduced HB253, explaining the purpose and mechanics of IOLTA (Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts) funds. He argued that the current distribution of these funds by the bar association to various nonprofits, including some with political agendas, is akin to a tax on citizens. Corkran proposed that these funds should instead be directed to the New Hampshire Public Defender's Office to support indigent criminal defense. He provided examples of how the funds are currently distributed to organizations like the Manchester NAACP, New Hampshire Catholic Charities, and the Disabilities Rights Center, which he views as politically motivated. He emphasized the importance of the Public Defender's Office in ensuring Sixth Amendment rights and suggested that this redirection of funds would be beneficial across political divides.
HB253: Representative Horgan Information Only02:51:01.359 - 11:20:08 AM; Representative Horgan questioned the implications of HB253, particularly the prohibition on the Public Defender's Office contributing to any nonprofit organizations. He asked if an amendment allowing disclosure of donations rather than a blanket prohibition would be considered, to which Representative Corkran responded negatively, citing concerns about continued political targeting of funds.
HB253: Representative Alexander Information Only02:53:46.960 - 11:22:53 AM; Representative Alexander inquired about the amount of money involved with IOLTA funds, with Representative Corkran estimating it to be about $2 million annually.
HB253: Representative McFarland Information Only02:53:46.960 - 11:22:53 AM; Representative McFarland asked about potential administrative costs if an amendment allowed lawyers to direct funds elsewhere. Representative Corkran responded that it would likely increase costs and could lead to funds being misdirected to activist organizations, undermining the bill's purpose.
HB253: Representative Smith Information Only02:56:11.040 - 11:25:18 AM; Representative Smith questioned the difference between funding criminal and civil case representation, with Representative Corkran acknowledging the importance of both but prioritizing criminal defense due to its higher stakes and the role of the Public Defender's Office.
HB253: Representative Mayos Information Only02:57:37.120 - 11:26:44 AM; Representative Mayos raised concerns about the potential impact of HB253 on the Public Defender's Office's ability to engage with nonprofit organizations for necessary services like training and language interpretation. Representative Corkran affirmed that under the bill, such engagements would result in the loss of IOLTA funding, emphasizing the need for a straightforward rule to prevent funds from being redirected to politically motivated causes.
HB253: Michael Capino, Chairman of the Board of Directors, New Hampshire Public Defender Information Only03:00:05.479 - 11:29:12 AM; Michael Capino provided information about the New Hampshire Public Defender, clarifying that it is a private corporation contracted by the Judicial Council, not a state agency, and does not engage in political contributions or funding of other nonprofits. He detailed the organization's focus on indigent criminal defense and its operations across the state, funded through a contract from the Judicial Council's budget. Capino highlighted the organization's commitment to providing Sixth Amendment protections and clarified that the Public Defender does not handle civil cases.
HB253: McFarland Information Only03:04:24.520 - 11:33:31 AM; McFarland, speaking on behalf of the public defenders office, clarified that while their budget is public as part of the judicial council, they are not fully funded. He highlighted the overburdening of current staff and high case loads, referencing a recent article in the New Hampshire Bar News. He mentioned that they had requested more funding than what is currently allocated in the judicial council's budget for the upcoming biennium. He pointed out the challenges in retaining lawyers and hiring new ones, suggesting that New Hampshire needs a larger public defender program with lower case loads for its defenders.
HB253: Kathy Cory Fox, New Hampshire Bar Association and New Hampshire Bar Foundation Oppose03:06:39.640 - 11:35:46 AM; Kathy Cory Fox, representing the New Hampshire Bar Association and the New Hampshire Bar Foundation, presented written testimony and highlighted the importance of the IOLTA fund, established through the New Hampshire Supreme Court rules. She noted that the Bar Foundation, a nonprofit public charity, supported legal assistance for over 14,000 individuals last fiscal year, emphasizing its role in improving access to justice and working with legal aid organizations, particularly in family court. She urged the committee to vote 'inexpedient to legislate' on HB253, arguing that the existing program is effective and should not be disrupted by the proposed legislation.
HB253: Representative Alexander Information Only03:08:56.920 - 11:38:03 AM; Representative Alexander questioned the potential impact on IOLTA funds if they were diverted to the public defenders office. He raised concerns about whether banks would reduce interest rates on these funds if such a diversion occurred. He expressed skepticism about the banks' reaction to funding the public defenders office, suggesting it might not be seen as negatively as implied.
HB253: Representative Smith Information Only03:10:02.319 - 11:39:09 AM; Representative Smith inquired whether IOLTA funds could be considered a tax, as suggested by the bill's sponsor. He sought clarity on this perspective, to which the response indicated that it had not been viewed in that manner before.
HB253: Representative Manos Information Only03:10:48.439 - 11:39:55 AM; Representative Manos asked about the impact of IOLTA funding on the court system, specifically how it assists indigent clients in civil cases. He referenced the previous session's special committee on family court, highlighting the high percentage of pro se litigants and the importance of legal aid in reducing court burdens.
HB253: Gail Kenny, United Church of Christ, Canaan, NH Oppose03:11:46.239 - 11:40:53 AM; Gail Kenny, a clergy person and former employee of the New Hampshire Bar Association, provided detailed testimony on the IOLTA (Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts) program. She emphasized her direct experience with the program's creation and implementation, arguing that the sponsor of HB253 did not fully understand the program's purpose and origins. Kenny highlighted the program's role in generating funds that would otherwise not exist, which are used to support civil legal services for the poor. She expressed two major concerns about the bill: the jurisdictional issue of the legislature overstepping its bounds by ignoring Supreme Court authority over the legal profession, and the moral implications of redirecting funds meant for civil legal services to criminal defense, which she argued is already a constitutional requirement. Kenny urged the committee to find the bill inexpedient to legislate due to these concerns.
HB253: Representative Alexander Information Only03:19:58.520 - 11:49:05 AM; Representative Alexander engaged in a discussion with Gail Kenny, questioning the moral implications of funding civil versus criminal legal services. He expressed confusion over Kenny's stance on the moral equivalence of funding for both types of services, suggesting that criminal cases might hold a higher moral obligation due to constitutional requirements.
HB253: Gail Kenny, United Church of Christ, Canaan, NH Oppose03:20:48.800 - 11:49:55 AM; In response to Representative Alexander, Gail Kenny clarified that access to justice is equally important in both criminal and civil courts, though the constitutional requirement exists only for criminal defense. She stressed that the IOLTA funds are carefully managed to avoid political or lobbying uses and are directed solely towards helping individuals in civil cases achieve justice.
HB253: Representative McFarland Information Only03:21:23.199 - 11:50:30 AM; Representative McFarland acknowledged Gail Kenny's testimony and asked about potential non-partisan civil legal service organizations that could receive IOLTA funds if the bill's proposal to redirect them were altered. Kenny responded by stating that multiple organizations in New Hampshire provide civil legal services and that the Supreme Court and the Bar Association carefully oversee the distribution of IOLTA funds to ensure they are used appropriately.
HB253: Aaron Krian, General Counsel for the Court System Information Only03:24:42.239 - 11:53:49 AM; Aaron Krian provided information on the role of the courts in relation to the IOLTA program, which is governed by Supreme Court Rule 50. He noted that the funds are primarily used for civil legal aid organizations and emphasized the frequent need for legal assistance among self-represented litigants in civil cases. Krian suggested that if there are concerns about the current use of IOLTA funds, the public and legislators could propose changes through the democratic process outlined in Rule 51. He also mentioned the potential confusion that could arise from having conflicting legislative and judicial rules and encouraged collaboration between the branches of government.
HB253: Representative Alexander Information Only03:27:35.120 - 11:56:42 AM; Representative Alexander inquired about the process for obtaining a legal opinion from the court regarding the use of IOLTA funds for criminal legal services. Aaron Krian explained that the legislature could send a legal question to the Supreme Court justices and also encouraged participation in the rule-making process under Rule 51.
HB253: Representative McFarland Information Only03:28:55.399 - 11:58:02 AM; Representative McFarland asked Aaron Krian about the governance of the organizations receiving IOLTA funds under Supreme Court Rule 50. Krian responded by noting that these organizations are typically 501c3 entities, which have legal restrictions on their activities, including political donations, but they may engage with the legislature to discuss their observations and concerns.
HB253: Representative Smith Information Only03:29:54.239 - 11:59:01 AM; Representative Smith used the example of the Disabilities Rights Center to discuss how some might perceive the work of IOLTA-funded organizations as political rather than constitutional or statutory. This raised questions about the potential political nature of funding decisions.
HB253: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:31:21.560 - 12:00:28 PM; The speaker responded to Representative Smith's rhetorical question by discussing the frequency of rule changes within the court system in response to public concerns. They emphasized that different legislators have varying views on what is important and encouraged bringing forward concerns, even if they might lead to disagreements on terms like 'political'. The speaker also mentioned their role as the ADA coordinator for the judicial branch, noting common inquiries about ADA representation and the need to refer individuals to appropriate legal services outside of the court system.
HB253: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:33:02.239 - 12:02:09 PM; The speaker continued to address Representative Horgan's question, discussing the example of the Disability Rights Center (DRC) and their legal actions. They noted that the perception of an incident's severity can differ between parties, and that lawsuits might be based on broader patterns of conduct. The speaker also mentioned the DRC's role in assisting people with disability rights violations but stressed the importance of transparency and public participation in court funding discussions.
HB391: Representative Corrin Support03:35:47.199 - 12:04:54 PM; Representative Corrin introduced House Bill 391, which aims to address strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). They explained that SLAPP lawsuits are often used not for their stated purpose but to intimidate smaller parties through legal costs, a practice known as lawfare. The bill seeks to protect constitutionally protected activities like free speech and activism from such abuse. They mentioned that while negotiations to merge this bill with another anti-SLAPP proposal failed, they support the other bill despite its narrower focus.
HB391: Christopher Suert, Franklin, NH Oppose03:42:02.199 - 12:11:09 PM; Christopher Suert, a practicing attorney from Franklin, NH, opposed House Bill 391. He argued that the bill would give special privileges to First Amendment rights over other constitutional rights, such as the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Amendments. He expressed concern that the bill could create lawfare by allowing those claiming First Amendment violations to seek attorney fees, costs, and damages, which he believes is unprecedented in New Hampshire and goes against the principle of equal rights under the law.
HB391: Marissa Chase, NHJ Oppose03:44:50.760 - 12:13:57 PM; Marissa Chase, Executive Director of NHJ, opposed House Bill 391, echoing the sentiments of Christopher Suert. She highlighted that the bill's language does not align with its stated intent and could create broad immunities, which NHJ opposes. Chase referenced the previous year's version of the bill (HB1475) and the Judiciary Committee's unanimous decision to find it inexpedient to legislate. She warned that the bill could be misused by civil defendants to gain procedural advantages, potentially skewing the legal playing field.
HB400: Pam Brown, Representative for Rockingham, Kingston, and East Kingston Support04:16:57.080 - 12:46:04 PM; Representative Pam Brown, the prime sponsor of HB400, introduced the bill, emphasizing her background as a 40-year college professor and former member of the Sanborn Regional School Board in Kingston. She explained that her bill aims to amend RSA 91a to require that meetings between elected officials and public labor unions for collective bargaining be open to the public. She argued that current closed-door negotiations significantly influence annual property taxes and impose numerous compulsory rules without public scrutiny. Brown cited examples where transparency in negotiations has led to better outcomes, referencing initiatives by the Portland Public Schools and the National Education Association. She believes that public negotiations encourage honest debate and more defensible contracts, allowing community input and understanding of the bargaining process.
HB400: Representative Perez Information Only04:22:07.560 - 12:51:14 PM; Representative Perez sought clarification on the bill, questioning if negotiations between town councils and public sector unions, such as those for the fire department, would need to be public meetings according to the bill. Representative Brown confirmed that the bill would indeed require such meetings to be public when both parties are negotiating together, but not when they are separately planning their strategies.
HB400: Representative Horgan Information Only04:23:16.560 - 12:52:23 PM; Representative Horgan inquired about the position of the NH chapter of the NEA on the bill, noting that the national NEA supports open meetings. Representative Brown mentioned that while she is unsure of the NH NEA's stance, she hopes they would support the national position and suggested they might provide documentation to confirm their position.
HB400: Representative Andress Support04:24:04.520 - 12:53:11 PM; Representative Andress expressed support for the bill and asked why union contracts are not disclosed to the public before voting. Representative Brown responded that she has always been able to view draft contracts in her role, suggesting that the bill does not directly address pre-vote disclosure but focuses on the transparency of the negotiation process itself.
HB400: Representative Manos Information Only04:25:27.920 - 12:54:34 PM; Representative Manos sought clarification on the language of the bill, specifically about which parts of the collective bargaining process would remain confidential. Representative Brown explained that strategy sessions by each party would still be private, but the actual negotiation meetings between the two parties would be public.
HB400: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:26:07.560 - 12:55:14 PM; An unidentified speaker further clarified the difference between strategy sessions and negotiation meetings, explaining that unions can strategize privately, similar to a caucus, but the actual negotiations should be public.
HB400: Representative Paige Information Only04:27:14.760 - 12:56:21 PM; Representative Paige questioned if the intent of the bill was to address agreements that local school districts might not agree with, suggesting that local control and voter influence might be a more direct remedy. Representative Brown responded by emphasizing the importance of transparency in public sector negotiations, arguing that public meetings would allow taxpayers and citizens to understand and contribute to the process.
HB400: Representative Forg Information Only04:29:28.279 - 12:58:35 PM; Representative Forg raised concerns about potential disadvantages to management under the bill, noting that unions can meet privately while public bodies might be required to meet openly. Representative Brown responded by clarifying that both parties can still meet privately to strategize, and she did not see how the bill would inhibit either side's ability to do so.
HB400: Representative Alexander Information Only04:30:28.760 - 12:59:35 PM; Representative Alexander sought clarification on whether a quorum of the select board could still meet in non-public to discuss strategy on negotiating with a union if HB400 passes. They discussed their experience with school boards where a subset of members met to discuss strategy without constituting a quorum. It was confirmed that under the proposed law, a strategy session could still be non-public, even if it involved a quorum of the select board from Gtown.
HB400: Representative Bergeron Information Only04:31:32.040 - 1:00:39 PM; Representative Bergeron inquired about the National Education Association (NEA) and whether their meetings would need to be recorded like other public bodies. It was clarified that NEA strategy sessions would not be recorded as they are confidential.
HB400: Representative Trip Information Only04:32:49.600 - 1:01:56 PM; Representative Trip discussed the school board's negotiating committee in Derry, questioning if it would be considered a public meeting without a school board quorum. It was explained that the negotiating team's strategy sessions could be non-public under HB400 and would not be considered a quorum of the school board.
HB400: Representative Andros Information Only04:33:39.438 - 1:02:46 PM; Representative Andros asked if there were any other New Hampshire laws regarding unions and negotiations that might conflict with HB400. The speaker was not aware of any conflicts but offered to look into it.
HB400: Scott Gober, Teamsters in New Hampshire Oppose04:35:28.438 - 1:04:35 PM; Scott Gober from Teamsters in New Hampshire expressed opposition to HB400, stating that it would slow down the bargaining process, encourage performance for public consumption rather than effective bargaining, potentially expose private information, and increase public costs for publishing and live streaming negotiations. He emphasized that final contracts are already part of the public record.
HB400: Doug Ingersol, Executive Director of the Public Employee Labor Relations Board Information Only04:37:33.080 - 1:06:40 PM; Doug Ingersol, the executive director of the Public Employee Labor Relations Board, provided statistics and information about the collective bargaining process under RSA 273a. He noted that all collective bargaining agreements are filed with the board and published online, and he highlighted the legislative history related to this topic, particularly mentioning activity in 2011. He mentioned that there are approximately 620 collective bargaining agreements on file, representing about 645 bargaining units.
HB400: Brian Hawkins, representing NEA New Hampshire Oppose04:50:59.360 - 1:20:06 PM; Brian Hawkins, representing NEA New Hampshire, expressed opposition to HB400. He highlighted concerns that the bill could slow down the negotiating process, which is already under strict timelines to present agreements to voting bodies. Hawkins pointed out the challenges of scheduling negotiations, especially given current workforce issues, and argued that adding a layer of public meeting requirements would complicate this further. He also noted that cost items must go before voters, and the decision to hold open meetings should be left to the negotiating parties. Hawkins responded to questions about the potential for parties to voluntarily conduct negotiations publicly and the possibility of local voters mandating public negotiations, maintaining his opposition to the bill even if it were amended to allow local options for public negotiations.
HB400: Unnamed Representative Information Only04:57:48.600 - 1:26:55 PM; The speaker questions whether a candidate running for school board could make their platform about being open and transparent with negotiations, thus removing the need for legislative involvement. They suggest this could be a more direct way for voters to decide on the transparency of contract negotiations in their town. The speaker expresses a conservative view favoring limited government involvement.
HB400: Sarah Burke Cohen, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose04:59:33.798 - 1:28:40 PM; Sarah Burke Cohen from the New Hampshire Municipal Association opposes the bill, arguing that collective bargaining negotiations should remain private to foster compromise. She expresses concerns that public negotiations could lead to grandstanding, prolong negotiations, increase costs, and complicate recordkeeping due to the need to switch between public and nonpublic sessions. She also raises the possibility of subcommittees appointing a single negotiator, which would bypass public meeting requirements.
HB400: Gail Kenny, Resident of Canaan, NH Oppose05:03:00.440 - 1:32:07 PM; Gail Kenny, a resident of Canaan, New Hampshire, opposes the bill based on her experience on both sides of contract negotiations. She argues that sensitive negotiations require a give-and-take process that could be hindered by public scrutiny, potentially leading to less productive outcomes. She believes that public negotiations could affect the re-election chances of public officials involved, thus impacting the negotiation process negatively. She suggests that the proposal has been studied before and found not to be in the best interest of all parties involved.
HB400: Gail Kenny, Resident of Canaan, NH Information Only05:03:00.440 - 1:32:07 PM; Gail Kenny's testimony concluded just before this snippet, so no additional summary is available from the provided text.
HB400: Reed, Judiciary Committee Support05:08:50.840 - 1:37:57 PM; Reed began by addressing the Judiciary Committee, critiquing the analysis of HB601, stating it does not create new criminal penalties but establishes two private rights of action. The first right targets companies for misstating environmental impacts, which falls under the consumer protection act as deceptive practices. The second right allows lawsuits against fossil fuel companies for their role in climate disasters, provided certain damage thresholds are met. Reed supports regulating businesses for environmental impact and believes that allowing these issues to be resolved in courts aligns with free market principles, though traditionally, regulation before damage is preferred. He emphasized that the bill clarifies deceptive practices in consumer protection acts, specifically addressing greenwashing and the misleading claims about Net Zero. Additionally, Reed highlighted the specific criteria needed to sue fossil fuel companies under the bill, noting no New Hampshire-based company meets the emissions threshold, but companies operating in New Hampshire do. He also pointed out the increasing frequency of climate disasters and the necessity for individuals to have legal recourse for damages over $10,000. Reed mentioned that similar legislation has been proposed in other states, and he conferred with the Center for Climate Integrity during the bill's drafting.
HB400: Mike Mino, Communications Director for the Center for Climate Integrity, Resident of Lebanon, NH Support05:16:53.200 - 1:46:00 PM; Mike Mino, representing the Center for Climate Integrity, supported HB601, stating that major oil and gas companies have known about the catastrophic potential of their products but chose to mislead the public and policy makers. He discussed the ongoing deception by these companies, including greenwashing, and the legal actions taken by other states against them. Mino emphasized the impact of climate change on New Hampshire, including sea level rise and extreme weather events, and argued that HB601 would provide a tool for New Hampshire residents and businesses to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for damages caused by climate deception. He urged the committee to support the bill, highlighting its role in ensuring fairness and providing justice through legal avenues.
HB485: Representative Ron Dun, Laconia, NH Support05:46:05.478 - 2:15:12 PM; Representative Ron Dun introduced HB485, which aims to allow lottery winners to remain anonymous under certain conditions, such as being victims of domestic violence or having an active restraining order. The bill does not require winners to put money into a trust to maintain anonymity, addressing a concern raised by the Lottery Commissioner, Charlie McIntyre. Dun emphasized that this bill would protect winners who fear for their safety and well-being if they were to claim their prize publicly. He confirmed that the bill does not affect the current option for all winners to remain anonymous by using a trust.
HB485: Representative Henry Gon, Hillsborough, NH Support05:49:11.320 - 2:18:18 PM; Representative Henry Gon supported HB485, emphasizing the importance of protecting the privacy and safety of lottery winners, especially victims of domestic violence or those at risk. He argued that announcing winners publicly could put them in danger and suggested that while the bill is a good start, he hopes for broader privacy protections in the future.
HB485: Sean Faber, Londonderry, NH Support05:50:15.040 - 2:19:22 PM; Sean Faber spoke in favor of HB485, citing a case in Australia where a non-custodial parent kidnapped their child after a lottery win. He pointed out that 18 other states have similar laws and emphasized the constitutional right to privacy in New Hampshire. Faber argued that the bill would prevent potential lawsuits and safety hazards, such as domestic violence incidents triggered by public knowledge of a win. He also expressed hope that the bill's protections could be expanded in the future.
HB485: Sean Faber, Londonderry, NH Support05:50:15.040 - 2:19:22 PM; Sean Faber from Londonderry, NH, expressed support for the bill. He emphasized the importance of the bill for the citizens and advocated for its passage. His testimony concluded at 05:50:15.040.
HB485: Unnamed Speaker Support05:51:43.040 - 2:20:50 PM; The speaker supported the bill, stating its limited scope was beneficial for citizens. They addressed concerns about transparency in the lottery system and promotional purposes, explaining that the bill's wording and the approval from the head of the Lottery Commission adequately addressed these issues.
HB485: Representative Andress Information Only05:52:38.040 - 2:21:45 PM; Representative Andress asked questions about the bill, specifically regarding its scope and the reasons for not expanding it to everyone. The discussion clarified that the bill ensures transparency in the lottery and addresses promotional concerns, with the approval of the Lottery Commission.

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