Committee Summary for House Judiciary (04/16/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB141 00:04:25.000 - 9:02:21 AM	Public Hearing	(New Title) extending the time to petition for a new trial in certain cases and relative to adding library cards and membership status to the list of confidential library user records.	Gannon, Bill(R)[B-]2025
SB268 01:20:03.719 - 10:17:59 AM	Public Hearing	permitting classification of individuals based on biological sex under certain limited circumstances.	Avard, Kevin(R)[B]2025
SB148 03:06:04.960 - 12:04:00 PM	General Working Session	prohibiting those convicted of murder from financially profiting from the death of the victim.	Sullivan, Victoria(R)[A-]2025
SB268 03:56:17.680 - 12:54:13 PM	Public Hearing	permitting classification of individuals based on biological sex under certain limited circumstances.	Avard, Kevin(R)[B]2025

SB141: Joshua Shower, Legislative Aid for Senator Ganon Support00:04:25.000 - 9:02:21 AM; Joshua Shower introduced Senate Bill 141 FN, emphasizing the importance of the bill in ensuring that innocent people have the opportunity to file a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. He highlighted that the current three-year deadline for filing a motion for a new trial is too restrictive, especially given that it can take an average of 11 years to identify and correct a wrongful conviction. Shower explained that the bill proposes a narrow exception to this deadline, allowing individuals to file a petition if they have new evidence, forensic testing, or scientific understanding. He also noted the low number of exonerations in New Hampshire and stressed that the bill aims to improve the justice system by providing a pathway to freedom for wrongfully convicted individuals.
SB141: Winnie, Innocence Project Support00:08:29.599 - 9:06:25 AM; Winnie from the Innocence Project expressed support for Senate Bill 141, stating that it would improve the post-conviction mechanism in New Hampshire. She discussed the limitations of the current pathways for proving innocence, such as habeas corpus petitions and motions for new trials under RSA 526, which have a three-year deadline. Winnie emphasized that this deadline is too restrictive, as it can take years for new evidence or scientific understanding to emerge. She cited examples of changes in forensic science, such as arson science, and argued that the bill would create a narrow exception to the three-year bar, allowing individuals to file petitions based on newly discovered evidence, forensic testing, or scientific understanding. She clarified that the bill does not create a new cause of action but allows for petitions to be heard.
SB141: Cynthia, Innocence Project Support00:13:27.200 - 9:11:23 AM; Cynthia from the Innocence Project provided additional comments in support of Senate Bill 141. She handed out a fact sheet and a chart to illustrate the narrow exception the bill aims to create and the existing standard for denying motions for new trials. Cynthia emphasized that the bill does not create a new cause of action but allows individuals to file petitions within a longer timeframe. She discussed examples where current law prevents access to the court, such as cases involving outdated arson science. Cynthia also addressed concerns about potential frivolous litigation, stating that the bill creates a narrow exception and does not change the standard for granting new trials. She expressed appreciation for the chair's proposed amendment but noted that it was more comprehensive than what the bill aims to achieve.
SB141: Thomas Farardi, Director of the Division of Public Protection, New Hampshire Attorney General's Office Oppose00:34:07.440 - 9:32:03 AM; Thomas Farardi, a former Straford County Attorney and current Director of the Division of Public Protection, expressed opposition to Senate Bill 141. He argued that the bill is a solution looking for a problem, as New Hampshire's expansive habeas law already provides avenues for addressing new evidence. Farardi emphasized that prosecutors take their role as ministers of justice seriously and have resolved issues without the artificial three-year time limit. He referenced Governor Sununu's veto message on a similar bill, Senate Bill 507, which highlighted concerns about the potential flood of litigation and the lack of consideration for victims. Farardi suggested that the bill could be modified to include more scientific disciplines and proposed a study committee to explore expanding protections similar to those in RSA 651-D. He expressed concerns about the front-end work required for each case under the current bill and the potential burden on the court system.
SB141: Thomas Farardi, Director of the Division of Public Protection, New Hampshire Attorney General's Office Information Only00:46:02.599 - 9:43:58 AM; Thomas Farardi addressed concerns about the language in the bill, specifically the phrase 'but is not limited to,' warning that its inclusion could lead to a flood of new trial motions. He clarified that he is not to write legislation but can identify problematic issues. Farardi responded to queries about the potential for increased litigation if the bill were passed, noting that it could lead to new forms of legal action despite existing restrictions on successive habeas corpus filings. He also discussed the potential impact of the bill compared to the current system and the treatment of post-conviction issues in other states. Farardi suggested that the Department of Justice would review a proposed amendment and provide feedback.
SB141: Representative Burch Information Only00:52:29.119 - 9:50:25 AM; Representative Burch questioned the potential for a 'floodgate' of litigation due to the bill, referencing the increasing number of claims related to withheld exculpatory evidence. He asked if a hypothetical scenario where a significant number of cases were brought under the new bill, with some being meritorious, would be negative, to which the response was that it would not be.
SB141: Representative Buzz Sher, Portsmith W3, Rockingham District 26 Support00:56:36.960 - 9:54:32 AM; Representative Buzz Sher, with extensive experience in the New Hampshire criminal justice system, supported the bill. He shared his background as a public defender and law professor, emphasizing his involvement with innocence project cases. Sher disputed the Attorney General's concern about a flood of litigation, arguing that most motions for a new trial are based on ineffective assistance of counsel, not newly discovered evidence as required by SB141. He also highlighted that the bill's language would prevent frivolous petitions. Sher addressed victim rights, suggesting existing statutes are sufficient. He critiqued a proposed amendment for potentially setting too high a standard for prisoners to meet before getting a hearing, and while supportive of a broader review of post-conviction procedures, he advocated for passing SB141 as it stands to address current issues.
SB141: Representative Smith Information Only01:13:20.320 - 10:11:16 AM; Representative Smith asked Representative Buzz Sher if he believed the criminal justice system in New Hampshire is perfect, to which Sher responded negatively. Smith then inquired if SB141 is narrowly tailored to address a specific issue without attempting to overhaul the criminal justice system, to which Sher responded affirmatively.
SB141: Representative Mana Information Only01:14:45.040 - 10:12:41 AM; Representative Mana questioned whether SB141 could be incorporated into the postconviction DNA testing statute 651D. Representative Sher argued against this, stating that SB141 should cover other types of scientific evidence like bitemark and arson analysis, which have been debunked over time. Mana then asked if 651D could be broadened to include any newly discovered scientific evidence, to which Sher expressed reluctance, favoring SB141 as a standalone proposition.
SB141: Representative Tur Information Only01:16:14.040 - 10:14:10 AM; Representative Tur asked Representative Sher about his familiarity with other states that have no cap on time limitations for criminal cases and any negative consequences. Sher responded that he was not aware of negative consequences and highlighted the positive development of integrity units in some states that review old cases for issues.
SB268: Senator Kevin Avard, District 12, Nashua, Hollis, Brookline, Mason, Rindge, New Ipswich Support01:20:03.719 - 10:17:59 AM; Senator Kevin Avard introduced SB268, which provides a definition for biological sex and allows public and private institutions to designate spaces for biological males and females without fear of discrimination lawsuits. He emphasized that the bill enables but does not mandate the protection of women-only spaces in various settings like schools, prisons, and businesses.
SB268: Representative Han Information Only01:21:23.440 - 10:19:19 AM; Representative Han questioned the definition of biological sex in SB268, noting its circular nature and the exclusion of intersex individuals. He also raised concerns about the bill's reference to the Commission on Human Rights, which might be discontinued. Senator Avard acknowledged the definition and expressed uncertainty about the future of the Commission.
SB268: Representative Smith Information Only01:22:31.760 - 10:20:27 AM; Representative Smith asked why SB268 focuses on protecting women but not men, to which Senator Avard explained that women are generally less physically strong than men and cited examples of women feeling unsafe in the presence of men in certain situations. Smith then posed a question about countries with strict gender segregation policies, which Avard found offensive and unrelated to the bill. Lastly, Smith asked about separating girls who have reached puberty from those who have not in locker rooms and bathrooms, to which Avard clarified that the bill allows institutions to make such decisions based on biological sex.
SB268: Senator Perez Support01:28:24.320 - 10:26:20 AM; Senator Perez supported the idea that while equity for all cannot be achieved 100% of the time, there is an obligation to provide safety and comfort for the majority, especially in sensitive situations, which aligns with the intent of SB268.
SB268: Representative Tur Information Only01:29:41.920 - 10:27:37 AM; Representative Tur questioned the lack of specificity in defining biological sex in SB268, particularly in scenarios where an individual might have female genitalia but male secondary characteristics due to hormone therapy. Senator Avard clarified that the bill is based on biological sex as defined by DNA and emphasized that there should be no confusion about this definition.
SB268: Senator Avar Support01:34:28.800 - 10:32:24 AM; Senator Avar supports the bill, emphasizing its purpose to allow individual business owners and schools to designate bathroom facilities based on biological sex without fear of discrimination or litigation. The senator clarified that the bill does not involve policing or requiring DNA tests, but simply enables entities to set policies regarding bathroom usage.
SB268: Representative Burch Information Only01:35:18.639 - 10:33:14 AM; Representative Burch asked how the determination of biological sex would be made on the spot for bathroom usage, questioning the practicality of state legislation in this regard. The senator responded that the bill's purpose is to allow entities to establish their own policies without state enforcement.
SB268: Representative Ford Information Only01:36:08.080 - 10:34:04 AM; Representative Ford discussed the current practices at the State House and with school groups, noting that facilities are used based on presentation rather than biological sex verification. The representative raised concerns about potential privacy invasions and the practicality of enforcing bathroom policies.
SB268: Representative Tur Information Only01:38:09.679 - 10:36:05 AM; Representative Tur questioned the potential for privacy invasion and the limits of authority under the bill, particularly regarding requests for proof of biological sex. The senator clarified that the bill does not mandate such measures but allows for policy setting by entities.
SB268: Representative Cout Information Only01:42:04.480 - 10:40:00 AM; Representative Cout inquired if the bill would allow entities like school districts to develop policies based on original birth certificates, to which the senator affirmed that the bill enables such policy development without mandating specific methods.
SB268: Representative Burch Information Only01:44:03.119 - 10:41:59 AM; Representative Burch raised concerns about the bill potentially legitimizing a wide range of protective measures, including DNA testing, to which the senator responded that the bill does not allow for such measures but protects policy-making without discrimination concerns.
SB268: Alice Wade, State Representative for Dover Ward 2 Oppose01:46:01.520 - 10:43:57 AM; Representative Alice Wade from Dover opposed the bill, sharing a story about Danny Davis, a tall cisgender woman who faced harassment in a bathroom due to mistaken identity as transgender. Wade argued that the bill could lead to unintended consequences and harassment, emphasizing that it targets a small group without addressing real state issues. She urged focus on actual problems rather than legislating against transgender individuals.
SB268: Representative Alexander Information Only01:50:11.199 - 10:48:07 AM; Representative Alexander questioned Representative Wade's claim about better things to do, citing public support for protecting women's sports and spaces. Wade responded by challenging the notion of public support, highlighting the overwhelming opposition to such bills in public hearings and emphasizing the small number of transgender athletes affected.
SB268: Representative Hard Information Only01:53:05.599 - 10:51:01 AM; Representative Hard discussed the unreliability of polling data and pointed out that even with laws in place, incidents of harassment still occur, questioning the effectiveness of the bill in preventing such issues. Wade agreed, stressing the impracticality of enforcing bathroom policies based on biological sex.
SB268: Oliver Bonama Oppose01:55:06.880 - 10:53:02 AM; Oliver Bonama opposed the bill, arguing against the notion that women need protection from transgender individuals, which they viewed as rooted in sexist ideology. Bonama provided data on harassment and assault rates against transgender individuals and questioned the focus on bathrooms rather than addressing sexual assault directly. They also discussed the complexities of biological sex and the minimal impact of transgender athletes on sports.
SB268: Representative Heath Howard, representing the towns of Stratford and Barrington in Stratford District 4 Oppose01:59:35.599 - 10:57:31 AM; Representative Heath Howard expressed opposition to SB268, highlighting the potential for the bill to legalize discrimination based on the whims of business owners. He argued that allowing such discrimination could lead to widespread societal harm, particularly affecting individuals whose gender expression may not align with societal norms. He mentioned the risk of subjecting people to the arbitrary decisions of others regarding restroom usage and emphasized the potential for opening a 'Pandora's box' of discrimination and civil liberties violations.
SB268: Bill Hamlin from Hanover, New Hampshire Support02:07:00.560 - 11:04:56 AM; Bill Hamlin expressed support for SB268, emphasizing the importance of biological distinctions as indicated on state-issued driver's licenses. He shared personal experiences related to his daughter's involvement in swimming and the impact of transgender participation on women's sports. Hamlin argued that the bill is necessary to protect women's rights and highlighted concerns about bullying and the broader cultural ideology he believes is at play.
SB268: Nancy Brennan Oppose02:10:22.599 - 11:08:18 AM; Nancy Brennan opposed SB268, citing Governor Sununu's previous veto of a similar bill and warning of the broader implications of such legislation. She drew historical parallels to the persecution of transgender people in Nazi Germany and expressed concern about the erosion of civil rights and due process for marginalized groups. Brennan argued that the bill is part of a larger pattern of discrimination and fascism.
SB268: Betsy Harrington from Derry Support02:13:51.840 - 11:11:47 AM; Betsy Harrington supported SB268, sharing her experiences from playing field hockey against boys in Massachusetts. She argued for the necessity of maintaining separate sports teams and facilities based on biological sex to ensure safety and privacy. Harrington emphasized the importance of recognizing biological differences and the potential risks associated with ignoring them.
SB268: Beth Scar from Nashua Support02:18:12.599 - 11:16:08 AM; Beth Scar supported SB268, wearing a suffragette sash to symbolize her stance on women's rights. She argued that the bill is necessary to protect women's safety and privacy, particularly in restrooms, locker rooms, and prisons. Scar criticized the notion that trans-identified males should have access to women's spaces, citing statistics on sexual assault and the potential risks to women and girls.
SB268: Steven Scar from Nashua Support02:21:22.040 - 11:19:18 AM; Steven Scar supported SB268, arguing that the state should not coerce girls to ignore biological realities in favor of gender identities. He criticized the circular reasoning and coercion used to enforce gender identity laws and emphasized the importance of recognizing objective truth. Scar referenced George Orwell to highlight the dangers of losing sight of reality.
SB268: Evelyn Olman from Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender Support02:23:44.960 - 11:21:40 AM; Evelyn Olman supported SB268 on behalf of her organization, emphasizing the importance of biological reality in defining sex and ensuring fair opportunities and safe spaces for women and girls. She argued that laws protecting women's rights become incoherent without a clear understanding of biological sex and urged Democrats to continue defending women's rights by supporting the bill.
SB268: Isabella Peters from Cornerstone and representing herself as a Granite State woman Support02:26:58.160 - 11:24:54 AM; Isabella Peters supported SB268, sharing her experiences with mixed-sex gym facilities and the importance of privacy and dignity. She referenced Riley Gaines' book and emphasized the scientific disadvantage women face in sports due to biological differences. Peters argued that the bill is necessary to clarify New Hampshire law and protect women's rights to safety, comfort, and privacy.
SB268: Mia Inglebert from Manchester, New Hampshire Oppose02:30:48.000 - 11:28:44 AM; Mia Inglebert opposed SB268, questioning where transgender women should use restrooms and locker rooms. She criticized the bill's reliance on subjective criteria and potential invasions of privacy, arguing that it forces transgender people into no-win situations. Inglebert highlighted the increased risk of violence against transgender individuals and the negative impact on their public life and mental health.
SB268: Audrey Holst from Nashua Oppose02:33:57.960 - 11:31:53 AM; Audrey Holst opposed SB268, sharing her uneventful experiences sharing spaces with transgender individuals at the gym and a conference. She argued that there is no evidence that transgender people pose a threat and cited research supporting her claims. Holst emphasized the potential harm the bill could cause to transgender individuals, including increased harassment and violence, and urged the committee to table the bill.
SB268: Courtney Reid, ACLU of New Hampshire Oppose02:40:04.000 - 11:38:00 AM; Courtney Reid from the ACLU of New Hampshire spoke in opposition to SB268, highlighting constitutional and statutory concerns regarding transgender rights. She argued that the bill would make transgender people unsafe and unwelcome in public life by permitting discrimination, contradicting the state's inclusivity efforts and federal anti-discrimination laws. Reid questioned the purpose of the bill, stating it does not enhance safety, citing data showing that inclusive restroom policies reduce assault rates, while policies like those in SB268 increase violence. She emphasized the need for strict scrutiny when laws permit sex classification and offered to provide relevant case law to the committee.
SB268: Louise Spencer, Concord, New Hampshire Oppose02:43:11.600 - 11:41:07 AM; Louise Spencer from Concord, New Hampshire, expressed opposition to SB268, criticizing it for enabling discrimination against transgender people under the guise of a law against discrimination. She shared a personal story about her father's struggles as a gay man, illustrating the harm caused by societal rejection. Spencer argued that the bill forces transgender individuals to deny their identity, causing significant harm. She also raised concerns about the bill's logic potentially leading to broader segregation and highlighted the fear a transgender child might feel in a bathroom, suggesting that addressing such fears should be the focus.
SB268: Nancy Beerman, New Boston Support02:46:37.200 - 11:44:33 AM; Nancy Beerman from New Boston supported SB268, recounting an incident involving a 10-year-old boy who felt unsafe using the boys' bathroom due to a transgender girl using it. She described the lack of empathy and accommodations from the school and mentioned similar issues in other schools, including girls feeling uncomfortable with a transgender boy in their bathroom. Beerman emphasized the need for the law to be clarified to protect children, citing cases of sexual assault among children and recent changes in Department of Health and Human Services policies regarding gender dysphoria.
SB268: Ann Marie Banfield, Parental Rights Advocate Support02:51:55.920 - 11:49:51 AM; Ann Marie Banfield, a parental rights advocate, supported SB268, sharing an early experience of a boy distressed by a girl in the restroom. She argued that the bill addresses the modesty concerns of women and girls, suggesting that ignoring these feelings could lead to dangerous situations. Banfield reported instances where girls were told to ignore their discomfort and mentioned assaults by transgender individuals in bathrooms. She emphasized the need for legislative guidance for schools and criticized the lack of solutions that do not compromise women's privacy and safety.
SB148: Chair Information Only03:06:04.960 - 12:04:00 PM; The Chair opened the subcommittee session on SB 148 and mentioned allowing members to eat during the session. They received feedback from the Attorney General's office, specifically from Senior Assistant Attorney General Benjamin Agatti, regarding issues with the bill's language. The Chair suggested four areas of the bill that need language cleanup, particularly the phrase 'felonious and intentional killing' on specific lines of the bill. They also noted feedback from Attorney Layman from the Senate Council's office suggesting the addition of 'feloniously, intentionally or recklessly killing' to clarify the language, which would allow estates to be collected even in cases of reckless driving.
SB148: Chair Information Only03:07:13.200 - 12:05:09 PM; The Chair continued discussing the feedback and mentioned the sponsor's preference to keep the language of 'capital murder, first-degree murder, second-degree murder' intact. They also introduced an amendment that addresses three out of the four issues raised by the Assistant Attorney General. The amendment focuses on covering murder in the first degree only and does not include second-degree murder or reckless or negligent crimes.
SB148: Committee Member Information Only03:09:20.720 - 12:07:16 PM; The Committee Member expressed concerns about the bill expanding to cover more areas of law, particularly regarding the prohibition of profiting from negligence-related incidents. They highlighted the complexity of allowing private citizens to bring actions in probate court, which could lead to complications in both defending and prosecuting parties. They also mentioned the removal of a section that would allow the court to determine criminal liability based on preponderance of evidence without a criminal conviction.
SB148: Committee Member Information Only03:11:26.120 - 12:09:22 PM; The Committee Member discussed the removal of section 507:14, which dealt with actions after conviction, and clarified that the amendment focuses on murder in the first degree under RSA 630:1-A. They addressed the removal of the probate court section (562-A:6) to avoid issues with preponderance of evidence and the use of probate court proceedings in criminal cases.
SB148: Committee Member Information Only03:12:39.920 - 12:10:35 PM; The Committee Member continued discussing the amendment and its focus on first-degree murder only, referencing the definition under RSA 630:1-A. They highlighted the removal of the probate court section to simplify the bill and avoid legal complications.
SB148: Committee Member Information Only03:15:58.920 - 12:13:54 PM; The Committee Member discussed the types of murder covered under first-degree murder and the concerns about the bill's language not covering murder-suicide scenarios. They emphasized the importance of ensuring that the bill's purpose—to prevent profiting from murder—is maintained without creating a complex process in probate court.
SB148: Committee Member Information Only03:16:52.800 - 12:14:48 PM; The Committee Member expressed concerns about the probate court process and its potential misuse by prosecutors to build criminal cases. They discussed the removal of the probate section to avoid these issues and questioned the practical implications of the bill in real-life scenarios, such as inheritance after a murder conviction.
SB148: Committee Member Information Only03:22:07.600 - 12:20:03 PM; The Committee Member discussed the timing issue in probate court and the potential for complications if the probate process concludes before a criminal conviction. They suggested that the probate court should wait for a criminal conviction before distributing assets and discussed the concept of 'clean hands' in preventing murderers from inheriting.
SB148: Committee Member Information Only03:22:59.040 - 12:20:55 PM; The Committee Member continued discussing the timing issue and the potential for complications in probate court if the criminal case is not resolved. They suggested that the probate court should wait for a criminal conviction before distributing assets and discussed the concept of 'clean hands' in preventing murderers from inheriting.
SB148: Committee Member Information Only03:24:15.520 - 12:22:11 PM; The Committee Member discussed the potential for complications in probate court if the criminal case is not resolved. They suggested that the probate court should wait for a criminal conviction before distributing assets and discussed the concept of 'clean hands' in preventing murderers from inheriting.
SB148: Committee Member Information Only03:25:34.640 - 12:23:30 PM; The Committee Member discussed the potential for complications in probate court if the criminal case is not resolved. They suggested that the probate court should wait for a criminal conviction before distributing assets and discussed the concept of 'clean hands' in preventing murderers from inheriting.
SB148: Committee Member Information Only03:26:52.800 - 12:24:48 PM; The Committee Member discussed the potential for complications in probate court if the criminal case is not resolved. They suggested that the probate court should wait for a criminal conviction before distributing assets and discussed the concept of 'clean hands' in preventing murderers from inheriting.
SB148: Committee Member Information Only03:28:16.640 - 12:26:12 PM; The Committee Member discussed the potential for complications in probate court if the criminal case is not resolved. They suggested that the probate court should wait for a criminal conviction before distributing assets and discussed the concept of 'clean hands' in preventing murderers from inheriting.
SB148: Committee Member Information Only03:29:39.600 - 12:27:35 PM; The Committee Member discussed the potential for complications in probate court if the criminal case is not resolved. They suggested that the probate court should wait for a criminal conviction before distributing assets and discussed the concept of 'clean hands' in preventing murderers from inheriting.
SB148: Committee Member Information Only03:30:46.640 - 12:28:42 PM; The Committee Member discussed the potential for complications in probate court if the criminal case is not resolved. They suggested that the probate court should wait for a criminal conviction before distributing assets and discussed the concept of 'clean hands' in preventing murderers from inheriting.
SB148: Committee Member Information Only03:31:57.279 - 12:29:53 PM; The Committee Member discussed the potential for complications in probate court if the criminal case is not resolved. They suggested that the probate court should wait for a criminal conviction before distributing assets and discussed the concept of 'clean hands' in preventing murderers from inheriting.
SB148: Committee Member Information Only03:32:56.720 - 12:30:52 PM; The Committee Member discussed the potential for complications in probate court if the criminal case is not resolved. They suggested that the probate court should wait for a criminal conviction before distributing assets and discussed the concept of 'clean hands' in preventing murderers from inheriting.
SB148: Committee Member Information Only03:34:18.720 - 12:32:14 PM; The Committee Member discussed the potential for complications in probate court if the criminal case is not resolved. They suggested that the probate court should wait for a criminal conviction before distributing assets and discussed the concept of 'clean hands' in preventing murderers from inheriting.
SB148: Committee Member Information Only03:35:04.080 - 12:33:00 PM; The Committee Member discussed the potential for complications in probate court if the criminal case is not resolved. They suggested that the probate court should wait for a criminal conviction before distributing assets and discussed the concept of 'clean hands' in preventing murderers from inheriting.
SB268: Chair Information Only03:56:17.680 - 12:54:13 PM; The Chair reopened the public hearing on Senate Bill 268 and introduced Brunwin Sims to speak, reminding everyone of the three-minute limit on testimony. They mentioned that an amicus brief and testimony had been circulated by Rep. Manis.
SB268: Brunwin Sims, New Hampshire state chapter leader for the Walk Away Campaign and Northern New Hampshire chapter leader for the Independent Women's Network Information Only03:57:00.560 - 12:54:56 PM; Brunwin Sims spoke in favor of protecting the rights of female athletes and women to fair competition, safety, and privacy in various facilities. She highlighted her involvement with an amicus brief to the Supreme Court advocating for safety and fairness in women's sports. She praised the amendment to SB268 that defines sex and biological sex but expressed concern over the inclusion of 'gender identity' language, suggesting it could allow men into women's spaces. She recommended removing this language to truly protect single-sex spaces.
SB268: Carolyn Plini, Kingston Oppose04:00:45.319 - 12:58:41 PM; Carolyn Plini raised concerns about SB268, stating it poses risks to transgender, non-binary, intersex, and gender non-conforming individuals and exposes the state to litigation. She criticized the bill for lacking definitions, enforcement, standards, and guidance, describing it as too broad and ambiguous. She argued that there are no documented threats or recorded cases in New Hampshire of transgender individuals assaulting others in restrooms or locker rooms. She concluded that the bill is vague, unconstitutional, and urged the committee to vote it inexpedient to legislate.
SB268: David Trumbull, Town of Ware Oppose04:05:05.920 - 1:03:01 PM; David Trumbull opposed SB268, arguing that it creates barriers for transgender individuals despite claiming to recognize their rights. He criticized the bill's use of the compelling state interest test, stating it fails to meet the necessary criteria. He suggested alternative approaches for transgender participation in sports and raised concerns about the bill's impact on transgender individuals' access to public facilities and mental health treatment, citing potential violations of constitutional rights.
SB268: Lin Courier Stanley, Panacook, Executive Director of the National Association of Social Workers New Hampshire chapter Oppose04:10:52.279 - 1:08:48 PM; Lin Courier Stanley, representing social workers in New Hampshire, urged the committee to stop the anti-trans legislation, stating it harms people. She highlighted the mental health toll on clients and criticized the bill for not protecting women, citing incidences where women are confronted for not meeting certain femininity standards. She emphasized that people need to feel comfortable using facilities and that the bill does not deter harmful behavior.
SB268: Lily Tang Williams, Weare, New Hampshire Oppose04:17:32.080 - 1:15:28 PM; Lily Tang Williams, drawing from her experience growing up in communist China, opposed SB268, comparing current Western ideologies to cultural Marxism and identity politics. She argued against erasing biological differences between men and women, suggesting it erases women. She criticized the bill for pandering to a few at the expense of the majority and offered the example of Thailand's approach to transgender individuals as a potential solution. She emphasized the importance of protecting women's rights and privacy.
SB268: Mora Weston, New Hampshire Medical Society Oppose04:21:39.680 - 1:19:35 PM; Mora Weston, representing the New Hampshire Medical Society, spoke in opposition to Senate Bill 268. She highlighted that the society, with 2,000 physician and medical student members, believes that trans rights and human rights are interconnected. Weston argued that the bill attempts to permit segregation and sanction discrimination, rooted in fear and potentially leading to a slippery slope. She expressed concerns about the significant mental health consequences and the creation of public health issues that could negatively impact patients. Weston concluded by recommending the bill as inexpedient to legislate.
SB268: Katherine Ramish, Hollis Oppose04:25:06.399 - 1:23:02 PM; Katherine Ramish, from Hollis, opposed Senate Bill 268 and shared a personal story to appeal to the emotions of the committee. She recounted the discomfort a boy felt upon encountering someone he believed to be female in the boys' bathroom, drawing a parallel to the experiences of transgender children forced to use different bathrooms. Ramish argued for empathy towards all children and suggested that open conversations, rather than bans or ostracizations, could resolve such issues. She emphasized that the bill represents discrimination against a minority group and questioned the societal implications of only supporting the majority.
SB268: Simon Maya Price Support04:29:03.159 - 1:26:59 PM; Simon Maya Price testified in favor of Senate Bill 268, arguing that it maximizes freedom by allowing businesses and athletic organizations to classify citizens by sex for access to bathrooms, locker rooms, and other spaces. Price, identifying as part of the LGBT community, argued that the bill does not mandate such classification but allows for it, aligning with the free market principles of New Hampshire. He addressed safety concerns by citing higher rates of sexual assault among transgender-identified men and criticized the comparison of the bill to Jim Crow laws, suggesting that self-identification with a different gender or race should not be equated.

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