Committee Summary for House Judiciary (04/23/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB268 00:23:10.320 - 9:18:46 AM	Executive Session	permitting classification of individuals based on biological sex under certain limited circumstances.	Avard, Kevin(R)[B]2025
SB189 00:45:23.359 - 9:40:59 AM	Executive Session	relative to fetal death records.	Prentiss, Suzanne(D)[F]2025
HB141 2025-1654h 00:55:00.119 - 9:50:36 AM	Executive Session	relative to campaign disclosures for limited liability companies.	Lane, Connie(D)[CT]2025
SB263 2025-1717h 01:29:03.480 - 10:24:39 AM	Executive Session	(New Title) criminalizing and creating a private right of action for the facilitation, encouragement, offer, solicitation, or recommendation of certain acts or actions through a responsive generative communication to a child, and relative to the termination of tenancy at the expiration of the tenancy or lease term.	Carson, Sharon(R)[B]2025
SB148 2025-0684h 01:54:41.199 - 10:50:17 AM	Executive Session	prohibiting those convicted of murder from financially profiting from the death of the victim.	Sullivan, Victoria(R)[A-]2025

SB268: Representative Mcfarland Information Only00:23:10.320 - 9:18:46 AM; Representative Mcfarland discussed the redundancy of Senate Bill 268, noting that other bills in the House and Senate are already addressing the issue. He highlighted the problematic definition of biological sex in the bill and suggested that it should be amended or considered for Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL).
SB268: Representative Smith Oppose00:24:00.360 - 9:19:36 AM; Representative Smith strongly opposed Senate Bill 268, criticizing it as an unnecessary attack on a small group of people. He used strong metaphors to describe the bill's impact and urged the committee to ITL it, focusing instead on more pressing state issues.
SB268: Representative Oregon Oppose00:26:35.600 - 9:22:11 AM; Representative Oregon expressed strong opposition to Senate Bill 268, stating his long-term support for transgender rights. He argued against retaining the bill due to its flawed drafting and unnecessary nature, suggesting it should be voted down.
SB268: Representative Tur Oppose00:28:36.960 - 9:24:12 AM; Representative Tur opposed retaining Senate Bill 268, highlighting issues with the definition of biological sex and the lack of specificity in the bill regarding personal information and treatment of individuals. He argued that retaining the bill would prolong a flawed process.
SB268: Representative Perez Support00:31:51.279 - 9:27:27 AM; Representative Perez supported the bill, emphasizing the importance of safety and comfort for girls and women in private spaces. She questioned the fairness towards them, suggesting a need for protection.
SB268: Representative Pednau Support00:33:05.440 - 9:28:41 AM; Representative Pednau argued in favor of retaining Senate Bill 268, stating it was not a personal attack but rather aimed at protecting many girls affected by rights infringements. He suggested retaining the bill to avoid revisiting it on the House floor.
SB268: Representative Smith Oppose00:33:52.039 - 9:29:28 AM; Representative Smith reiterated his opposition, emphasizing the state's obligation to protect all citizens irrespective of gender or sex. He criticized the bill for being unfair and unkind, not reflecting the state's better values.
SB268: Chairman Lynn Support00:35:08.640 - 9:30:44 AM; Chairman Lynn supported retaining Senate Bill 268, believing that the issue might eventually be decided by the US Supreme Court. He mentioned public support for the bill's classifications and argued for retaining it to avoid unnecessary floor debates.
SB268: Representative Burch Oppose00:37:37.040 - 9:33:13 AM; Representative Burch opposed the bill, suggesting it might be surplusage and pointing out public opinion against discrimination based on online responses. He questioned the claim that the public overwhelmingly supports such bills.
SB268: Representative Mcfarland Support00:38:52.680 - 9:34:28 AM; Representative Mcfarland supported the bill, recalling hearings where the intent was to foster an environment of non-discrimination. He believed the legislation aimed at enabling people to get along rather than promoting discrimination.
SB268: Representative Han Oppose00:39:52.400 - 9:35:28 AM; Representative Han opposed the bill, emphasizing the rights of the transgender community and criticizing the reliance on polls influenced by misinformation. He argued against the bill's portrayal of transgender issues in sports and suggested it should be killed.
SB268: Representative Tur Oppose00:41:49.680 - 9:37:25 AM; Representative Tur opposed the bill, citing overwhelming online sign-ins against it. He argued that the sign-ins reflect a broader public sentiment and suggested the bill should be killed.
SB268: Representative Perez Support00:42:48.240 - 9:38:24 AM; Representative Perez supported the bill, arguing against relying solely on the opinions of those who attend hearings or vote in elections, suggesting a need for broader public input.
SB189: Representative Pednau Support00:45:23.359 - 9:40:59 AM; Representative Pednau moved to retain Senate Bill 189, describing it as a housekeeping bill from the Secretary of State's office. He mentioned ongoing work to improve the bill and suggested retaining it for further refinement.
SB189: Representative Smith Oppose00:46:32.720 - 9:42:08 AM; Representative Smith opposed retaining Senate Bill 189, arguing it was a simple bill requested by state agencies to address routine matters. He suggested that any additional legislative ideas should be drafted into new bills for the next term, not amend existing ones unnecessarily.
SB189: Representative Oregon Support00:49:04.240 - 9:44:40 AM; Representative Oregon supported passing Senate Bill 189, noting his involvement with vital records and the bill's readiness. He argued for immediate passage to update the law and suggested addressing other issues in future legislation.
SB189: Representative Alexander Support00:50:00.000 - 9:45:36 AM; Representative Alexander supported retaining Senate Bill 189, pointing out flaws in the current language. He emphasized the need for improvements over the summer to address issues related to tracking fetal deaths, suggesting the bill should be drastically improved.
SB189: Representative Burch Oppose00:50:58.520 - 9:46:34 AM; Representative Burch opposed retaining Senate Bill 189, suggesting that the real reason for retention might be unrelated to the need for amendments. He argued that the bill should be passed as presented, with new legislation proposed for any additional issues.
SB189: Representative Good from Goffstown Information Only00:51:17.839 - 9:46:53 AM; Representative Good from Goffstown expressed concerns about the scope of the bill, suggesting that it does not cover various other issues such as deaths from hunting or accidents at railroad crossings. He questioned the relevance of adding an abortion-related provision to the bill, indicating that such an amendment might not be germane.
SB189: Unnamed Speaker Oppose00:52:05.599 - 9:47:41 AM; The speaker expressed doubts about the relevance of an amendment related to abortion statistics and argued against the motion to retain the bill. They emphasized that the bill had already passed the Senate and had been subject to hearings, suggesting that no substantial changes were necessary up to that point. They advocated for proceeding with the business of the day rather than retaining the bill.
SB189: Representative Fedell Support00:52:53.880 - 9:48:29 AM; Representative Fedell supported the retention of the bill, indicating agreement with the previous speaker's sentiments. They confirmed their intention to vote in favor of retaining the bill.
SB189: Various Representatives Vote00:54:12.000 - 9:49:48 AM; A roll call vote was conducted on the motion to retain the bill. The results showed 10 votes in favor and 8 votes against, leading to the bill being retained.
HB141 2025-1654h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:55:00.119 - 9:50:36 AM; The speaker, who initially confused the bill with another, clarified their intention to discuss House Bill 141. They moved to pass the bill with the amendment 2025-1654h, which was seconded by Representative McFarland. The speaker then described the bill as one that would remove the three-year limitation on motions for new trials in criminal cases, noting it to be substantially similar to last year's bill 507.
HB141 2025-1654h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:56:38.720 - 9:52:14 AM; The speaker discussed the previous veto of the bill by the governor and expressed concerns that if passed in its original form, it would likely face a similar fate. They emphasized the need for relief for those wrongfully convicted but also acknowledged the potential for frivolous motions, which could burden the court system.
HB141 2025-1654h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:57:34.319 - 9:53:10 AM; The speaker introduced an amendment aimed at addressing the issue by separating motions for new trials into civil and criminal statutes. The amendment would allow motions for new trials in criminal cases after three years under specific conditions, such as new scientific evidence or new understanding of evidence. It also proposes safeguards to quickly dispose of invalid petitions, including a requirement for the petitioner to assert their innocence under oath.
HB141 2025-1654h: Representative Burch Oppose01:02:37.839 - 9:58:13 AM; Representative Burch expressed opposition to the amendment, arguing that it creates too many barriers for individuals seeking relief based on newly discovered evidence. He referenced the case of Clarence Gideon to illustrate the potential impact of such restrictions on those seeking justice. He challenged the notion of 'floodgate' arguments and the court's ability to deal with frivolous lawsuits, suggesting that the amendment unnecessarily complicates the process.
HB141 2025-1654h: Representative Coutab Information Only01:07:58.079 - 10:03:34 AM; Representative Coutab clarified that the amendment restricts motions to newly discovered scientific evidence, but the original bill includes a broader definition, potentially allowing for witness recantations. She expressed concerns about the implications of such broad inclusion, particularly in the absence of witness protection programs in New Hampshire.
HB141 2025-1654h: Representative Horri Oppose01:09:10.880 - 10:04:46 AM; Representative Horri criticized the amendment for requiring defendants to prove innocence, arguing that even guilty individuals have rights in criminal trials, particularly regarding appropriate sentencing and treatment. He felt the amendment went too far in restricting those rights.
HB141 2025-1654h: Representative McFarland Support01:11:10.800 - 10:06:46 AM; Representative McFarland supported the intent of the original bill but found the amendment necessary to pass it. He acknowledged the reality of wrongful convictions and the importance of new scientific evidence but was concerned about the potential for frivolous lawsuits. He argued that the amendment would help the bill pass by addressing these concerns.
HB141 2025-1654h: Representative Burch Oppose01:12:24.239 - 10:08:00 AM; Representative Burch responded to concerns about witness recantations, arguing that such situations should be considered as they may indicate new evidence or changed circumstances. He provided a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the potential injustice of closing the door to such cases, emphasizing the need for an open process for those seeking justice based on new evidence.
HB141 2025-1654h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:14:33.679 - 10:10:09 AM; The speaker discussed a scenario where a person was arrested for robberies and confessed to a crime for which someone else, Johnny, was convicted. The speaker highlighted that such cases occur and questioned the appropriateness of a three-year statute of limitations for requesting new trials, suggesting that it might unfairly disadvantage individuals like Johnny if new evidence emerged after this period.
HB141 2025-1654h: Representative Tur Information Only01:15:18.760 - 10:10:54 AM; Representative Tur expressed appreciation for the intent of the bill but raised concerns about the implications of the amendments added. They noted that other states without the three-year limit did not report issues with frivolous lawsuits. Tur suggested that the original version of the bill might be preferable and that additional provisions should be considered in a separate future bill to allow for thorough discussion of their impacts.
HB141 2025-1654h: Unnamed Speaker Oppose01:17:35.480 - 10:13:11 AM; The speaker, who mentioned being a superior court judge for 18 years, argued against the amendment, highlighting the burden of frivolous lawsuits on the court system. They noted that even if these cases are handled, they consume significant judicial resources and time, which are already strained post-COVID. The speaker also pointed out that the amendment allows for new trials based on newly discovered evidence beyond just scientific evidence, expressing concern over this expansion.
HB141 2025-1654h: Representative Burch Support01:19:48.960 - 10:15:24 AM; Representative Burch argued in favor of the amendment, emphasizing the importance of liberty over the burden on judges. They suggested that the time spent by courts reviewing petitions for new trials is justified given the potential impact on individuals' freedom, contrasting this with other less critical court matters.
HB141 2025-1654h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:21:08.400 - 10:16:44 AM; A roll call vote was conducted on the amendment 2025-1654h to HB141. The amendment passed with 10 votes in favor and 8 against. Subsequently, a vote on the main bill as amended also passed with the same vote count. It was noted that there would be a minority report written by Representative Burch, and the majority report would be written by the chair. The reports were requested to be submitted by the following night.
HB141 2025-1654h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:21:08.400 - 10:16:44 AM; The speaker was finishing their testimony at the start of the provided transcript snippet, but no new information was provided about their testimony in the given text.
SB263 2025-1717h: Representative Alexander Support01:29:03.480 - 10:24:39 AM; Representative Alexander moved to pass Senate Bill 263 with amendment 2025-1717h. He explained that the amendment does not include a private right of action but includes an attorney general right to cure, allowing a 90-day notice to companies to cure violations. It also clarifies language around the $1,000 per violation fine, allowing only the attorney general's office to initiate those damages. Additionally, the amendment includes changes on page one, lines 9 through 11, to clarify that the offense of endangering the welfare of a child is committed if the owner or operator knows at the time they direct communication to the child. Alexander expressed concerns about the future implications of AI and shared an anecdote about AI's capabilities in identifying locations from photos. He concluded by stating that the amendment provides necessary guardrails while achieving the bill's intent.
SB263 2025-1717h: Representative Rambo Information Only01:34:05.600 - 10:29:41 AM; Representative Rambo sought clarification on the amendment's revision concerning the knowledge or intent aspect. He asked Representative Alexander to explain the difference in the knowledge requirement between his amendment and the subcommittee amendment. Alexander responded by clarifying that his amendment specifies that the owner or operator directs the communication either through AI or directly.
SB263 2025-1717h: Representative McFarland Support01:35:06.880 - 10:30:42 AM; Representative McFarland expressed concerns about the bill's language in addressing AI's potential, suggesting that the technology's full impact is not yet fully understood. He supported the amendment's clarification of the owner or operator's knowledge and intent at the time of communication, emphasizing the need for contemporaneous knowledge. He believed the amendment reduces potential harms while allowing for the exploration of AI technologies.
SB263 2025-1717h: Chairman Lynn Support01:39:37.600 - 10:35:13 AM; Chairman Lynn explained the differences between the amendment proposed by Representatives Burch and himself versus Representative Alexander's amendment. He noted that Alexander's amendment has no private right of action and allows the attorney general to make a cure at any time, whereas the other amendment would allow a private right of action after two years. He supported Alexander's amendment due to his caucus's preference and believed the intent language added by McFarland improved the bill. He provided a real-life example to illustrate the amendment's impact on scenarios where content is directed to children.
SB263 2025-1717h: Representative Burch Information Only01:44:00.000 - 10:39:36 AM; Representative Burch requested a brief recess to allow his side to consult, indicating no objection to the amendment's passage and releasing Chairman Lynn from any obligations related to their joint amendment.
SB263 2025-1717h: Committee Members Vote01:50:25.440 - 10:46:01 AM; The committee voted on amendment 2025-1717h to Senate Bill 263, with 17 members voting in favor and one member, Representative Manos, voting against. The committee then voted on the main bill as amended, with the same voting results. There was a brief discussion about whether the bill could go on consent, but it was determined that it could not due to Representative Manos's vote.
SB148 2025-0684h: Chairman Lynn Support01:54:41.199 - 10:50:17 AM; Chairman Lynn moved amendment 2025-0684h to Senate Bill 148, which was seconded. He explained that the amendment changes the bill by referring to murder instead of using the words 'feloniously and intentionally', specifically capturing first-degree murder and knowing second-degree murder. He expressed openness to other amendments but believed his amendment was better, inviting others to provide feedback.
SB148 2025-0684h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:57:00.760 - 10:52:36 AM; The speaker expressed concerns about the proposed amendment 2025-0684h to SB148. They questioned the rationale behind limiting the amendment to only first-degree murder and not including knowing second-degree murder. They argued that someone convicted of knowing second-degree murder should also be precluded from benefiting through inheritance or trust succession. The speaker also highlighted the absence of provisions in the subcommittee amendment that would allow civil actions to establish murder in cases without a conviction, using the OJ Simpson case as an example. They supported their amendment because it addresses these issues.
SB148 2025-0684h: Representative Burch Oppose02:02:02.000 - 10:57:38 AM; Representative Burch opposed the amendment, arguing that pursuing civil actions in probate court to take away property based on a 'more probably than not' standard presents many procedural and practical problems. He pointed out that a defendant might choose not to testify in such proceedings to avoid self-incrimination, which could lead to an unfair outcome. He also questioned the fairness of allowing one-sided evidence and the complications of discovery in such cases. He supported the subcommittee's amendment as a better approach.
SB148 2025-0684h: Unnamed Speaker Oppose02:04:26.159 - 11:00:02 AM; The speaker argued against the amendment, emphasizing the liberty concerns of taking property away based on a civil standard of proof (preponderance of evidence) without a criminal conviction. They believed that it goes against the principles of justice and fairness, and suggested waiting for a criminal conviction before taking such actions. They urged consideration of a subsequent amendment.
SB148 2025-0684h: Representative McFarland Oppose02:05:45.599 - 11:01:21 AM; Representative McFarland echoed previous concerns and cited the case of Clinton Kelly vs. State of New Hampshire (1963) to support their opposition. They argued that even in cases of abhorrent acts like murder, existing legal doctrines, such as constructive trust, should prevent unjust enrichment without serving as additional punishment. They found Representative Burch's arguments compelling and planned to vote for the subcommittee amendment.
SB148 2025-0684h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:09:23.599 - 11:04:59 AM; The speaker responded to concerns about civil actions, suggesting that existing common law mechanisms could allow such actions even without statutory provisions. They argued that framing the civil action around whether a crime was committed could be beneficial, even if not included in the statute.
SB148 2025-0684h: Representative Alexander Oppose02:12:06.000 - 11:07:42 AM; Representative Alexander expressed concerns about taking someone's possessions before they are fully convicted of a crime, supporting the subcommittee amendment as it addresses these liberty issues. They mentioned being convinced by a colleague from Westmoreland.
SB148 2025-0684h: Chairman Lynn Information Only02:13:18.800 - 11:08:54 AM; Chairman Lynn called for a vote on amendment 2025-0684h, which failed with a vote of 8 yays and 10 nays. They then moved on to discuss another amendment, number 1715H.
SB148 2025-0684h: Representative Coutab, Windham Support02:14:44.239 - 11:10:20 AM; Representative Coutab presented amendment 1715H, which is identical to the subcommittee amendment but includes second-degree murder. She highlighted the importance of including second-degree murder by referencing the Harmony Montgomery case, suggesting that many cases get pleaded down to second-degree murder due to the difficulty of proving intent for first-degree murder. She emphasized that second-degree murder should also be considered a significant crime that should not allow profit.
SB148 2025-0684h: Representative Alexander Oppose02:15:52.079 - 11:11:28 AM; Representative Alexander acknowledged the discussion in the subcommittee about the degree of murder applicable to the bill. He mentioned his compromise to limit the amendment to first-degree murder due to the significant implications of the legislation. He indicated he would not support the amendment adding second-degree murder but left open the possibility for future consideration.
SB148 2025-0684h: Representative McFarland Oppose02:17:44.718 - 11:13:20 AM; Representative McFarland expressed concerns about tailoring laws to specific cases like the Montgomery case, stating that hard cases make bad law. He argued for consistency and fairness in legislation and raised concerns about the expansion to second-degree murder potentially affecting cases like assisted suicide, suggesting it could lead to problematic legal scenarios.
SB148 2025-0684h: Representative Coutab, Windham Support02:18:49.599 - 11:14:25 AM; Representative Coutab clarified that her reason for including second-degree murder was not solely based on the Montgomery case but as a general principle. She argued that the amendment was a compromise as it did not include all homicides, only first and second-degree murder, which she believed were significant enough crimes to warrant inclusion in the bill.
SB148 2025-0684h: Representative Burch Oppose02:21:16.680 - 11:16:52 AM; Representative Burch pointed out that the amendment not only added second-degree murder but also removed the requirement for intentional killing, potentially covering negligent homicides. He expressed concerns about the broad range of conduct covered by second-degree murder, including cases like DWI fatalities and assisted suicide, suggesting that the amendment could lead to unintended consequences.
SB148 2025-0684h: Representative Smith Information Only02:22:46.760 - 11:18:22 AM; Representative Smith raised a procedural concern about the process of amending the bill. He noted that the committee had relied on a subcommittee to address the bill's issues, and he was concerned that the committee was now considering amendments without first reviewing the subcommittee's report. He expressed difficulty in making a decision without seeing the subcommittee's work.
SB148 2025-0684h: Representative Coutab, Windham Support02:24:28.319 - 11:20:04 AM; Representative Coutab responded to Representative Smith's concerns by suggesting that the subcommittee's changes were relevant to her amendment and should be discussed. She emphasized that her amendment included all the subcommittee's changes plus the addition of second-degree murder, and she believed it was important for the committee to understand these changes before voting.
SB148 2025-0684h: Chairman Information Only02:25:36.880 - 11:21:12 AM; The Chairman acknowledged the need to discuss the subcommittee's changes in relation to the amendment. He noted that Representative Coutab had addressed the subcommittee's work in her initial presentation but agreed that further discussion could be beneficial. He also clarified the scope of second-degree murder as it pertains to the amendment.
SB148 2025-0684h: Chairman Vote02:26:31.120 - 11:22:07 AM; The Chairman called for a vote on Representative Coutab's amendment 1715H. He expressed his personal support for the amendment, stating it was better than the subcommittee's amendment, but indicated he would support the subcommittee's amendment if Coutab's failed.
SB148 2025-0684h: Representative McFarland Support02:29:29.600 - 11:25:05 AM; Representative McFarland expressed strong support for amendment 2025-1699H, stating that it strikes a balance by ensuring that individuals accused of murder cannot profit from the death until convicted, while also protecting their inheritance and benefits until a conviction is secured. He appreciated the work of the subcommittee and hoped for the bill's passage in the House.
SB148 2025-0684h: Representative Perez Information Only02:30:17.760 - 11:25:53 AM; Representative Perez inquired about the effective date of the bill, which was not specified in the document. It was clarified that amendment 2025-1708H would address the effective date, setting it to upon passage, and that both amendments would be combined into one committee amendment.
SB148 2025-0684h: Representative Alexander Support02:32:24.080 - 11:28:00 AM; Representative Alexander moved for the passage of amendment 2025-1708H, which was seconded by Representative Smith. The amendment passed unanimously, changing the effective date of the bill. Subsequently, Representative Alexander moved for the bill to pass with amendments 2025-1699H and 2025-1708H, which was also seconded and passed with a vote of 17 yays and 1 nay.
SB148 2025-0684h: Representative Coutab Oppose02:34:21.920 - 11:29:57 AM; Representative Coutab voted against the amendments and the final bill, indicating opposition to the proposed changes.
SB148 2025-0684h: Representative Berseron Support02:34:21.920 - 11:29:57 AM; Representative Berseron supported the amendments and the final bill, voting in favor.
SB148 2025-0684h: Representative Paige Information Only02:35:09.200 - 11:30:45 AM; Representative Paige sought clarification on the minority report, specifically whether it would be OTPA or OTP. It was confirmed that the minority report would be OTPA 1715H, which includes the effective date change and focuses on including second-degree murder in the bill to prevent profiting from such crimes.
SB148 2025-0684h: Chairman Lynn Information Only02:37:22.160 - 11:32:58 AM; Chairman Lynn acknowledged the respectful and productive nature of the committee's work throughout the session, despite the distressful nature of the day's discussions. He expressed appreciation for the committee's conduct and leadership, and confirmed intentions to solicit views from the whole committee on future Senate bills and potential committee of conference decisions.

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