[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6361283,"mediaKeyId","2170862-4e911f2212b252f4baece0db36c204e5","parentId",2170862,"title","Judiciary Committee votes ITL on HR 6 condemning the judicial doctrine of disparate impact","audioSeconds",291,"startMs",899000,"endMs",1190000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2170862-4e911f2212b252f4baece0db36c204e5&start=899&end=1190","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2170862-4e911f2212b252f4baece0db36c204e5/thumbnail_899000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6361283/New-Hampshire/Judiciary-Committee-votes-ITL-on-HR-6-condemning-the-judicial-doctrine-of-disparate-impact","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6361283-fc646f426b3fa24e8bf591ecdc4952bf/orig.mp4?Expires=1770861446&Signature=hoM~S4ptvcB5B3vfZHiwj8CcrLQj4F6pgoy3OPewXxAu4hN-zUhuocJa8E~XWsR-UBsgkLH1b~oNyz22SEjWok-mDsFFJ~sQSxwVGmw67iLyNj8AYbZOm6SoM3ELbWfx3MzemPpbHJFIntewJivHygVs66mcf3OB8-COsjZ8ZJ5H0xKFVyj0YxUaN14e~wbRp4F4fAn9-4~88NKxM~m-4FG0IYU~GBke2i8xRjzjaULU7GgZA7-UVOhxW6erCdcOjehmbePEVJPcIQUHkGNCpmHMUylU~UnodsLpEHsqa8wlyjKlbjsW8WPaU84y4HS0eNmr~GWrXW~8g3GjfSu1og__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","NH House of Representatives Committee Streamin","date","2025-01-30T00:00:00Z","article","The House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend ITL (inexpedient to legislate) on House Resolution 6, a resolution that would have condemned the judicial doctrine of disparate impact.

Representative Manos moved ITL and argued the resolution “paints too broad a brush” and that the legislature cannot bind the judiciary on doctrinal matters. He told the committee, “I recommended ITL on this HR for several reasons. The doctrine of disparate impact is a judicial doctrine, and I don't think that the legislature can bind the judiciary on decisions about disparate impact.”

Representative Or(r)ick (committee transcript shows both spellings) and others noted drafting errors and practical problems with the resolution; Representative Or(r)ick said the written testimony was more detailed and that the resolution would require substantial amendment to be accurate.

After discussion the committee voted to recommend ITL on HR 6. The clerk recorded the vote as 15 yeas and 2 nays. Chairman Lynn asked the author to supply a corrected report for the consent calendar; the item was placed on consent.

Supporters of ITL said the resolution oversimplified a complex body of case law and was an inappropriate attempt by the legislature to denounce a judicial doctrine broadly rather than address specific misapplications.

Representative Manos and other members urged accuracy and narrower language if the author wished to pursue the subject in future work.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary (01/30/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","The committee recommended Inexpedient to Legislate on House Resolution 6, which sought to condemn the judicial doctrine of disparate impact; supporters of ITL argued the resolution overreached by attempting to bind the judiciary.","taxTitle","Judiciary, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17755,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6361288,"Committee debates remote attendance rules for public meetings and votes; moves HB 80 to ITL",774,4766000,5540000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2170862-4e911f2212b252f4baece0db36c204e5&start=4766&end=5540","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2170862-4e911f2212b252f4baece0db36c204e5/thumbnail_4766000.jpg","/articles/6361288/New-Hampshire/Committee-debates-remote-attendance-rules-for-public-meetings-and-votes-moves-HB-80-to-ITL","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6361288-7c7037e2ce3446b06d47ab33755cc575/orig.mp4?Expires=1770861446&Signature=ReifTApYlTJbHSbYKjaur1CzS5e26Q6pb2ndXQ8kbPtDDmadejnhSDuZV-xOsTq1IXKPHfdvTJY5whJsDiCrU9dt7yGP0BZgZzOTDMzhJClQxMqaKRcU-rEntmnWYSJ3O4oWTlbJWKzPJ67sB-eCNtH-0rsQ53w98F3bQKb6CpnEP4ADuZ0zRLYI80Fs~SeeAi4GFWlhBq75ud05XKdosVhndrbgGReBl8tnXqfrsPBjRbqykrkWg79dRE16DCCKmlp2w7gS2ecnqOZUISpc-4mCU-HEBCx-D3C5zMmp~I-EN~J~epRMX-y3~CPVn4PCq7F~-nB-BhNzziUPkCvXHg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 80, which would limit a public-body member’s ability to participate remotely to situations that are \"unavoidable\" and would require physical presence to cast a vote, drew sustained debate in the Judiciary Committee.

Representative Smith argued the bill was not workable because “the definition of unavoidable is not clear.” Representative Orrick and others described practical examples where remote participation enabled continued member participation after medical events or unavoidable travel; Orrick recounted a board member who could not join in person after a stroke but remained mentally fit to participate remotely.

Representative Kuttab warned the bill’s quorum rules could produce unintended consequences in three‑member bodies where a single in-person member could end up making decisions alone if another member participated remotely but could not vote. Representative Tripp called the measure a broad-brush approach with many unintended consequences.

Representative Burke urged deference to members’ stated reasons for remote participation and said whether a circumstance was “unavoidable” should typically be respected. Several members noted the difference between being present for discussion and being physically present to cast a binding vote.

After debate, the committee took a roll-call vote on the motion to recommend ITL (inexpedient to legislate). The clerk recorded the outcome as 13 yeas and 4 nays; the motion to recommend ITL carried, meaning the committee does not recommend the bill for further action at this time.

Committee members who favored ITL framed the vote as a matter of local control and cautioned that a one-size-fits-all rule across the many kinds of public bodies in New Hampshire could produce unfair results. Members opposed to ITL said they favored a rule tightening remote participation but would support narrower language, such as replacing “not reasonably practical” with the more definite term “unavoidable.”

The committee did not adopt a uniform amendment to rewrite quorum or voting rules; sponsors and opponents indicated interest in working on narrower language or local options outside the full-committee floor vote.","Lawmakers considered House Bill 80, which would restrict remote meeting participation and require physical presence for voting, and voted to recommend ITL after concerns about unclear language and local control.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6361294,"Judiciary Committee narrows remote public-record requests, advances several right-to-know bills",5249,2095000,7344000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2170862-4e911f2212b252f4baece0db36c204e5&start=2095&end=7344","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2170862-4e911f2212b252f4baece0db36c204e5/thumbnail_2095000.jpg","/articles/6361294/New-Hampshire/Judiciary-Committee-narrows-remote-public-record-requests-advances-several-right-to-know-bills","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6361294-c06de68ffbe1f6bf36adfe782f7da2e3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770861446&Signature=WqSOpMqhxCOg~67vz~kZ8vLl9ND3R7HltVVrTctEtWxc1zRuqByT4ygvARfZ0Q31CaiJbHTk4LkiQobg7c4jW95oxWTEZ-Rwwp3CoWt4Dhhl22vVF42xTKOz1GgqzDa6Fy0gyIMva0VBTmN4UHyjHxUz5t4l6NpNG8YWswTLDGKhsxN1Ko0d~CJuXXV7bVJ-aX5nRAQM5QJc~V3oBBbLIfUWVv8CAjxDYQsOBiAgssvNybhhHoLKv2QhH1ScFcCzepw7d2bhtpanCjM6Nd8rDupV4t82A5oOiNQr3eibXQ~uGKUWKLzi3JpIppnbbrXUuLChAaJGGZBwcJ8JKOnqKg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee spent a large portion of its executive session on a package of bills that would change how members of the public request and access government records.

Representative Alexander led debate on House Bill 66, which would change the phrase “citizen” to “person” in the state’s right-to-know statutes and explicitly allow remote requests for records and electronic delivery in many cases. To limit remote requests from people with no tie to New Hampshire, the committee adopted amendment 2025-0110h. Under that amendment, a person who requests remote delivery must demonstrate a New Hampshire connection — for example, domicile, property ownership, New Hampshire tax status, a New Hampshire place of business, or registration to do business in New Hampshire — unless the requester is a member of the news media (as defined in RSA 91-A).

Representative Alexander explained the amendment’s contours: if a remote requester lacks the New Hampshire nexus they must instead inspect or collect records in person. He said the change would curb “pajama‑clad” mass requests from out of state while allowing local and media requests to be produced electronically.

The committee adopted the nexus amendment by a show of hands and later approved HB 66 as amended on a roll call. The amendment vote was 13 to 4; the final committee recommendation on HB 66 as amended was 13 yeas and 4 nays. Chairman Lynn said the amended bill would go to the regular calendar.

The panel also took related action on other open-government measures and privacy items:

- House Bill 74, a companion measure addressing the statutory meaning of “citizen,” was retained by the committee for further work (vote: 17 yeas, 0 nays).

- House Bill 111 (FN) would extend the right-to-know ombudsman position for two years. Representative Catawba moved passage with amendment 2025-0170h; the committee adopted the amendment and later voted to recommend passage (OTPA) of HB 111 with the amendment. The final committee tally on OTPA was 15 yeas and 2 nays; the bill will go to the Finance Committee because the extension has budget implications.

- House Bill 114 would roll back parts of the recent statutory changes governing fees for public-records requests; the committee voted ITL (inexpedient to legislate) on HB 114 (13 yeas, 4 nays), effectively killing it at this stage.

- House Bill 376 clarifies that library user information — including library card records and membership status — is exempt from public disclosure. Supporters argued the change protects patron privacy; the committee recommended passage (OTP) by 16 yeas and 1 nay and placed the bill on the consent calendar.

- House Bill 273 would permit parents to access records of their minor child’s library account when the parent’s license or mailing address matches the child’s. After debate about privacy and special circumstances (foster care, custody orders), the committee recommended passage on a narrow vote, 9 yeas to 8 nays; authors will prepare the committee report.

- House Bill 265 (technical change requiring start/end times and the name of the person taking minutes) passed on a unanimous vote and was placed on consent (17 yeas, 0 nays).

Committee members debated the balance between openness and limits on burdensome, out‑of‑state requests. Representative McFarland urged protections for local government staffing and emphasized that the amendment provides a modest deterrent against mass remote requests; Representative Alexander said the amendment may be unnecessary because determined out‑of‑state requesters can find workarounds, but he supported the committee’s choice to adopt the amendment. Several members suggested a working group to refine language in both HB 66 and HB 74.

Many of the bills will move to other committees for fiscal review or will be scheduled for floor consideration; authors were asked to submit committee reports with any amendment text to the chair by the end of the day.

Votes at a glance: HB 66 (as amended by 2025-0110h) — amendment adopted 13–4; OTPA as amended 13–4; HB 74 retained — 17–0; HB 111 (with amendment 2025-0170h) — OTPA 15–2; HB 114 — ITL 13–4; HB 376 — OTP 16–1; HB 273 — OTP 9–8; HB 265 — OTP 17–0.

Representative Alexander and other lawmakers framed the package as an effort to modernize access while protecting municipal staff from excessive out‑of‑state electronic requests.","Lawmakers advanced a cluster of bills and amendments addressing public-records access, library privacy and the right-to-know ombudsman, including a key amendment requiring a New Hampshire nexus for remote records requests.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6361298,"Judiciary Committee revotes on HB 98 and HB 164 to correct procedural notice; both advance",656,157000,813000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2170862-4e911f2212b252f4baece0db36c204e5&start=157&end=813","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2170862-4e911f2212b252f4baece0db36c204e5/thumbnail_157000.jpg","/articles/6361298/New-Hampshire/Judiciary-Committee-revotes-on-HB-98-and-HB-164-to-correct-procedural-notice-both-advance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6361298-910d5183aa4cd4fb2a6a0d7ad82e67b9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770861446&Signature=WXwmDbvxTDTCjuxYWQi74BDZ02pMAv7GK5sPTdMNgzxWaaOPW2sTy2ARjtQiDPUY02tTjjSmxhYY2IxjqKp7A05PODSqKlE4qjpSsPdTxzDlx3jwY268BEAJ8kREcsiogmtWf-DFOgi5lgdEeYW2wz5I4CYs7EPOJhf6SGH2zUMgKuLBpa~mZuvxHUznGo0ltjm3Bf258ZymjQ9szx6CeILLSIlyLg29u7ZIiiDX2P4dB6hiZ4McWsAKBzd7sZ6iFF~20j2k5ujI824C5Vmg~iZ~AdeRxLvLEtEgRrmLYHhl-tW70acgcAjWlrelzCpy8MkVOAEZiBx~BT9Y61rsXQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Chairman Lynn reopened an executive session of the House Judiciary Committee to correct a procedural irregularity and asked the committee to revote on two bills previously decided.

The committee reopened votes after Paul, the committee clerk, “rightly” requested a revote because the earlier executive session and the calendar notice may have overlapped, Chairman Lynn said. The revote covered House Bill 98, on professional limited liability company assistant managers, and House Bill 164, concerning local records and an updated fiscal note.

Representative Turf moved “OTP” (ought to pass) on House Bill 98; Representative Perez seconded. Chairman Lynn then asked the clerk to call the roll. The clerk recorded a unanimous vote of 16 yeas and 0 nays on the motion to recommend passage of HB 98.

For House Bill 164, Representative Alexander moved that the bill “ought to pass” and offered amendment 2025-0087h to update the bill’s fiscal note at the request of the Secretary of State’s office. Representative Turr seconded. The committee voted to adopt the amendment by a unanimous show of hands, and then approved the bill as amended on a roll call vote of 17 yeas, 0 nays.

Both bills were placed on the next calendars as appropriate. Chairman Lynn directed bill authors to submit updated reports including amendment language so staff can prepare calendars and floor documents.

The clerk’s request to revote was presented as a technical fix to ensure the committee complied with notice requirements; no debate about the bills’ substance occurred during the do-over beyond confirming the presence of the amendment language for HB 164.

The committee did not record any minority reports for these items at the time of the session; authors were asked to deliver committee reports to the chair by the end of the day.

Votes at a glance: HB 98 (OTP) — 16 yeas, 0 nays; HB 164 (amendment 2025-0087h adopted by show of hands; OTP as amended) — 17 yeas, 0 nays.

Chairman Lynn said the revotes were prompted solely to ensure procedural correctness and completeness of committee records.","The House Judiciary Committee reopened votes on House Bill 98 and House Bill 164 after the clerk flagged a potential notice error. Both measures were approved in new votes and will move on in the process.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Judiciary Committee votes ITL on HR 6 condemning the judicial doctrine of disparate impact

Committee debates remote attendance rules for public meetings and votes; moves HB 80 to ITL

Judiciary Committee narrows remote public-record requests, advances several right-to-know bills

Judiciary Committee revotes on HB 98 and HB 164 to correct procedural notice; both advance