NH State Representative Tom Cormen

My votes in the NH House session
of February 1, 2024

The bills we voted on this session day were the first batch of 2024 bills that had gone through committees.

Bill Motion Type of vote My vote Result of vote Notes
HB 1199-FN-A OTP Voice Yea OTP Table motion failed on division vote 187-188; I voted Nay
HB 1588-FN OTP Voice Yea OTP
HB 1598-FN-A OTP Voice Yea OTP
HB 1237-FN OTPA Voice Yea OTPA ITL motion failed on division vote 162-213; I voted Nay
HB 396 Reconsider Division Yea 187-190 See discussion below
HB 1372-FN ITL Roll call Yea ITL 319-58
HB 1068 ITL Voice Nay ITL OTP motion failed on roll call vote 189-190; I voted Yea
HB 1520-FN-A ITL Voice Nay ITL OTP motion failed on division vote 184-193; I voted Yea
CACR 23 OTP Roll call Yea 193-184 OTP motion failed to reach 60% required for a constitutional amendment
HB 1002 OTPA Roll call Yea OTPA 193-179
HB 1005-FN OTPA Voice Yea OTPA
HB 1248-FN Indefinitely Postpone Roll call Yea Indefinitely Postpone 363-11 See discussion below
HB 1230 ITL Division Nay ITL 240-133
HB 1398 Interim Study Voice Yea Interim Study
HB 1499 OTPA Voice Yea OTPA
CACR 13 OTP Roll call Yea OTP 366-5
HB 1179-FN OTPA Voice Yea OTPA
HB 1338 ITL Roll call Yea ITL 266-101
HR 21 ITL Division Yea ITL 226-138
HB 1391-FN OTP Roll call Nay OTP 241-123
CACR 20 Indefinitely Postpone Division Yea Indefinitely Postpone 341-24
HR 20 OTP Roll call Yea OTP 354-6
HB 1447 ITL Division Nay ITL 308-46

HB 1237-FN

This bill, as amended, limits what unmarked police cars are allowed to do with respect to traffic enforcement. The amendment exempts undercover police vehicles. The problem with unmarked police cars enforcing traffic laws is that they can put drivers—especially women—into the uncomfortable position of wondering whether a vehicle that is pursuing them is actually a police vehicle or someone who wishes to do them harm. Moreover, the purpose of marked police vehicles for traffic enforcement is to encourage drivers to follow the law rather than break it.

HB 396

This vote was to reconsider a bill that removes protection from discrimination for transgender individuals, including in restrooms. The vote to reconsider failed, 187-190, and so this bill goes on to the Senate.


This bill was a constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights for the first 24 weeks. It fell short of the 60% majority necessary for it to go to the Senate. Had it passed the House and Senate by 60%, it would have gone directly to the voters, where a 2/3 majority would have been necessary. The governor does not get a say, except as a regular voter.

Although current state law protects abortion rights for the first 24 weeks, we have seen multiple attempts to weaken abortion rights. Indeed, HB 1248 is one extreme example. If we could have enshrined the right to abortion for 24 weeks into the constitution, it would have presented a high bar for any legislation weakening abortion rights. As things stand, any bill to weaken abortion rights needs only majorities in the House and Senate, along with a governor willing to go along.

HB 1002

This bill allows public bodies to charge for excessive requests for information under the “Right to Know” law (RSA 91-A). For a request that would exceed 10 hours of staff time, a charge of up to $25 per hour may be assessed to the requester. Some municipalities have reported nuisance requests that take several days, or even weeks, of staff time. And in some cases, the information was never picked up by the requester.

There are obvious reasons to oppose this bill, the main one being that the public and press have a right to know what their government is doing.

I voted in favor of the bill, however, because although the government works for all of us, it does not work for any specific individual. If I make a request that takes 10 hours of staff time, then I am tying up an individual staff member for more than a day; that staff member is serving me, and only me, during that time. If I am going to deny service to my fellow citizens, then I should pay for it.

The bill contains provisions for the public body to suggest modifications to the scope of the request to make the search more efficient and also for the requester to file a complaint with the ombudsman if they feel that the estimated time to comply with the request is out of line.

HB 1248-FN

This bill would have banned abortions after 15 days. That is not a typo: 15 days! Most women don’t even know that they are pregnant after 15 days, and pregnancy tests are not reliable at 15 days. The ITL motion for this bill would have passed, except that Rep. Shaun Filiault, an Independent from Keene, moved to Indefinitely Postpone this bill. The motion to Indefinitely Postpone is a higher motion than ITL, and it comes without debate. Instead of hearing a floor speech from Rep. Zoe Manos, a Democrat from Stratham, we went right to a roll call vote, which was in favor of Indefinitely Postpone, 363-11. A vote to ITL would kill the bill for this year, and a vote to Indefinitely Postpone kills the bill for the biennium—in other words, to the same effect, since this is the second year of the biennium.

HB 1230

This bill would have created a study on weatherization of New Hampshire housing. It wasn’t a particularly strong bill, but I voted in favor of it, since I am on the board of COVER Home Repair, and we weatherize homes in the Upper Valley.


Believe it or not, five representatives voted against a constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery in New Hampshire.

HB 1391-FN

This bill allows new vehicles purchased in the model year or one year before to be inspected in the second year. Although it passed, I voted against it. I realize that new cars almost always pass inspection, but a 1-year-old car might not. Here, I err on the side of safety.


The wackos are at it again, with a proposed constitutional amendment that would have New Hampshire seceed from the United States if the national debt reaches $40 trillion. The motion to Indefinitely Postpone passed, 341-24.

HB 1447

This bill would fine the drivers who “roll coal” heavily. It was on the consent calendar, but Rep. Lucius Parshall, a Democrat from Marlborough who serves with me on the Science, Technology and Energy Committee, wanted to pull it from consent. I was one of the 10 representatives needed to agree to remove it from consent. I would like to see whopping fines for rolling coal. If you’re going to proclaim that you’re a jackass, be prepared to pay the price.