My votes in the NH House session
of March 21, 2024

HB 1205

This bill requires schools to designate athletics by sex and prohibits biological males from participating in female athletics. It discriminates against transgender youth, who make up under 1% of the school population and even less of athletic teams. It’s not clear whether this bill is constitutional.

HB 1654-FN

This bill would have required those providing service under Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs) to comply with state and federal anti-discrimination laws and have internal anti-discrimination policies and practices in place. Currently, private entities, including those receiving EFA funds, are allowed to discriminate. And with this bill being Indefinitely Postponed, they will continue to discriminate.

HR 30

High-school climate activists requested that there be a House Resolution to encourage the state to include in the curriculum a balanced history on renewable energy, fossil fuels, and socioecononmic implications of climate change. You know how Republicans feel about this issue.

HB 1074

When a limited liability company (LLC) donates to a political candidate, it is treated as its own individual donor, regardless of who controls it. Therefore, someone could give the maximum to a candidate but then set up several LLCs to give additional money to the candidate. This is called the “LLC loophole.” This bill would have made it so that if an LLC donates to a candidate, then it must disclose the names and percentage ownership of each of the LLC’s members to the candidate. This information would then be attributed to the member’s contribution limits.

HB 1099

This bill would enable partisan school district elections. Ostensibly because we don’t have enough partisanship and division already. I voted against it, and the OTP motion failed. But before we could vote to kill this bill, it was tabled.

HB 1683-FN

This bill would forbid Medicaid from paying for circumcision, with medically necessary exceptions. I was against it, mainly because now there’s one standard for those with private insurance and a different standard for those without.

HB 1002

We passed this bill on February 1 and then recommitted it to the Judiciary Committee on February 8. Rep. Katelyn Kuttab drafted an amendment to the bill that seemed reasonable to many, including me, but it failed in committee. The committee’s recommendation was for Interim Study. But between the time that Judiciary voted for Interim Study and March 21, several stakeholders convened and devised an amendment that they all considered acceptable. I read the amendment, and I could not see what problem it solved. For example, it allows someone to request, for free, up to 250 email threads per month, where each email thread can contain up to 50 individual emails. I did the math, and that makes up to 12,500 emails. And there is a $1 charge for every 50 emails after that. I fail to see how that discourages nuisance Right to Know requests. I voted for the amendment because it was better than what was pending, but I voted against the bill as amended because I just didn’t see how it solved any of the problems with abuse of the Right to Know law.

HB 1115

If you are renting and have a lease, the expectation is that when your lease expires, you will still be able to stay in your home and be offered a new lease. This bill says that once your lease is up, you may be kicked out for any reason. As we all know, housing is very tight. An evicted tenant is going to have a hard time finding new housing. The argument made by the bill’s proponents is that a lease is an agreement for a specific term, and once that term ends, the agreement expires. I understand the argument, but the fact is that the landlord and the tenant do not have equal power in this matter. The landlord is not in danger of becoming homeless, but the tenant is.

HB 1283-FN

This bill allows for medical aid in dying (MAID). It was hotly debated. I voted for it, for the simple reason that if someone has a terminal disease, is in pain that cannot be relieved by palliative methods, and wants to end their suffering, then why should anyone else, including the state, make them suffer needlessly. When my wife, Nicole, was dying of cancer, she was fortunate that her decline was rapid. If she’d had to suffer for an extended period, I would have wished that the option of MAID was available.

Many of those against this bill kept referring to it as “assisted suicide.” But Rep. Marjorie Smith, the bill’s prime sponsor and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, drew a sharp distinction between MAID and suicide: those seeking MAID want to live, but they cannot, whereas those who commit suicide want to die.

There was also concern about the potential for MAID to be used against the differently abled. I read the bill very, very carefully, and I am satisfied that it contains provisions that will prevent abuse.