My votes in the NH House session
of April 23, 2026

This was the last day to vote on Senate bills that go to a second committee (most often to Finance). My committee—Science, Technology and Energy—had the most bills (six), but fortunately for the House members who zone out during our bills, only four had debates.

The big wins for the day (in my opinion) were the first bill we voted on, SB 482-FN, on crypto kiosks, and SB 101-FN, the Senate’s version of open enrollment. Discussions of both of these bills are below.

SB 482-FN

I had been planning to file a bill similar to this one, but when I learned that the Senate was going to have such a bill, I held off. This bill limits what you can do at “digital access transaction kiosks,” otherwise known as crypto ATMs or Bitcoin ATMs. Several are located throughout the state, including in Lebanon and Hanover. Scammers are amazingly good at getting people, especially seniors, to put massive amounts of cash into them. (I know a senior in another state who put tens of thousands of dollars into one when scammed. I know this person well enough to know that they do not have dementia or any cognitive decline. The scammers are very good at what they do.)

The bill, as it came from the Senate, puts a $2000 limit per day on transactions, has a hold period of 48 hours for a customer’s first transaction, and gives victims 14 days to request a refund from the crypto ATM operator. There was a committee amendment, however, that would have significantly weakened the bill. It would have eliminated transaction limits and refunds after three days, and only for new customers. It also would have given the cryto ATM operators protection from liability by private lawsuits and actions by the Attorney General. And it would have banned local control, prohibiting muncipalities from regulating crypto ATMs.

The debate on the amendment was entirely Republican-on-Republican. AARP lobbied heavily for the bill as it came from the Senate and against the committee amendment. I wrote to 17 Republicans whom I know and trust to ask them to vote against the amendment. Although we were expecting the vote on the amendment to be close, it failed on a division vote, 135-220. The OTP motion on the bill as it came from the Senate passed on a roll call vote, 214-140, with 57 Republicans and all but three Democrats voting Yea. Of the 17 Republicans I wrote to, eight voted Yea. I’d like to think that my persuation helped.

Unfortunately, as I write this on April 30, it’s not over. A representative has requested a Reconsideration vote. I expect that Republican leadership is whipping its members (in case you don’t know, “whipping” does not mean literally “hitting them with a whip,” but rather “employing heavy pressure”) to vote to Reconsider. I’m not an expert on parliamentary procedure, but I think that if the motion to Reconsider the OTP motion passes, there would be a motion to Reconsider the vote on the amendment. I hope that neither motion passes. I’ll keep you posted.

CACR 11

CACR 8 from 2025 would have raised the retirement age of county sheriffs from 70 to 75. This CACR would have eliminated the retirement age altogether. I voted against CACR 8, and so of course I voted against CACR 11.

SB 101-FN

Ah, open enrollment once again. This bill would authorize any student to enroll in any public schools in the state. There are a host of problems here: funding, budgeting, special education, transportation, athletics, capacity, and accessibility among them. It would harm smaller district and those with fewer resources. People rang in nearly 30-to-1 against this bill. There was a minority amendment to turn the bill into a study commission. Democrats opposed the majority amendment, which passed 182-172 (I voted Nay), and supported the minority amendment, which failed 169-184 (I voted Yea). At that point, I was expecting the OTPA motion with the committee amendment to pass. Not so! It failed on a roll call vote 168-184, with 21 Republicans joining all the Democrats in voting Nay. The bill was then tabled on a division vote. Because this bill would have to go to a second committee, and the deadline for second-committee bills was this day, it would take an extraordinary vote to remove it from the table. Victory!

SB 429-FN-A

I highlight this bill, which requires trauma kits in public schools and funds them, because it was sponsored by our very own state senator, Sue Prentiss. The bill was amended to fix a problem in the “Parents’ Bill of Rights” regarding student-created media.

SB 465-FN

This bill would have made xylazine a schedule III drug in New Hampshire. It’s used to cut opioids, but it’s also critical for large animal veterinary care.

SB 543-FN

This bill would have created a revolving fund to pay nursing homes for care while it was being determined whether the patient was eligible for Medicaid long-term coverage.

SB 564

This was the one bill in which I voted against my caucus’s recommendation on this day. It would prohibit municipalities from limiting the maximum road length on which homes could be built on a dead-end road. It came out of the Housing Committee with unanimous support. But I found the position of Rep. David Preece (D-Manchester) persuasive. He pointed out that one size does not fit all when it comes to dead-end roads: the bill substitutes state-level assumptions for local judgment. And that it contains no provisions to ensure affordability. And so I voted Nay on this bill, but it passed on a division vote.

SB 627-FN

This bill doubles the tolls for everyone who does not have a New Hampshire EZ-Pass. Heck, yeah, let’s get out-of-staters to fund our highways! Governor Ayotte is probably going to veto it, however.

SB 449-FN

Once again, an attempt to raise the net metering cap on commercial and industrial utility customers from 1 megawatt (MW) to 4.99 MW. (At 5 MW, federal jurisdiction takes over.) We keep seeing this bill from the Senate, the Democrats keep supporting it, but the Republicans, who are influenced by the fossil fuel industry, keep killing it. And so it goes. You would think that Republicans would support a pro-business bill, but they are so dead-set against net metering that they do not.

SB 540-FN

If you’ve heard about “balcony solar,” that’s what this bill is about. (It’s about balcony solar even if you haven’t heard about it.) Imagine buying a small solar panel that you can just plug in to a wall receptable (socket) and just generate some of your own power! That’s what balcony solar is about. It’s not quite so simple, however, even though it’s been deployed in Europe (especially Germany). You could easily overload a circuit without a circuit breaker catching wind that it’s happening. Not only that, but if you export power to the grid and you’re not enrolled in net metering, your meter could record the power you export as power you import, and you’d pay for it! This bill enables balcony solar, but only once we have determined the right way to deploy it.

SB 591-FN

Once again, a bill that allows utilities to build power generation plants. There are some positive aspects to this bill, as it would promote more distributed generation. But when the utilities were restructured in the 1990s to sell off generation, the idea was to reduce the prospect of stranded costs (cough Seabrook Station cough) and create a competitive market for power generators. This bill would go against both of these goals. Curiously, in committee, two Republicans voted against it and three Democrats voted for it. The bill had the support of committee and House Republican leadership and, despite my PI against it (as if a PI could actually persuade anyone), it passed.

SB 559-FN

This bill would reduce minimum speed limits to 20 mph. We all agree that 20 mph would be safer, but it’s not enough to change driver behavior. If you’ve ever driven for a long distance in a 20 mph zone, you know how frustrating it can be. There was no caucus recommendation on this bill. I voted for the ITL motion, which was adopted.