All bills

HB 1393

relative to the definition of public servant and the offense of official oppression.

Filed 2026 · Died on the table · Criminal Justice and Public Safety · State Government

Official record at gencourt.state.nh.us ↗

Open this bill in the searchable view →  ·  Follow this bill by RSS

On the record

Quoted from the General Court bill status page, not worked out from the docket.

StatusHOUSE
In the HouseDIED ON THE TABLE
Introduced1/7/2026
Floor date3/5/2026
LSR number3206
Local government impactno
Committee codeH26

Bill text (PDF) ↗

Where it stands

House: DIED ON THE TABLE

Every floor vote on this bill was a voice or division vote, so there is no record of how individual legislators voted.

The bill was set aside during the session and never taken back up, so it died when the session ended.

Sponsors

Long, Patrick(D) Hills 26
Prime sponsor in bold. From the General Court sponsor file.

What happened

Every action recorded in the official docket, in order. Each line ends with the journal or calendar that recorded it; where we have the document, that citation links to it.

Votes

Roll call tallies and individual votes from the General Court roll call files. Presiding, excused and absent are shown separately: one member presides over each House roll call and does not vote except to break a tie.

Lay HB1393 on Table (Rep. Roy)

March 5, 2026 · House · 191–156, adopted

Decided on a division vote. Only the outcome was recorded — there is no count of how any member voted.

Committee reports

Reproduced from the House Calendar in the committee’s own words.

Majority — INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE

Rep. Terry Roy

The majority opposes this bill because it dramatically and unnecessarily expands New Hampshire’s criminal “official oppression” framework to reach “any federal official acting in, or taking action directly affecting the state of New Hampshire,” without any evidence of a gap in current law or a New Hampshire problem it would solve. Existing federal and state criminal statutes already provide robust tools to prosecute misuse of office, election-related misconduct, threats, and coercion by public officials at every level, including federal officers, so this expansion is redundant at best and destabilizing to federal–state relations at worst. The committee received no evidence of New Hampshire cases where misconduct by federal officials went unaddressed because they were outside the existing “public servant” definition or where an election was placed at risk for lack of prosectorial tools. Federal law already criminalizes a broad range of abuses and threats related to elections and public office, including coercion of political activity, interference with election officials, and threats against federal and state election workers. By redefining “public servant” to include “any federal official acting in, or taking action directly affecting the state of New Hampshire,” the bill sweeps in a vast and ill-defined universe of federal employees, from immigration and customs officers to regulators, auditors, and program administrators whose decisions incidentally affect this state. This invites routine policy disputes with federal agencies to be reframed as potential state criminal matters, eroding comity and creating legal uncertainty for federal personnel who are carrying out federal law. Such an approach blurs the line between legitimate accountability and state-level harassment of federal officers, particularly in politically sensitive areas like immigration enforcement. These efforts are often framed as “accountability,” but in practice function to obstruct or chill lawful federal enforcement activity. The bill before us follows the same trajectory by extending New Hampshire’s criminal “official oppression” framework to “any federal official acting in, or taking action directly affecting the state of New Hampshire,” despite the absence of any demonstrated gap in existing accountability tools, and would risk turning policy disagreements with federal authorities into state-level criminal exposure. For these reasons, the majority finds that the bill is unnecessary, over broad, and aligned with a concerning national pattern of using state law to impede or chill federal immigration and other federal enforcement activities, despite no demonstrated need in New Hampshire. Vote 7-4.

Minority — OUGHT TO PASS

Rep. Ray Newman

In this bill the change to the definition of a public servant to “any federal official acting in, or taking action directly affecting the state of New Hampshire,” expands the definition to include individuals who perform a public function, and not just those in traditional government roles. This broader definition enhances accountability for a wider range of individuals in public roles and provides clearer legal standards for prosecuting official oppression. This enhancement in accountability for a wider range of individuals combined with the clearer legal standards for prosecuting official oppression, will substantially reduce the likelihood of official oppression of an election.

Hearings and recordings

Recordings are the General Court’s own, on YouTube. Start times are estimates unless stated otherwise, and the player opens early.

Page generated 2026-09-03 from data published by the New Hampshire General Court. Granite Record is an independent project, not affiliated with the General Court. The official record always takes precedence. Corrections: [email protected]