HB 1536-FN
establishing penalties for unauthorized parking in designated electric vehicle and motorcycle spaces.
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.
| Status | HOUSE |
|---|---|
| In the House | INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE |
| Introduced | 1/7/2026 |
| Floor date | 2/19/2026 |
| LSR number | 2595 |
| Local government impact | no |
| Committee code | H27 |
Where it stands
House: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Every floor vote on this bill was a voice or division vote, so there is no record of how individual legislators voted.
Sponsors
Miller, Seth(D) Straf 21, Fenton, Donovan(D) Ches 10, Giasson, Henry(R) Hills 29
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.
- January 7, 2026Introduced 01/07/2026 and referred to Transportation
- January 20, 2026Public Hearing: 01/20/2026 11:00 am GP 234
- February 10, 2026Executive Session: 02/10/2026 10:00 am GP 234
- February 11, 2026Majority Committee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate 02/10/2026 (Vote 9-6; RC)
- February 11, 2026Minority Committee Report: Ought to Pass
- February 19, 2026Inexpedient to Legislate: MA DV 188-149 02/19/2026
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.
Inexpedient to Legislate
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
Parking in an EV charging spot when you aren’t actively charging is inconsiderate. But as well-intentioned as this bill is, using law enforcement to police parking rules on private property isn’t a good use of state resources. Property owners already have other legal tools to enforce their policies. Expanding the government’s role to enforce these policies isn’t necessary. Vote 9-6.
Minority — OUGHT TO PASS
This bill addresses a narrow but increasingly common problem: the unauthorized use of parking spaces that are specifically designated for electric vehicle charging, motorcycles, and mopeds. These spaces are not convenience parking. They exist to serve a defined operational purpose and, in many cases, to support private investment in infrastructure that provides a service to the public. In practical terms, when a charging station is occupied by a vehicle that cannot use it, the station is effectively taken out of service. This is analogous to blocking a gas pump, a loading zone, or a fire lane. The issue is not the act of parking itself, but the interference with the lawful and intended use of property. Police already enforce private property rights in situations where interference is clear and observable, even without a complaint from the property owner. For example, an officer who observes someone removing merchandise from a closed store does not need the owner present to act; the interference with property rights is evident. Although blocking a clearly marked charging space, is not necessarily a criminal act, it presents the same enforcement principle. The authority to enforce exists; this bill simply provides clarity and consistency in its application. The bill relies on existing signage standards under the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), ensuring that drivers receive clear notice before any enforcement action occurs. Enforcement requires such spaces to be clearly designated by a clearly visible sign. It only ensures that where such spaces have been lawfully established, they can be meaningfully enforced. The minority is not persuaded that this bill represents inappropriate enforcement on private property. Rather, it resolves ambiguity that currently undermines compliance and frustrates both drivers who rely on these spaces and the property owners who have invested in them. Enforcement without statutory clarity is uneven and often avoided altogether, which effectively nullifies the purpose of the designation. Finally, the goal is compliance and predictability, ensuring that infrastructure designed to provide a specific service can operate as intended. For these reasons, the minority believes this bill is a reasonable, limited, and practical response to a real problem and respectfully recommends that the committee vote against the inexpedient to legislate motion.
Hearings and recordings
Recordings are the General Court’s own, on YouTube. Start times are estimates unless stated otherwise, and the player opens early.
- January 20, 2026 at 11:00Transportation public hearing
- February 10, 2026 at 10:00Transportation executive session recording (start time not identified)
- February 19, 2026House floor debate recording (start time not identified)
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]