All bills

HB 1715-FN

relative to the electronic filing of domestic violence and stalking petition case documents.

Filed 2026 · Killed · Criminal Justice and Public Safety · Civil Actions

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 HouseINEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Introduced1/7/2026
Floor date2/12/2026
LSR number3000
Local government impactno
Committee codeH26

Bill text (PDF) ↗

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

Manos, Zoe(D) Rock 12, Altschiller, Debra(D) Rock 24, Beauchemin, Paige(D) Hills 3, Booras, Efstathia(D) Hills 8, Gregg, Alicia(D) Hills 7, Johnson, Erik(D) Straf 11, Long, Pat(D) Hills 20, Meuse, David(D) Rock 37, Newell, Jodi(D) Ches 4, Prentiss, Suzanne(D) Graf 5, Selig, Loren(D) Straf 10, Smith, Marjorie(D) Straf 10
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.

Inexpedient to Legislate

February 12, 2026 · House · None–None, adopted

Decided on a voice 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.

Committee — INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE

Rep. Terry Roy

The majority opposes this bill because it restricts victims of domestic violence and stalking to electronic filing for protective orders, except in “extraordinary circumstances,” when the legislature should be expanding access to these critical remedies. Many victims lack reliable internet access, computers, smart phones, or the digital literacy to navigate online systems, especially in urgent crises; mandating efiling erects barriers that could delay or prevent them from obtaining immediate protection. Instead of empowering victims with flexible options, the bill shrinks their pathways to safety at a time when every minute can mean the difference between life and death. The bill also creates serious safety risks by forcing victims to generate electronic trails on home computers or personal devices that abusers could easily access. Domestic violence perpetrators often monitor their victims’ devices, accounts, or shared networks; filing online leaves digital footprints, search histories, login records, IP addresses, that could tip off the abuser before the order is granted, escalating the danger. Paper filing at a courthouse or advocates office allows victims to seek help discreetly, without risking exposure through technology that abusers frequently exploit. Furthermore, the bill raises profound separation of powers concerns by dictating the mechanics of court filings to the judiciary, overriding judges’ authority to manage case processing and accommodate individual circumstances. Courts already offer both electronic and inperson options where feasible, balancing efficiency with access; this mandate micro-manages judicial operations without regard for varying court capacities or local needs. It also ignores funding realities: implementing mandatory efiling statewide would require significant up front and ongoing investments in technology upgrades, training, public kiosks, and support for victims, costs that fall on under funded courts without dedicated appropriations. Vote 7-6.

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]