Mister Speaker, if I know I have discussed this amendment with the sponsors and they are in favor of this amendment and so is the HRA, would I please vote yea on (1315h)?…
Speaker PackardRep. McFarlane offers floor amendment (1315h), and it is in your seat pockets. He is recognized to speak to his amendment.
Rep. Donald McFarlane (R - Graf 18)Mister Speaker, if I know I have discussed this amendment with the sponsors and they are in favor of this amendment and so is the HRA, would I please vote yea on (1315h)?
Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the McFarlane floor amendment (1315h). A division has been requested. Members take your seats. The motion before us is the McFarlane floor amendment (1315h). This is a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Megan Murray for a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. Megan Murray (D - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this amendment opens the bill up to further vaguery and potentially further litigation regarding some questions around the 14th and 1st amendments, would I now press no on the motion to adopt the floor amendment?
Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. McFarlane for a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. Donald McFarlane (R - Graf 18)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that the statutes as written, which this bill is going to improve, do not allow for us to recognize group differences and teach group differences such as the ones that caused us to vote yea on HB 148 the other day, would I vote in favor of this amendment?
Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the McFarlane floor amendment (1315h). This is a division vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 174 voting Yea; 166 voting Nay, the amendment is adopted. Now we are on to Ought to Pass with Amendment. The Chair recognizes Rep. Megan Murray.
Rep. Megan Murray (D - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Honorable colleagues, I rise in opposition to any amendment today to HB 50. As history reminds us all, the federal court has already ruled on policy enacted into law on this topic and found it to be unconstitutional violating the 14th and 1st amendments. Additionally, learning communities and educators need to be free to teach honest representations of historical facts and truths. The originally introduced intent of HB 50 was to repeal the unconstitutional law. Any other suggestion by amendment infuses vague language for consideration and perhaps opens the state to further litigation, understandable confusion about allowable topics to teach and sows uncertainty in a teacher's ability to have complex discussions without fear for their jobs or credentials being on the line. I urge the body to vote no on ought to pass as amended so that a more appropriate motion may be made. Mister Speaker, I ask for a roll call.
Rep. Kristin Noble (R - Hills 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Last year a federal judge struck down the states law banning the teaching of discrimination in public schools concluding it was unconstitutionally vague and denied educators their right to due process. The state has appealed that decision and will soon be arguing the case in the first circuit court of appeals. This bill, as amended, enhances that law titled the prohibition on teaching discrimination by specifying that a violation of this section by an educator must be intentional or knowing and specifically states that the intent of this section is to equally protect all New Hampshire citizens from discrimination. It reinforces that nothing in the law prohibits discussion by educators of historical existence of ideas and subjects as part of a larger course of academic instruction. These changes are intended to address the lower court's criticism. Over the last couple of years, we have had many hours of testimony on bills seeking to repeal this law. In all that time, no one was able to answer the question what was being taught before that that can no longer be taught because of this law? However, in this recent hearing, it was mentioned that teachers would not be able to discuss today's white supremacist or today's neo nazis. Well, good because who are today's white supremacists and today's neo nazis? In our current political climate, depending on who you ask, you're probably going to get a different answer. We shouldn't be taking students down that divisive road. When this was originally signed into law, the DOJ issued detailed FAQs. They basically say that this doesn't prevent the teaching of history or discussing current events and just because a subject may be uncomfortable for some, does not mean a violation of the law has occurred. But do not teach that a person or a group is inherently oppressive, superior, inferior, racists or sexists. Teach and treat all equally and without discrimination. Please vote yes. Thank you.
Speaker PackardRep. Megan Murray has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is the majority report of ought to pass as amended on HB 50. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Cornell for a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. Patricia Cornell (D - Hills 22)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that allowing civil actions and state board sanctions against educators for perceived violations of this extremely vague law banning discussions could create a climate of fear and limits students' exposure to different perspectives. If I know that this objective allegation can be made by any person claiming to be aggrieved, not only relatives or guardians, but perhaps a neighbor or someone in another district. If I know that this only applies to public schools and if I know that these civil lawsuits can lead to unnecessary litigation, draining financial resources, would I then press the red button against this OTP motion?
Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Nadeau for a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. Brian Nadeau (R - Rock 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that teaching discrimination is divisive and that is why we put anti discrimination provisions into law that is now challenged in the courts. If I know this bill supports the state position in the courts. If I know any action against an educator for violations of current law, must be intentional and knowing. And if I know this bill's intention is to protect all New Hampshire citizens from discrimination, I would now press the green button.
Speaker PackardThe motion before us the majority committee report of ought to pass as amended. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 183 voting Yea; 157 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.