The House, Wednesday, January 7, 2026

Rep. Harriott-GarthrightThank you, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill as amended, not because the crimes it targets are anything short of horrific; they are, but because this proposal creates labor camps that are expensive and dangerous, they raise serious public safety risks, constitutional concerns and major fiscal consequences that this body should not ignore. The amendment would require life long, hard labor for people convicted of capital murder or the sexual assault of a child. When you read the language closely, what it really does is authorize the Department of Corrections to put the most dangerous people in our prison system into physically demanding labor, potentially outside secure facilities for the rest of their lives. That should give all of us pause. We're talking about people who will never be released, people who by definition pose a high risk, people who prior to this bill, were not eligible to work outside the walls of the prison, sending them into work details involving construction, sanitation or infrastructure isn't tough on crime; it's risky. It puts corrections officers, civilian workers and the public in harm's way if something goes wrong. But it is also expensive. Hard labor is not free. It requires increased staffing, overtime, transportation, security equipment, medical monitoring, training and insurance. Every injury, every lawsuit, every staffing shortage, costs the state real money. When something goes wrong, and national research shows that it often does, the bill doesn't go to a private contractor. It comes back to New Hampshire taxpayers. Creating labor camps like those in North Korea, China, and Russia also creates serious constitutional concerns. It mandates labor camps for life. It punishes people who are medically unable to perform, and it authorizes long term isolation as an alternative punishment. That is a recipe for lawsuits, court challenges, and years of uncertainty, not justice or closure. Litigation is not hypothetically here. It is inevitable and it is costly, and I want to zoom out for a moment and talk about priorities. We can't keep cutting taxes for out-of-state corporations and billionaires and at the same time vote to increase long-term correctional costs that local property taxpayers will be paying for decades to come. This amendment does exactly that. And finally, a word about deterrence. There is no evidence that hard labor deters crime like these. People who commit murder or sexual violence against children are not weighing sentence enhancements. They are acting out of violence, compulsion or abuse of power. Adding hard labor may feel satisfying to some, but it does not make our community safer at all, and it certainly does not make our budgets healthier. We already imposed the harshest sentence possible, life without parole. That sentence protects the public. This bill as amended does not add safety; it adds labor camps that are dangerous and costly. We can be tough without being reckless. We can honor victims without creating new risk, and we can reject the bill that sounds strong but ultimately puts most people and more taxpayer dollars in harms way for those reasons, I urge you to press the red button. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Rep. Terry Roy (R - Rock 31)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if anyone can find the words labor camp anywhere in that bill, I will give you my entire salary. Although, I anticipate I'll get to keep my $100 after taxes, because it's not in there. What we need to think about is a couple of things. Right now, if you have a child under 13 years old who is raped, and that person is sentenced to 20 to 40 years in jail, every single day, you and your daughter are going to relive that crime for the rest of her life. The person sentenced to jail is going to work on getting himself a degree on taxpayer dollars. He's going to use his iPad, he's going to enjoy his time, he's going to work out and use the gym. He is going to forget about your daughter. If one of your loved ones is murdered and the person is sentenced to the harshest penalty we have, life without parole, you are going to relive the death of your loved one. The fact that every birthday, you're reminded, every Christmas, their chair is empty, every day you're going to remember that death. But the person who got life without parole is still going to do the same things. He's going to go in there and he's going to get a degree that he can never use, but we're going to pay for it anyway. He's going to use the iPad, and keep in shape, and get free health care. Or, we can add the opportunity for a jury to decide that the crime was so heinous, a super majority of the jury, that that person needs to remember that crime for the rest of their life, or as long as they're in there and five days a week, eight hours a day, they will do hard labor. Also, not in that bill was anything about taking them outside the walls. It is exclusively up to the commissioner whether or not he does that. If the commissioner decides to have a very inexpensive truckload of sand brought into the yard, and hands that prisoner a bunch of sandbags, and says, fill those and move them over here, and tomorrow he says, move them back there and unfill them; that is hard labor, and it's very cheap, and that person will think about the rape of that child he did. Vote with us and support punishing people that do the most evil crimes that I can think of. Thank you very much.

Speaker PackardRepresentative Meuse 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 committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on Senate Bill 15. This is a roll call vote. The chair recognizes Representative Harriott-Garthright for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Harriott-GarthrightThank you. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know this amendment creates a new permanent correctional mandate with significant staffing, security and litigation costs, and if I know that no fiscal note, risk assessment, or constitutional review has been presented to this body, and if I further know that we cannot be consistent with our responsibility to taxpayers and public safety if we support this legislation, then when I press the red button and vote no on a motion of Ought to Pass as Amended? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe chair recognizes Representative Rhodes for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jennifer Rhodes (R - Ches 17)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that the labor that is used and defined in this bill are the same daily tasks that many people call careers right here in New Hampshire to support their families, and Mr. Speaker, if I know that this bill as amended only is taking into account people that are convicted of capital murder or pedophiles, and Mr. Speaker, if I know that I can't think of any greater example of cruel and unusual punishment than forever damaging a child's life for your own sexual gratification, would I now press green? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on Senate Bill 15. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're 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; 179 voting Yea, 159 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Rep. Hope Damon (D - Sull 8)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. HB 665 would increase eligibility for one free school meal per day to students whose family income is at or below 300% of federal poverty level. 39%, over one-third of New Hampshire children, live in households that do not reliably have sufficient food. As the federal government downshifts half the administrative costs of the SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to the states, as access to health insurance and medical care gets more expensive, and as this gray cold winter challenges people's fuel budgets, we should fully expect greater need for food assistance. Other than oxygen, I really cannot think of a more basic human need than to be certain of having enough food. The idea that we have not come together to meet the needs of children is so disheartening. Surely, we can agree that children are not responsible for their poverty. The consequences of food insecurity are profound. Lower reading and math test scores with cumulative decreases over time. Inadequate food intake resulting in cognitive delays, meaning slower capacity to learn. Inadequate food intake corresponds to more school behavioral problems, twice the incidence of suspensions, and higher high school dropout rates. Food insecure children more frequently require special education services. That alone should suggest the cost-effectiveness of increasing access to free school meals. You will hear from some folks in this hall that there are no instances of children being denied food in school based on ability to pay. Yet, data has been repeatedly presented in our committee. Does the representative want us to parade hungry children through the halls? The federal school meals program requires that students in need be fed at district expense. Many students are stigmatized by awareness of their poverty and do not show up for meals. Is this what we want for our children? Many school staff purchase food regularly to provide snacks for needy children quietly. These are kind actions, and I honor the education people who do that, but they are not systemic solutions. It is our state responsibility and our moral obligation to address the needs of hungry children in an organized, thoughtful, thorough way. To blindly deny that there is food insecurity in New Hampshire does not make it go away. The fiscal note for House Bill 665 is markedly overstated because it is calculated for both breakfast and lunch meals to be provided, but the bill only requires that one meal be made available. If the less expensive but equally nutritious valuable meal served is breakfast, the actual cost is 35% of the fiscal note, or under 17 million dollars. We can prioritize that money if we value our children's well-being. At least nine states, including our neighbors in Maine and Vermont, provide universal free school meals. This bill is much more moderate than universal meals while meeting the most urgent needs of the children. Please join me in pressing the red button so a better motion can be made for our children.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Popovici-Muller is recognized to speak for the committee report.

Rep. Daniel Popovici-Muller (R - Rock 17)Thank You Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues. The bottom line is that this bill will spend over 48 million dollars a year, even though, as my colleague just acknowledged, I was going to say no testimony was provided over the last three years about any specific instances of kids being denied food because of their inability to pay. I do acknowledge that there are people who may have a hard time making the necessary, you know, providing the necessary meals for their kids outside school, but this is a bill about what happens inside schools. And inside schools, kids go to the lunch counter or the breakfast counter, and they get their meal, whether they can pay for it or not. Now, this would make a 100-million-dollar impact on our state budget. I'm not on the Finance Committee because I like to say, hey, what's a hundred million dollars between friends? Every expense that we try to put in the budget needs to be justified. Our failure to try to find even some data to support this bill shows that it is not a good bill. It fails to be justified and therefore I would urge everybody to support the ITL motion from committee, in order to be fiscally responsible. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the Majority Committee Report of Inexpedient to Legislate on House Bill 665. Representative Luneau requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. Most of these are going to be roll calls. The question is on the Majority Committee Report of Inexpedient to Legislate on House Bill 665. Representative Weinstein is recognized for parliamentary inquiry. Representative Weinstein: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that food insecurity hurts learning and costs the state more, as my colleague so well-articulated in her remarks, and I know that the need in New Hampshire is growing, not shrinking, due to rising costs in nearly every category from housing to groceries to health care, and I know that this bill meets a basic moral responsibility by ensuring that our most vulnerable students get at least one free school meal, then would I now press the red button so that a better motion can be made? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Ladd is recognized for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 5)Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. If I know the fiscal note attached to this bill projects a sizable and indeterminable fiscal liability for local schools and an additional 48 million dollars amount to the state for estimated breakfast and lunch costs, and if I further know this bill includes open warrant language for the department to draw from the Education Trust Fund, additional funds to make all necessary payments, and lastly, if I know over 30 schools do not participate in the lunch and breakfast programs, however, based upon wording in this bill, the state will be required to pay the cost for all qualifying students, would I then press the green button understanding if HB 665 passes, taxpayers will face significant revenue and affordability challenges? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate on House Bill 665. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, press the green button. If opposed, press the red. 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. With 189 in the affirmative, 158 in the negative, the report is adopted.

Rep. Hope Damon (D - Sull 8)Thank you, Mr. Speaker, good afternoon. I would like to start with some gratitude that my meals are not uncertain, and an acknowledgement that that's probably true for most of us here, and probably close to 100% of us enjoyed more than one holiday feast recently. Let's keep that gratitude in mind, folks. SB, 204 is a bipartisan Senate bill that passed on a voice vote on the other side of the wall, it is the most moderate of the several efforts to address the very real issue of food insecurity in children. So let's be clear what the facts are, what this proposes to do, why it matters, and what the real costs are. SB 204 is an opt in bill. Nothing is required. It allows school districts to provide free school meals to students whose family income is less than 200% of the federal poverty level. The current federal meals program provides free meals at 130% of FPL. Federal Poverty Level for a family of four is $64,300 annually, which I am sure you can imagine, is inadequate to cover basic living expenses no matter how carefully you budget. SB 204 requires the state to reimburse half of the cost of meals not covered in the federal program, and the local districts who opt in to be responsible for the remaining 50%. It provides administrative support to districts to create online applications for free and reduced meals. And finally, it provides funds for the online application software needed. The fiscal note, like the bill before this presumes that all eligible students will eat both breakfast and lunch every single school day. We know that schools don't have 100% attendance, and we know from USDA data that 45% of eligible students eat breakfast on any given day, and about 70% of eligible students eat lunch on a given day. So when the numbers are corrected to recognize those factors, the true expense is $4.3 million; 60% less than the fiscal note. So why would we support this? Online applications decrease error rates and lower administrative costs. Students who are reliably and adequately fed perform better academically and have fewer behavioral issues, and I will not repeat all of what I told you on the last bill. Kids are not responsible for their economic status. This is a small investment with great economic value to retain kids productively in school so they successfully become future wage earners. The majority report recognizes that funding programs outside the budget require corresponding reductions elsewhere. I agree it is morally and compassionately unacceptable to many that we would subsidize sending children of affluent families to the schools of their choice, while poor children in public schools go hungry. We are asking for less than $5 million when the EFA budget has no limit. I urge you to respect the thoughtful, pragmatic, bipartisan work on this bill in the other chamber and press the red button so a better motion can be made. The kids are counting on you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Dan McGuire is recognized to speak for the committee report.

Rep. Dan McGuire (R - Merr 14)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill is extremely similar to the one we just defeated. It's on the same subject. It's a little bit less money, but it's essentially the same topic. So, the reasons for voting against it are essentially the same. It's, it's still millions of dollars that we simply don't have at this time. But there's some additional considerations, because this is a Senate Bill. Normally, when a bill like this passes over there, they would then include it with the budget in HB 2, and they would fund it; especially because they had a lot more money to spend than we did, right? We had this bill, we chose not to fund it in the budget, they had the bill, they chose not to fund it in the budget. They chose not to bring it up during budget time, when we had money to spend, and when we could do tradeoffs between this spending and other spending, okay? So, this bypassed the budget process until we come to today, when we don't have any money left. All the money that we had has been spent. Okay, secondly, the bill itself is written poorly in the sense that if we were to pass it today, it would go to the governor, and it has things in it like it claims that there's a biennium ending June 30th of this year, right? In financial terms, our biennium ends June 30th of 2027; not 2026 as this bill states. So therefore, according to the fiscal note, all the money in the bill would lapse on June 30th of this year, right? So, so essentially, there'd be no time to spend this money before it lapses, all right? And it has an effective date of July, 1st of last year, for example. There are other sorts of technical problems that make this bill not ready to pass at this time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithDoes the member yield for a question? The member does not yield. Alrighty, the question is on the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate on Senate Bill 204, Representative Luneau requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The question is on the majority committee report of an Inexpedient to Legislate on Senate Bill 204. Representative Chretien is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Suzanne Chretien (D - Hills 19)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Please listen. If I know that this is about children's brain development and physical health, and if I know that many are going through an economic crisis that affects food insecurity and causes issues with a child's behavior, ability to focus and lack of stamina, and finally, if I know that this representative has seen this year after year working in the school setting, may I ask you to press the red button so we can give all children a better chance to succeed? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Brown's recognized for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Pam Brown (R - Rock 14)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that the other body did not include the millions of dollars required for SB 204, and I also know that state revenues are projected to be limited, and I also know that 25% of SNAP benefits are spent on junk food, would I now push the green button to vote ITL as the committee recommended.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is on the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate on Senate Bill 204. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you will keep your mouth shut and press the green button. If you're opposed, you'll do the same and press the red button. 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 183 in the affirmative, 161 in the negative, the committee report is adopted.

Rep. Stephen Woodcock (D - Carr 1)Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. In this chamber, the majority party has spoken for the past several years that New Hampshire already has way too many laws, and we don't need to continue to add more to this list; especially laws that are not necessary, or those that attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist. HB 360 fits both of those concerns. First, no, I repeat, no school in New Hampshire provides, nor have they ever provided the services that this law would prohibit. The committee heard hearsay testimony about an alleged problem way up in rural Maine, but no factual information or data. This bill, as amended, has zero relevance to New Hampshire. The bill isn't necessary and there is no problem that HB 360 as amended would solve, and we surely don't need to add another not needed law to the plethora of ones that already exist. I ask that you vote red on HB 330 as amended. Mr. Speaker, I request a roll call, please.

Speaker PackardThe chair recognizes Representative Noble.

Rep. Kristin Noble (R - Hills 2)Thank you. Mr. Speaker, school-based health clinics have been around for decades. There are thousands across the country. New Hampshire is the last state for these to be implemented. They can offer a wide variety of services, such as primary care, mental health services, sexual health services, gender affirming care, and even care for family members. It varies from state to state. These can be funded by federal grants as well as state and local funding. The bill is aimed at stopping this from taking hold in New Hampshire. As amended, it prohibits surgeries such as minor surgery for birth control implants and prohibits the prescribing of pharmaceutical drugs on school grounds. At a school-based health clinic in Maine, a student was prescribed Zoloft. The student's father found the pills in his daughter's backpack. They were in a plastic bag, no labels, no child resistant container, no parental knowledge or consent. When he complained about it, he ended up getting a visit from CPS. We must prevent the further medicalization of our local schools but also prevent them from becoming community schools where the entire community is served at the expense of taxpayers. Schools are not meant to be medical facilities. They have one purpose, and that is to educate children. Please vote yes. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before is majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on House Bill 360. A roll call has been requested by Representative Cornell. 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 committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on House Bill 360. This is a roll call vote. The chair recognizes Representative Cornell for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Patricia Cornell (D - Hills 22)Thank you, Mr. Speaker, if I know that no student attending a public school in New Hampshire has had a surgical procedure or been prescribed medication by a school nurse or school physician, and if I know that school districts have strict policies governing the duties of school nurses which do not include performing surgeries or prescribing medications, would I now press the red button to kill this unnecessary bill.

Speaker PackardThe chair recognizes Representative McDonald.

Rep. Wayne McDonaldThanks again, Mr. Speaker. If I know that teachers are not doctors, and also if I know that school nurses are not pharmacists, and finally, if I know that classrooms are not operating rooms and they shouldn't be, would I press the green button to ensure New Hampshire schools remain places of learning and do not turn into surgical centers like we have seen in neighboring states.

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. The motion before us is the majority committee report of ought to pass as amended on House Bill 360. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're 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, 155 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Rep. James Newsom (D - Merr 9)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Here is yet another Election Law bill that is in search of a problem. The purported problem is that our elections are rife with fraudulent student IDs at the polls to obtain ballots that aren't theirs. The fact is that this problem with people voting with fake student IDs simply does not exist. With zero cases of voter fraud of this type, this bill will not improve election security. Zero minus zero is still zero. On the other hand, the reality behind this bill is a blatant attempt to unconstitutionally prohibit students who are already registered and qualified voters in New Hampshire from exercising their undeniable constitutional right to vote. Let's remember that the purpose of showing ID to obtain a ballot is to prove that the voter is the same person that's already registered and qualified. I think we can all agree that if a form of ID is reliable in establishing a registered voter's identity, it should be allowed. Therefore, we must ask if the IDs deleted in this bill are reliable or unreliable, how should we measure reliability? I suggest we go with voter fraud cases. When asked if he was aware of any instances of voter fraud occurring with student ID, the prime sponsor admitted that he was not aware of any such cases. Zero, zip, zilch. He was not alone in his inability to cite the problem. The committee and subcommittee heard no testimony whatsoever about fake student IDs being used to obtain ballots. Zero, zip, zilch. In fact, we heard testimony from a UNH student that IDs may be more reliable than some forms of government-issued IDs. Testimony included the need for UNH students to be fingerprinted for their IDs. This process is much more rigorous and much more secure than getting a driver's license or other governmental IDs. Without any cases of fraud occurring with student IDs, there is absolutely no need to change the current law. As a reminder, this bill changes the presentation of IDs to prove identity of voters who are already registered and proven to be qualified to vote. While this bill will not prevent any voter fraud whatsoever, these changes might prevent registered and qualified voters in high school or college from voting. In addition to reducing civic engagement of our younger constituents, there will undoubtably be lawsuits filed that could cost the state upwards of $1.5 million to see it through to the Supreme Court. These are unnecessary and unbudgeted expenses to defend. This is not a fiscally conservative bill. In the end, this bill will not prevent a single instance of voter fraud. Zero, zip, zilch. And our constituents know this. The committee had 94% of our testimony by our constituents opposing this legislation; showing just how out of touch this bill is with the voters. For these reasons, OTPA should be defeated, and I request a roll call vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Berry is recognized to speak for the committee report.

Rep. Ross Berry (R - Hills 44)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I won't be brief, so if you want to go to the bathroom, it's a good time. I'm in the process of reading a book written by the gentleman who's probably going to give the PI right now. It's called Ungoverning. I highly recommend it. I don't agree with a lot that's in it, but in chapter 9, he talks about how democracy has been delegitimized because elections have to have universal suffrage representing the general will of the people. While the member is going to disagree with everything I say after this, I'd like to point out that in order to have the general will of the people, you have to know who's voting in your elections. So, I kind of want to take everyone on a little history trip on how we've got here, right? So, five years ago, I've been on election law. This will be my sixth year. When I got on election law, in the State of New Hampshire, you could walk into any polling location in the State of New Hampshire, you can present nothing, nothing. Not an ID, not a citizenship, not anything. You just signed a piece of paper and they would hand you a ballot. That wasn't an "affidavit ballot" or "provisional ballot." They just gave you a ballot and you went and you voted. And for years, I had to sit and listen about how like this is the most secure standard ever. It was the gold standard. It was the best system of all time. Like no, it was a farce. It was a total farce. Since then, the Election Law Committee over the last five years, not just me by the way, it's been a collective effort, has made steady progress, right? One of the biggest whacks at fixing our broken system was HB 1569 where we got rid of the ridiculous signature to vote requirement. When you look at the polling on this and look at the online comments from not even, you know, conservative news sources like you know, In-Depth New Hampshire or NH Bulletin where they kind of misalign some of the stuff that we do. You look at the comments and it's overwhelmingly in support of voter ID. Why? Because people like to know who's voting in their elections. I've made this kind of the cornerstone of trying to get there to a system where it's easy to vote and it's actually not easy to cheat. You know who's voting in your elections because I think knowing who's voting in your elections is just as important as being able to vote in those elections. You need to know so the outcome is legitimate because if you don't believe in a legitimate outcome, you're going to get some of the things like ungoverning where people don't believe in the legitimacy of the government. We just saw a lot of our colleagues were doing a 5th anniversary of the bad thing that happened five years ago; it was horrible. Bad things like that don't happen if you have a process that everyone, everyone can believe in. I don't condone what happened five years ago, I'm certainly against it, I've condemned it, and I still do, but I want to get to a process where we can all say the loser lost, the loser knows that they lost, and the loser can't question the legitimacy of an outcome. That brings us today to HB 323, which in my mind, kind of brings us to there is still some more work to do; brings us to some kind of a logical conclusion of where we've been headed which is, in New Hampshire, to vote, to register to vote, you're going to show an ID and it's not going to be some, you know, thing that you can print off of the card reader you can buy on eBay for 20 bucks. It's going to a legitimate, government issued ID like it would for anything else. And every argument you hear against this is just ludicrous. It's like, oh well, if you need a government issued ID to collect social security, to get on welfare, to do everything; you need an ID. You need an ID to get on a plane. Like, it's a part of life. It's 2026 now. People have IDs, they want to know their elections are legitimate and this is the last buttoning up of five years worth of work. So, I ask that the body vote green and that we kind of finish the job.

Rep. GermanaYou've talked about the progress you've made. You've talked about concerns about an illegitimate process. Can you explain to us the actual, tangible, evidence on which you base your claim that our previous system resulted in illegitimate electoral results?

Rep. Ross Berry (R - Hills 44)I actually would like to thank the representative from Keene, correct, Keene for bringing this up. So as election law chair, one of the laws we passed is that I get, every six months, a copy from the Department of Justice, the Attorney General's office, a copy of every election law complaint that has been filed, its status, and its outcome. So, do you want to know how many instances of wrongful voting there were in 2024 before the, you know can't sign your name away anymore was? 22. 22 instances of wrongful voting that have been prosecuted and convicted by the Attorney General in the last year. So, there's some evidence that people never talk about. And it kind of like speeding, right? If I told you that on I93 that they only issued five tickets; that there's only five instances of speeding on I93, would you believe that? No. You would laugh me off the stage because you know it's ridiculous. So, if they caught 22 people using a system that had as many holes as Swiss cheese, you can imagine that there's probably a lot more. And I'd like to point out, thank you for the question again, I'd like to point out, just two years ago, this body was decided by votes statewide; 11 votes. So, 22 votes, by the way, could've actually upended that. That determined who got to sit up there, Mr. Speaker. So, you know, yes, I can point to it, and I'm happy to share that uh with you. Um and by the way, my guess is there's more. Would anybody else like to ask a question? All right, cool.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe House will be in order. Representative Lane has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? That is actually sufficiently seconded. I thought you guys were napping. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The question is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on House Bill 323. Representative Muirhead is recognized for a Parliamentary Inquiry.

Rep. Russell Muirhead (D - Graf 12)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I knew that this bill is not a bill about whether we should have IDs and use IDs when we vote, and if I knew that rather this bill is a bill about whether schoolissued IDs, university IDs, or employer issued IDs are sufficient ways of proving that you are who you say you are, that I might be Russell Muihead and not Kelly Ayotte, and if I knew that though it's very, very difficult to disagree with somebody who cites my book so generously but that the logic of the situation compels me to, then would I press the red button and oppose this bill?

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithRepresentative Qualey is recognized for a Parliamentary Inquiry.

Rep. James Qualey (R - Ches 18)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that only government-issued IDs should be accepted as a form of ID for voting, would I then press the green button? Thank you.

Deputy Speaker Steven SmithThe question is the majority committee report of ought to pass as amended on House Bill 323. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, press the green button. If you're opposed, press the red. 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. 190 in the affirmative, 148 in the negative, the committee report is adopted. (Speaker Packard in the Chair)