The House, Thursday, June 4, 2026

Rep. Luz Bay (D - Straf 21)Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to HB 1062. The bill authorizes the Secretary of State to conduct random audits of voters who registered using affidavits. The audits will rely on any and all available governmental and private databases. It provides no requirement for advanced notice, no meaningful due process protection, and no transparency regarding which databases are used or how their accuracy is evaluated. That is not a safeguard for our elections. That is an open-ended surveillance power. HB 1062 adds a new layer of government scrutiny after a voter has already registered and sworn an affidavit under penalty or perjury. With this additional layer of scrutiny, the bill raises serious constitutional concerns. Article 11 of the New Hampshire Constitution guarantees every qualified voter the right to participate in free elections without undue government interference. The 14th Amendment prohibits states from imposing arbitrary burdens on similarly situated voters. HB 1062 risks violating both by creating additional hurdles that will disproportionately affect students, low-income residents, recent movers, naturalized citizens, people with disabilities, and others whose records may not fit neatly into narrow categories. These concerns are not theoretical. Just last week, the Federal Court's decision in the HB 1569 case made clear that New Hampshire cannot impose voting procedures that burden eligible voters without sufficient justification and that when a voter's eligibility is challenged, the state must provide clear standards and constitutionally adequate due process protections before depriving a person of the right to vote. HB 1062 ignores that warning. As ABLE New Hampshire testified, voting already requires courage, preparation, and trust for many people with disabilities. HB 1062 introduces fear, surveillance, and instability into that process. The organization further warned that database matching can produce false flags, particularly for people whose records differ across systems, including people with disabilities, individuals experiencing housing instability, naturalized citizens, and people with non-anglicized names. We heard similar concerns from election integrity advocates, immigrant rights organization, and local election officials. Public opposition was overwhelming. More than 10 individuals testified against the bill, and only one testified in support. More than 1,000 online submissions opposed the bill, compared to only 10 in support. The evidence presented to the committee was also striking. Only two to three cases of non-citizen voting have been identified in New Hampshire in over 20 years, but more than 200 voters were reportedly disenfranchised in 2025 because of simple name mismatches. In Florida, a similar program disproportionately flagged people of color, including a 91-year-old World War II veteran. Texas and Louisiana wrongly removed thousands of U.S. citizens from voter rolls under similar audit systems. These are warnings about the predictable consequences on relying on flawed databases matching the question of eligibility of lawful voters. Local election officials also made clear that this bill is unnecessary. A supervisor of the checklist testified that supervisors already verify citizenship and maintain accurate voter rolls. She warned that HB 1062 creates anxiety for registered voters and wastes state resources. Our local election officials take their responsibilities seriously. They do not need the state second-guessing their sworn work. Most importantly, supporters of HB 1062 could not identify a single instance that this bill would have prevented. Not one. The justification offered was based on hypotheticals rather than evidence, the very type of speculative reasoning the court rejected in the HB 1569 decision. Mr. Speaker, New Hampshire's elections are secure because they are simple, transparent, and locally administered. HB 1062 replaces trust with suspicion, clarity with confusion, and constitutional safeguards with open-ended investigations. Rather than strengthening election integrity, this bill risks undermining public confidence, burdening lawful voters, and inviting litigation over constitutional defects that courts have already identified. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge the body to vote no on adopting the committee of conference report. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Berry.

Rep. Ross Berry (R - Hills 44)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there's a man on trial right now from Manchester who's a non citizen who voted, he was bragging on Twitter. So there you go, there's one. What this bill does is, for years, you could just sign away that you were a U.S. citizen, and that's what we took as proof. The House passed an audit saying, hey, Mr. Secretary, you can audit the people that signed away for proof of citizenship. The Senate took that audit, watered it down, and made it only active for two years. We said, no, no, no. No, no, no. We want it to be a sunset. We don't want a sunset. We want this audit to be able to happen in perpetuity. I said on the Wednesday that we met, I said in the committee of conference to the Senate, you can't let this sunset because you never know what an unelected person in a black robe will do. The next day, they struck down our proof of citizenship requirement and brought back the affidavits. The next day. So it was really nice of the autopen appointed judge to do that, but now we certainly cannot sunset the audits. So, I would urge the body to vote green.

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. Representative Lane 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 to adopt committee of conference report on House Bill 1062. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Representative Lane for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Connie Lane (D - Merr 16)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that Governor Sununu, our Secretary of State, and the prime sponsor of this bill have stated that New Hampshire elections are safe and secure, and the public has high confidence in New Hampshire's voting process, if I know that this bill violates the privacy rights and due process rights guaranteed by the New Hampshire Constitution, and if I know that there's virtually no incidences of fraud by a non-citizen in the past 20 years, then would I vote against adopting the committee of conference report? Thank you.

Speaker PackardChair recognizes Representative Berry for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Ross Berry (R - Hills 44)Mr. Speaker, if I know that audits are one of the reasons that our elections in New Hampshire are now safe and secure, would I press the green button to adopt the committee of conference report?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is to accept the committee of conference report on House Bill 1062. 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 an opportunity to vote? The House will attend the state of the vote. 196 voting yea, 156 voting nay, the committee report is adopted.

Rep. Alexis Simpson (D - Rock 33)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Who are we fighting for? This is the question that drives our work here every day and one that's central to the debate on this bill. HB 155 has some good parts; raising the business enterprise tax filing threshold from $331,000 to $400,000 is sound policy. It has minimal impact on revenues and will help over 4,000 small New Hampshire businesses by reducing their tax obligation and eliminating their need to file paperwork with the Department of Revenue Administration. The section providing supplemental funding to New Hampshire's nursing homes is sound too. It benefits a vulnerable population, enables us to leverage federal matching funds and protects our communities from unexpected cost increases. Those are good policies. They prioritize New Hampshire small business owners, seniors, and property taxpayers. If the bill was confined to those two pieces, I would support it. But the final section of HB 155, which sets the stage to repeatedly reduce the BET in the coming years, is poorly thought out, sets the wrong priorities, and sends the wrong message to the people we represent. It's a poison pill that ties the hands of future legislatures to help the people they represent and overshadows the good pieces of legislation. Our constituents are struggling to make ends meet, their property taxes are among the highest in the country, the cost of everything from housing to healthcare has become unaffordable and they see no plan to reduce their costs. HB 155 does nothing to change that. It actually makes things worse. The bill says that if business tax revenue ever exceeds projections by $100 million, the BET is automatically cut by about 10%. Nowhere else in our statutes do we automatically reduce a tax rate if certain economic conditions are met. This bill makes the legislature's priorities crystal clear. If we happen to have a revenue surplus this year, next year, or 10 years down the road, HB 155 says that corporate taxes get cut first, not property taxes, not meals and rooms taxes, not any of the 90 fees that were increased in the last budget. Nope, corporate taxes. Corporate taxes have already been cut nine times in the last decade. So if you're a Granite Stater struggling to get by, who needs a little bit of tax relief to fill your gas tank or pay your rent, well, get in line behind Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. Because with HB 155, we're assuring that they get tax cuts and you don't. I can't think of a worse message to send or a worse policy to enact. So if you want to tell the people you represent that the utility monopolies and the big box stores deserve a tax break more than they do, go ahead, vote for this bill. But if you're here to fight for seniors, people on fixed incomes, single parents working two or three jobs, if you're here to fight for the hundreds of thousands of renters and homeowners who can't afford the highest property taxes in the nation, join me in pressing the red button to vote no on this short-sighted bill. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Janigian.

Rep. John Janigian (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this COC report does three good things. First off, as the last speaker mentioned, it does raise the business enterprise value tax base from $250,000 to $400,000. And the good news about that is 4,500 more small businesses won't have to file the BET tax and it is a minimal fiscal impact on the state. Secondly, the bill appropriates $2.5 million for the biennium ending June 30th, 2027, to the Department of Health and Human Services for the purpose of supporting per diem nursing facility rates, it also allows matching funds to be accepted and spent. And finally, the part of the bill that my colleague on the other side of the wall here says is so bad, that tax would not be triggered unless there's at least $100 million in business tax surplus and it would only be reduced by 0.05% for each $100 million in tax surplus. So that's a high wall to climb. But if we do get there, it means the state is bringing in a lot of business tax income. And let's not forget, the current tax rate now is 0.55%. When it was first instituted in the early 90s, it was 0.25%. And like most taxes, it likes to keep going up and up and up. This is a way we can responsibly, with a trigger, bring that tax down to the right rate but it depends on revenue exceeding expectations. So, I ask you to please concur with this important bill, which shows New Hampshire is open for business, helps approximately 4,500 small businesses and appropriates money to the Department of Health and Human Services for the purpose of supporting per diem nursing rates. Thank you.

Speaker PackardRepresentative Simpson has requested roll call. It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members, take your seats. The motion before us is to concur on House Bill 155. This is a roll call vote. Chair recognizes Representative Malloy for Parliamentary Inquiry.

Rep. Dennis Malloy (D - Rock 24)Thank you Mr. Speaker. If I know that New Hampshire ranks 48th nationally in aid to local communities and that we rank 50th, dead last, in education funding provided by the state. if I know that cuts to the BET and BPT over the last decade have reduced revenue by over a billion dollars, forcing property taxpayers to pick up an increasingly higher share of the tax obligation, if I know that the BET and the BPT have already been cut nine times over the last decade and that this bill sets the stage to repeatedly cut the BET even further whenever a revenue trigger is hit, and finally, if I believe that the people we represent deserve a tax cut more than the companies they work for, would I now press the red button to vote no on the Committee of Conference report? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Janigian for Parliamentary Inquiry.

Rep. John Janigian (R - Rock 25)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I know that this bill helps approximately 4500 small businesses who deserve our help in cutting their taxes and if I know that the Department of Health and Human Services needs the 2.5 million dollars appropriated for the purposes of per diem nursing facility rates, would I now press the green button and support the concur motion?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us to adopt the Committee of Conference report on House Bill 155. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll press the green button. If you're opposed, press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will tend to stay to vote. With 195 voting yea and 157 voting nay, the committee report is adopted.

Rep. David Luneau (D - Merr 9)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In a state that comes in dead last for its share of funding public schools, this bill puts a question on the November ballot to cap local property school property taxes adjusted only for inflation and new property growth. It sounds like it does a lot, but it doesn't do what you think. It doesn't reduce property taxes for anybody, but it does lock in low property tax rates for many people who own vacation and second homes. It doesn't eliminate regulations on public schools, but it does prevent budgeting for changes to special education costs, health insurance premiums, teacher pay, and reductions to state funding, especially the steep funding, the steep reductions to targeted aid and home hold harmless grants that go to towns with low property values and high property tax rates. Cities like Franklin, Claremont, and Manchester are already struggling. Think about that. It creates conflicts among towns in cooperative school districts. I know some people don't like co-op districts, but like it or not, we have them and about 50,000 kids attend schools in these districts. Let's fix them, not break them. And finally, this bill is part of the effort by some to destabilize public schools, including the reduction to academic standards, draining of contingency funds, dropping professional requirements for school business administrators, and ending the state's constitutional obligation to fund an adequate education. Our constituents want good public schools and strong student outcomes, and this bill fails on both accounts. It's bad for kids, bad for taxpayers, and bad for communities. Let's vote no and give this committee report an "F." Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Berry.

Rep. Ross Berry (R - Hills 44)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, something must be done. Someone must act. Our voters are being taxed out of their homes. We are the...they're laughing about it. They're laughing about it. Voters being taxed out of their homes, and they're laughing about it. Here they go. Here they go, everyone. Here they go.

Rep. Ross Berry (R - Hills 44)Here they go. You know how this is a good bill? Because you only catch flack when you're over the target. This is a bill that allows voters to enact via a popular vote on a state election by 60%. This is not something that you just fall into. A property tax cap that is tied to inflation and growth. It is the lightest possible hand that you could possibly conceive to instill some protection onto taxpayers. The House's position has been that the current process is broken. If anybody here thinks it's working well, I think even my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree it's not working well. The House's position is that more people need to vote and participate. The Senate took our bill that put this question on every ballot for the next two years in perpetuity, and put it only on 2026. And we said our position is more people voting is better. We at least want 2028 when the most people will be voting. So it'll be on the ballot for two years, two times. Finally, to address the concerns of the NHMA, I wrote incredibly prescriptive language that says that the question must be placed onto the state ballot. No second ballot. It must be placed on there. This is going to be a state solution to this problem. It is time for this body to act, and I urge my colleagues to push this over the line by voting green.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is to adopt the Committee of Conference Report on House Bill 1300. Representative Lane 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 to adopt the Committee of Conference Report in House Bill 1300. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Representative Damon for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Hope Damon (D - Sull 8)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I know that House Bill 1300 does not reduce property taxes, but does continue our current unfair property tax structure, if I know that this bill limits school dis- tricts' ability to respond to changes in special education costs, unpredictable health insurance premiums, and reductions in state education funding that harm the towns with low property values the most, and if I know this bill does nothing for our constituents who value strong public schools and good student outcomes, would I now press the red button to stop this anti-public school agenda?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Representative Berry for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Ross Berry (R - Hills 44)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, would I now press the green button to put taxpayers back in the driver's seat of their property tax bill?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is to adopt the Committee of Conference Report on House Bill 1300. 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 an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 183 voting yea. 170 voting nay. The Committee of Conference Report is adopted. The House recessed at 12:49 p.m. RECESS The House reconvened at 2:00 p.m. (Representative Steven Smith in the Chair)