CACR28

House · 2026 sessionRepublicanKilled in House

Religious societies choosing public teachers

Rewrites the state constitution's morality and piety article to affirm that towns, parishes, bodies corporate, and religious societies have the exclusive right to elect and contract with their own public teachers, pending voter approval in November 2026.

relating to morality and piety. Providing that town, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies may elect and contract with teachers.

CACREducation - General

Status

Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · March 5, 2026

✓Introduced
✕House
Senate
On the ballot

Division of testimony

1,522 submissions

Support 14Oppose 1,507Neutral 1

Argument digest · AI-generated

from 245 of 865 written submissions

CACR28 would amend Article 6 of the New Hampshire Constitution to revert to its 1784 wording, grounding morality and piety in "evangelical principles" and authorizing towns, parishes, and religious societies to elect and fund "public protestant teachers." Nearly all submitters oppose the measure as an unconstitutional entanglement of religion and government that privileges Christianity over other faiths, while a small number support it as a restoration of historical constitutional text and local control.

Restores historical language and local controlSupport1 of 245 reviewed
One submission frames the amendment as a restoration of the state's original 1784 constitutional text that would return control over teacher hiring to municipalities and preserve, rather than undermine, church-state separation.
- “This is a direct RESTORATION of NH Constitution language of June 2, 1784. Municipalities would regain local control of education and reverse the centuries-long transmogrification toward concentration in state control.”
  — Daniel Richardson, Nashua · #588786 — read full submission →
- “The separation of church and state would be preserved. No rights of any denomination of any religion would be harmed, nor would any denomination be compelled to support another.”
  — Daniel Richardson, Nashua · #588786 — read full submission →
Violates the Establishment Clause / separation of church and stateOppose120 of 245 reviewed
Submitters argue the amendment directly conflicts with the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and the long-standing principle of church-state separation by having government authorize and fund religious teachers.
- “CACR 28 is a direct assault on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. By allowing religious societies to "elect" teachers for public roles based on "evangelical principles," the state would be formally endorsing a specific religious viewpoint.”
  — Kristen Pelletier, Windham · #599847 — read full submission →
- “The US Constitution is very clear - there should be separation between church and state.”
  — Melanie Hamilton, Northwood · #608218 — read full submission →
Grants Christians special protections other faiths lackOppose44 of 245 reviewed
Submitters object that the amendment explicitly grants "additional religious protections" to Christian denominations that are not extended to other religions, arguing this creates unequal, discriminatory treatment of Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and non-religious residents.
- “"AT THE PRESENT TIME.....every denomination of Christian does not have additional religious protections under the constitution beyond those granted to other religions." I have to ask, why should "every denomination of Christian....." need "additional religious protections”
  — Melanie Hamilton, Northwood · #608218 — read full submission →
- “Children who are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, or part of other Christian traditions would be made to feel like outsiders in their own classrooms. That is not education, it is exclusion.”
  — Kimberley Moroney, Swanzey · #590738 — read full submission →
Public schools must remain secularOppose55 of 245 reviewed
Submitters argue public schools serve students and taxpayers of all faiths and none, and must remain neutral spaces free of religious instruction; those who want religious education can turn to private schools, church, or home.
- “Public schools exist to serve all students, students of many faiths and of no faith at all. They are funded by taxpayers with a wide range of beliefs, and they must remain places where every child feels respected, included, and free to learn without religious pressure.”
  — Kimberley Moroney, Swanzey · #590738 — read full submission →
- “If parents want their children to be taught by people of faith in spaces where that faith is shared, there are already pathways (charter/religious schools) to those ends.”
  — Molly Parsons, Keene · #605223 — read full submission →
Contrary to the founders' intent and historical lessonsOppose37 of 245 reviewed
Submitters invoke the founders' deliberate separation of church and state, arguing it was designed to prevent the religious persecution and entanglement seen in Europe, and that reviving 1784-era language abandons that hard-won protection.
- “Except we explicitly created the separation of church and state to eliminate a single religion from having power over others, or people who want to follow no religion. And that wasn’t accidental, it wasn’t a lack of forethought, and it wasn’t a whim.”
  — Jennifer Ryan, Exeter · #591727 — read full submission →
- “this bill attempts to overturn the longstanding and legally sound principal of separation of church and state, and seeks to force a narrow, singular religious ideology into public education settings”
  — Elizabeth Sheckler, New Durham · #591647 — read full submission →
Invites costly litigation and is likely unconstitutionalOppose38 of 245 reviewed
Submitters warn the amendment would trigger expensive, protracted legal challenges and would ultimately be struck down as unconstitutional, wasting state resources in the process.
- “The attempt to pass this bill would result in many years of costly legal challenges through the court system, all in a misguided attempt to violate the principle of the separation of church and state”
  — Kathi Borden, Chesterfield · #605497 — read full submission →
- “This risks placing school districts, municipalities, and taxpayers in direct conflict with federal constitutional protections and established Supreme Court precedent.”
  — Erin Pellegrini, Hampstead · #592375 — read full submission →
Amounts to Christian nationalism / theocracyOppose22 of 245 reviewed
Submitters characterize the amendment as an effort to advance Christian nationalism or move New Hampshire toward a theocracy, warning it privileges one narrow religious ideology over civic governance.
- “I oppose CAGR28, which is a gross and egregious attempt by a group of legislators to try to turn NH into a Christian Nationalist state (specifically of the Evangelical variety).”
  — Elizabeth Sheckler, New Durham · #591647 — read full submission →
- “This difficult to understand proposed amendment to NH’s Constitution seems intended to turn NH into a protestant theocracy.”
  — Richard DeMark, Meredith · #596484 — read full submission →
Christian submitters object on their own faith's behalfOppose21 of 245 reviewed
A number of submitters identify themselves as Christian and still oppose the amendment, arguing that faith should not be tied to government and that the bill misrepresents true religious teaching.
- “I am a Christian and I am opposed to mixing others religious beliefs with public policy. Our country and our state were founded on the SEPARATION of church and state.”
  — Joanne Wilhelm, Moultonborough · #599507 — read full submission →
- “I am myself, by most definitions of the term, an evangelical Christian. Jesus Christ is my personal Lord and Savior, and I believe the Bible is the authoritative Word of God.”
  — Jonathan Couser, Merrimack · #604369 — read full submission →
Restores obsolete language out of step with a religiously diverse NHOppose7 of 245 reviewed
Submitters note the proposal revives 1968-removed, 1784-era sectarian language and cite survey data showing nearly half of Granite Staters are religiously unaffiliated, arguing the amendment no longer reflects the state's population.
- “CACR28 seeks to restore language to the state constitution which was previously removed. When amended in 1968, this language was considered to be obsolete sectarian references.”
  — Shira Nafshi, Concord · #598290 — read full submission →
- “The 2023-2024 Pew Research Religious Landscape Study found that 48% of Granite Staters identify as religiously unaffiliated, 45% as Christian, and 5% as other religions.”
  — Shira Nafshi, Concord · #598290 — read full submission →
Teachers should be hired on qualifications, not religionOppose17 of 245 reviewed
Submitters argue teacher selection should remain with education professionals and school boards based on merit and qualifications, not "elected" by religious societies based on piety.
- “Teachers should be selected and hired by education experts within a school and/or district who know what counts as good teaching. Though I would welcome teachers of ANY faith in our public schools, piety should NOT be considered a determinant of teaching quality.”
  — Molly Parsons, Keene · #605223 — read full submission →
Vague, overly broad language creates practical confusionOppose14 of 245 reviewed
Submitters argue the amendment's imprecise wording would create administrative uncertainty for school districts and municipalities, inviting inconsistent application and disputes.
- “the amendment’s language is vague and overly broad, creating significant uncertainty for public schools and local governments. Granting constitutional authority for towns or bodies to select teachers based on religious considerations invites confusion”
  — Erin Pellegrini, Hampstead · #592375 — read full submission →
Disbelief that the proposal is seriousNeutral1 of 245 reviewed
One brief submission expresses incredulity that the amendment is being seriously considered, without taking an explicit substantive position.
- “This IS a joke, right?”
  — Claudia Gibson, Hanover · #608380 — read full submission →

Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 20, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.

Amee AbelOpposeKeene, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

I support separation of Church and State. No special protections for Christians required. All religions must be respected!

Christie FaroOpposeBow, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

This is in direct violation of the constitution and separation of church and state.

Tye ThompsonOpposeNottingham, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

The traditional, secular, and democratic nature of public education is undermined when public money is used to promote religious doctrine. This type of legal shift suggests a potential end to the traditional interpretation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, making public funds directly support religious education. It changes public education from a common good available to all into a system that subsidizes private, faith-based instruction. I oppose this bill

Je AustinOpposeClaremont, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

Separation of church and state. That is all. That should be more than enough.

Beth EdwardsOpposeLisbon, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

What happened to separation of church and state!

T GagnonOpposeEpsom, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

I am opposed to this bill. We are not all worshipers of evangelical principles. This is a crazy bill and whomever proposed this should be censured. I find this bill offensive and not what NH is about.

Art SimingtonOpposeKeene, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

Bizarre, unconstitutional.

Abigail CharbeneauOpposePenacook, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

Keep religion out of school! It’s what this country stands for.

David ReidOpposeHenniker, NHfor My familyFeb 4, 2026

Please oppose this unconstitutional support of a particular dogma.

Lewis WhittumOpposeKeene, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

I am a "Christian" and I totally oppose this bill. The separation of church and state says it is illegal! So is the school voucher fiasco! Lewis Whittum Keene, NH

Susan BeetleOpposeStoddard, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

This is a bad idea

Hannah MeiselmanOpposeManchester, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

I strongly oppose CACR28 because it risks undermining separation of church and state, threatens inclusive public education, and could enable discriminatory or exclusionary teaching practices

Maureen DunnOpposeConcord, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

One of the strongest elements of our democracy, and one of the founding principles of the United States, is the separation between church (all churches) and state. The proposed language change would make the NH constitution fall out of line with our federal constitution and would eliminate that line between church and state. This is not a valid change to our state constitution, and it is not one that benefits any members of the NH public. Parents are already free to educate their children in whatever religion they deem fit - there is no need for them to institute the teaching of ANY religion in public schools, and certainly not one specific narrow religious belief system. This suggested change is sickening, unpatriotic, and I am vehemently opposed to it.

Kaitlyn LlewellynOpposeManchester, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

Freedom of religion is one of the most important tenets of a free America. I support anyone practicing any religion they choose - but this should NEVER be forced upon those that do not follow that same religion. I strongly opposed this bill. We are a Live Free or Die state for a reason. Vote this down!

Linzee MaharOpposePortsmouth, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

Let's keep religion out of politics, in accordance with the US Constitution

Andrea CourseyOpposeKingston, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

The current constitution reflects my values in it's language regarding the right to pursue a relationship with the divine, and to hire teachers that share the values of my group or community. The proposed change narrows the rights of citizens who are not Christian and threatens to bring Evangelical ideology directly into our public schools. Branding this as a security measure smacks of anti immigrant racism. -In my opinion, of course.

Regina WilsonOpposeExeter, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

This country wasn't founded on one religion. One religion should not be chosen over another. All religions should be equal to each other as in the Constitution!

Kathleen CeruttiOpposeDerry, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

If the proponents of this amendment truly want a more “Christian” society, then they should advocate for helping the poor, feeding the hungry, and welcoming the stranger. (See Matthew 25: 35) Instead, the sponsors of this bill, all republicans, belong to a political party that actively opposes all these Christian values. I’m all for a more moral and just society. But historically, theocratic governments do not improve the morality of a society, and instead tend to suppress personal liberties and marginalize minorities.

Malcolm ClevelandOpposeNorth Sutton, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

Keep centralized religion out of our schools and out of our country. All religions are welcome and equal, no teachings of one are any more appropriate or accepted than of the rest. Shame on those seeking to sneak this amendment past our public. Shame on you.

Martha LeightonOpposeAshland, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

I'm writing to express my VERY STRONG opposition to CACR28. Efforts to establish state religion are contrary to the founding principles of our country and are inherently unconstitutional. I am a Christian (Episcopalian), but I don't believe my faith, or anyone else's, should govern us at the state or national level. "Morality" and "piety" are subjective ideas, and enshrining the definitions of those ideas belonging to one religious group in our state constitution is inappropriate. NH citizens shouldn't be forced to live according to the ideas of evangelical Christians, any more than they should be forced to live according to the ideas of Satanists. This is the Live Free or Die state, not the "Live According to One Group's Idea of Freedom" state. Let's keep it that way. Please vote against this un-American amendment.

Roberta GradyOpposeHooksett, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

THE US Constitution is grounded in the Freedom of Religion and the separation of church and state. The state of NH should not be trying to undo 250 years of this democracy. You want to talk about piety and morality? How about defending our Constitutional rights? Isn't that MORAL? I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL. And furthermore, ANY legislator who votes FOR this, should be required to take a US Civics course or step down immediately.

Barbara ObecnyOpposeManchester, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

Separation of church and state is the principal we need to abide by.

Jean PriorOpposeWestmoreland, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

This proposed change contradicts the first amendment of the US Constitution, which establishes freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is part of the Bill of Rights. This proposed change reeks of Christian Nationalism, which I vehemently oppose.

Kristen PerkinsOpposeConcord, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

It is wholly inappropriate to insert particular religious beliefs in this manner. This country was founded on principles that emphasize freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. The separation of church and state is fundamental in the establishment and protection of freedom for all.

Maura BeckOpposeCenter Barnstead, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2026

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States confirms that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The separation of church and state is a fundamental principle that has been at the core of many democratic societies around the world. It defends against religious discrimination, preserves individual freedom and calls for governmental neutrality. New Hampshire's motto is "Live Free or Die" state, so this is particularly relevant to this state's residents to whom Freedom is paramount. The separation of church and state is to safeguard religious freedom for all citizens. To quote Rick Warren, “A truly free society protects all faiths, and true faith protects a free society.” A society that values and respects diverse religious perspectives is more likely to cultivate respect, understanding and social harmony. Separation of church and state also safeguards the autonomy and integrity of religious organizations and spiritual communities. Government decisions should be based on reason, evidence and the common good of all citizens, not on the religious dogma of a specific group. Separation of church and state provides a path for policies and legislation to be formulated through a rational and democratic process, driven by the needs and objectives of the entire population. This strengthens the foundation of good governance and encourages leaders to make informed choices that benefit our nation. The principle of separation of church and state is not an attack on religion but a protection of religious freedom and individual rights. By maintaining this distinction, we uphold the values of democracy and equality. I do not support this bill because of these reasons, so therefore, I vote NO.