Historically, all proposed changes in local governance are required to be official election day ballot questions to permit all properly registered local voters the opportunity to respond with their vote. For 25 years this was so for the adoption of SB2 (1995-to-2019) until it was purposefully singled out for removal from the official ballot to a traditional warrant article, which disenfranchised the vast majority of properly registered local voters the opportunity to respond with their vote. It is important to restore the manner of adopting SB2 to its original and correct place on the official election day ballot to permit all properly registered local voters the opportunity to respond with their vote. The traditional town meeting form of governance does not serve the people well when their venue cannot support even 20% of their voting population. Stop disenfranchising the vast voting population, and allow them to vote on adopting SB2.
HB1131
House · 2026 sessionRepublicanDied in SenateBallot referendum question placement rules
AIRequires that a question proposing to adopt the official ballot referendum form of town meeting be placed first on the annual meeting warrant, and adjusts related bond-article voting procedures.
relative to the official ballot referendum form of town meetings.
Status
Recommended for passage but never voted; died at adjournment · May 5, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✓House
- ✕Senate
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
120 submissionsArgument digest · AI-generated
from 67 of 67 written submissionsHB1131 would restore the requirement that a town's adoption of the SB2 official ballot form of town meeting be decided by a ballot vote on election day, as was the case from 1995 to 2019, rather than at an in-person town meeting warrant article as is currently required. Nearly all submitted testimony supports the change, arguing that all-day ballot and absentee voting is far more accessible than a single lengthy in-person meeting and that the current process effectively disenfranchises voters; a single opposing comment argues the change removes local debate and should be initiated by individual towns rather than mandated by the state.
- Ballot voting is more accessible than in-person meetingsSupport32 of 67 reviewed
Submitters argue that requiring attendance at a single, often long, in-person meeting excludes voters facing work schedules, caregiving duties, disability, illness, age, or military deployment, and that all-day ballot or absentee voting would let far more residents participate.
“Many neighbors—those with evening work shifts, those who travel during the week for business, caregiving responsibilities, mobility challenges, or health concerns—simply cannot attend, even though they care deeply about the decisions being made.”
— Marie Gouin, Hopkinton · #549973 — read full submission →
“I am unable to attend meetings due to being a healthcare worker, who works 12 hr shifts. I should be able to vote even working in 12 hr shifts.”
— RACHEL BELT, Hopkinton · #552734 — read full submission →
- Current process amounts to disenfranchisement/voter suppressionSupport16 of 67 reviewed
Submitters characterize the requirement that SB2 be adopted only via a warrant article at a town meeting—often requiring a 60% supermajority—as effectively suppressing the vote of the many residents who cannot attend such meetings.
“Since the state of New Hampshire changed the approval process for SB2, to the in person meetings, not a single town has been able to meet the 60% threshold to pass it.”
— Amanda Gilman, Hopkinton · #549667 — read full submission →
“Requiring in person voting to pass a warrant that says essentially “I can’t show up to in person voting , so I need ballot voting” IS the very definition of voter suppression!”
— Adam Gilman, Hopkinton · #550009 — read full submission →
- Bill restores SB2's original 25-year ballot placementSupport5 of 67 reviewed
Submitters note that SB2 adoption was decided by official ballot for 25 years (1995–2019) before being changed to a town-meeting warrant article, and argue the bill simply restores that original, more inclusive process.
“PLEASE restore the adoption of SB2 (official ballot form of meeting) to an election day question on the official ballot, where it previously was for 25 years (1995-2019), instead of a traditional meeting warrant article as it is currently.”
— Debbie Gragg, Hopkinton · #551741 — read full submission →
“For 25 years this was so for the adoption of SB2 (1995-to-2019) until it was purposefully singled out for removal from the official ballot to a traditional warrant article”
— Clarence Skidmore, Brookline · #554532 — read full submission →
- Meetings can be dominated by a small vocal minority or social pressureSupport5 of 67 reviewed
Submitters argue in-person town meetings can be controlled by a small, unrepresentative group who can stay late, and that voicing a dissenting view in public can expose residents, including business owners, to social or economic retaliation.
“If I have an opposing view on an article than my customer(s), they may choose to find another company whose views align more with their own views.”
— Kenneth Soucy, Hopkinton · #551191 — read full submission →
“The town meeting forum has been perverted by perverse sophisticates working to subvert the will of the people and carry out there malevolent agenda of consolidation of power and resources”
— Michael Tocci, Hopkinton · #552497 — read full submission →
- Two-session SB2 format improves deliberationSupport2 of 67 reviewed
A small number of submitters argue that separating a deliberative/informational session from the ballot vote allows more time for research and reflection, improving the quality of decision-making without eliminating local discussion.
“This will increase citizen participation and the interval between the deliberative and voting sessions will enhance thoughtful consideration of the motion before voting.”
— Ted Kirchner, Hollis · #553763 — read full submission →
“The informational meetings and Q&A sessions at town and school meetings could still be held, but adoption of SB-2 would enhance local control by broadening the participation of voting residents.”
— Steve Rood, Bath · #553317 — read full submission →
- Ballot voting removes local debate and should be town-initiatedOppose1 of 67 reviewed
One submitter argues that moving SB2 adoption to the ballot eliminates in-person debate and discussion, and that the decision to bring the question forward should be initiated locally by each town rather than mandated statewide.
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 22, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
Support this bill so that the true will of the people is known instead of just the will of the people who will stay the latest at the town meeting.
Everyone should have the right to vote. For years I had to work weekends, therefore, not being available to go school or town meetings. I had no say in my taxes skyrocketing. I do not stand alone. Please vote to put this bill back on the ballot. Thank you
The passage of this bill will cause Hollis to return to the two session form of town meeting. This will increase citizen participation and the interval between the deliberative and voting sessions will enhance thoughtful consideration of the motion before voting.
Current system allows only a small clique of eligible voters to pack the school gym and forces all to join an all-day struggle session on a Saturday in March in order to participate in town decision making. Bringing up the matter in an up and down vote will allow more hard-working tax-paying parents to participate in the decision.
These matters should be part of a regular election
I am strongly in favor of this bill. If passed, it will allow all voters an equal opportunity to participate in voting.
It is very fair and reasonable for the availability of a full election day of in-person voting or absentee balloting for confidential consideration and voting upon very consequential and impactful matters such as annual school budgets. The informational meetings and Q&A sessions at town and school meetings could still be held, but adoption of SB-2 would enhance local control by broadening the participation of voting residents.
This Bill, HB1131 is long overdue to remedy the need for disenfranchised voters (the infirmed, caregivers, nursing Moms, 2nd shift workers, business travelers, deployed military) so that All Day Voting and Absentee Ballots are available to these voters so that their voices may be heard and their interests protected at the Ballot Box. I give my utmost support to HB1131.
The SB2 system greatly increases participation in town and school meetings by having all warrant articles voted on by ballot any time on town election day or by absentee ballot.
SB2 makes it possible for the elderly, handicapped and those who cannot make late night meetings, able to participate in deciding the most important issues facing our towns by having voting by ballot any time on town election day or by absentee ballot. We are tired of the few people who are able to attend the often very long and very late night meetings deciding our governance and spending taxpayer money without the voices of the rest of the citizens being heard through balloting.
I am in favor of SB2. For too long our town has made it difficult to vote on items that matter to everyone in town with only a gym on a Saturday morning. I have kids. This is not easy or convenient
I am in favor of SB2. For too long our town has made it difficult to vote on items that matter to everyone in town with only a gym and an antiquated voting system.
I am in favor of SB2. For too long our town has made it difficult to vote on items that matter to everyone in town with only a gym and an antiquated voting system.
Please pass this measure. We need to be able to put warrant articles in the hands of ALL voters on election day.
I fully support this bill. By returning to ballot voting, as it was 25 years ago, it enables more citizens to have their voices heard. This bill enables broader access to the voting process, as ballot measures have longer hours, as opposed to the current state warrant process.
I am unable to attend meetings due to being a healthcare worker, who works 12 hr shifts. I should be able to vote even working in 12 hr shifts.
Please restore SB2 to an election day question on the official ballot, We simply don't get a balanced or meaningful turnout to town meeting for it to receive a fair vote there.
Please restore SB2 to an election day question on the official ballot, We simply don't get a balanced or meaningful turnout to town meeting for it to receive a fair vote there. It usually comes up 7-9 hours after the meeting begins. This question deserves greater participation than from a few special interest groups who remain around for that long.
It is difficult to attend town meetings and suffer through hours of discussion into the late hours of the evening. Ballot voting is preferable.
SB2 effectively eliminates debate and discussion. I am not in favor of the option being brought to the ballot without local input. Let each town bring it forward if the voters decide to call the question not the state.
Please PASS this bill! 200 people voting in the middle of the night, LITERALLY, or all day Saturday in a town of 8800 residents is not right! That is 2 PERCENT of the residents! Please pass this bill! All warrant articles should be voted on by ballot on Town Election Day!
Please PASS this bill! 200 people voting in the middle of the night, LITERALLY, or all day Saturday in a town of 8800 residents is not right! That is 2 PERCENT of the residents! Please pass this bill! All warrant articles should be voted on by ballot on Town Election Day!
I support this bill. Everyone in town gets a say.
We need to get more voters involved in the decisions regarding local spending. The current process makes it very difficult for many people to participate since they must atteend the meetings for hours and hours.