HB1788

I strongly oppose this bill! There has been too much nonsense against DEI. It's sole purpose is to open the door to allow women and minorities of various constituencies to be considered for positions based on their merits and abilities. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. What is unamerican about that?

AT AGE 79 I MOURN DEEPLY, AND THIS BILL REMINDS ME ONCE AGAIN, THAT SO MANY MORE PEOPLE THAN I COULD EVER HAVE IMAGINED DO NOT BELIEVE ALL PEOPLE ARE BORN WITH INNATE DIGNITY AND WORTH, AND THAT IT ENRICHES OUR GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS AND COMMUNITIES AND STATE - AND OUR SOULS - TO RESPECT, HONOR, AND UPLIFT THIS TRUTH.

I oppose this bill.

How much more money must taxpayers spend paying for lawyers to defend a bill that is fundamentally unconstitutional, no matter how many times it is tweaked? Let's move on to taking care of the housing shortage and all the other issues of actual importance that affect Granite Staters every day.

Acting on this retroactively is completely inappropriate.

The intent of this bill is malign and grossly overreaching. Prior contracts should be honored and trying to undo them in this way is against the will of the people and possibly unconstitutional. This bill is also, frankly, racist horseshit

DEI initiatives HELP our public entities and state agencies provide the best services possible to a diverse public body. What is the purpose in making things less efficient or equitable? Why are you actively working to deny equitable access to people with different backgrounds and abilities? Getting rid of DEI initiatives is regressive policy!

Bill appears unnecessary and verbiage leaves lots of room for courts to get tied up with law suits, this will ultimately cost hours and money to tax payers.

HB 1788 is an unprecedented and reckless intrusion into lawful governance that weaponizes socioeconomic identities against equity, constitutional principles, and sound public administration. By retroactively voiding duly executed state and local contracts containing broadly defined and politically framed DEI provisions, the bill undermines the Contracts Clause, due process protections, and basic reliance interests that allow governments and vendors to function. The creation of an expansive taxpayer right of action—paired with mandatory attorney fee recovery—invites a flood of opportunistic litigation, chilling lawful contracting and diverting public resources away from essential services and toward legal defense. This is not fiscal responsibility; it is state-sanctioned instability that exposes public entities to enormous liability without any evidence of harm or demonstrated public benefit. The bill’s enforcement scheme is particularly dangerous for historically marginalized and intersectional communities—people of color, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities, veterans, and rural and low-income workers—who are disproportionately affected when equity safeguards are stripped from public systems. By coercing agencies and educational institutions to investigate vague citizen complaints without funding, standards, or procedural safeguards, HB 1788 replaces professional oversight with ideological vigilantism. Its extension into public education, linking alleged DEI violations to educator discipline, threatens academic freedom, equal protection obligations, and compliance with existing civil rights laws, while fostering fear-based governance that deters inclusive practices essential to student success and workforce readiness. HB 1788 does not promote neutrality; it mandates exclusion, erodes constitutional governance, and substitutes evidence-based policymaking with punitive enforcement. It centralizes power to invalidate lawful contracts, destabilizes public-private partnerships, and risks placing the state in direct conflict with federal civil rights requirements—exposing taxpayers to further liability. An intersectional, ethical government must ensure transparency, accountability, and equal opportunity for all residents, not codify discrimination through contract nullification and coercive lawsuits. For these reasons, HB 1788 should be rejected in its entirety as unconstitutional, unfunded, and fundamentally incompatible with equitable and effective governance.

Chairman and Members of the Committee, My name is Kim Lawrence, and I am a New Hampshire resident. I am writing to respectfully urge you to vote Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 1788-FN. This bill is not a modest procurement reform. It is a sweeping and punitive measure that would create significant legal risk and uncertainty for state and local government operations, increase taxpayer exposure to costly litigation, and undermine the ability of municipalities, school districts, and state agencies to responsibly manage contracts and compliance. 1. HB 1788 turns routine contracting into a legal and administrative trap HB 1788 prohibits agencies and political subdivisions from entering into or renewing contracts that include “DEI-related provisions,” then declares any contract made in violation “void as a matter of law,” requiring courts to order full rescission. This approach is extreme and destabilizing. Government contracting is already governed by procurement standards, contract law, and oversight. This bill would introduce automatic invalidation of contracts based on disputed interpretations of language, even when services are already being delivered. In practice, this invites disruption, delays, rebidding, and increased costs—especially for towns, school districts, and smaller agencies with limited staff and legal capacity. 2. It incentivizes taxpayer-funded lawsuits, not accountability HB 1788 creates an expansive taxpayer cause of action against state agencies, political subdivisions, public schools, school districts, school administrative units, and even the Department of Education. The bill allows a taxpayer to seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and it mandates payment of “reasonable attorney’s fees” if the taxpayer prevails. That provision is a direct incentive to litigate. It encourages outside groups and individuals to file enforcement lawsuits, knowing that if they win, taxpayers will fund their legal costs. This model converts disagreement over contract language into a litigation pipeline and diverts public resources away from services and into legal defense. 3. The DEI definition is overly broad and invites politicized enforcement HB 1788 defines “DEI” as any policy, program, training, or initiative that classifies individuals based on characteristics identified under RSA 354-A:1 for the purpose of achieving demographic outcomes. This language is vague and subject to dispute. Modern contracts often include compliance language regarding nondiscrimination, workforce practices, harassment prevention, accessibility, vendor policies, and training requirements—especially in education, healthcare, and public safety settings. Under HB 1788, such routine provisions could become litigation targets. This bill does not create clarity. It creates uncertainty. It will encourage public entities to avoid even lawful and helpful practices because the penalty is severe and the risk of lawsuits is high. 4. DEI is not a weakness; DEI is a strength in public service Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts—when done responsibly—strengthen institutions. They improve outcomes, reduce conflict, increase retention, and increase public trust. In public contracting and government workplaces, DEI-related practices often function as practical tools, such as: harassment prevention and professional conduct training equal opportunity hiring and workforce retention practices ensuring accessibility for people with disabilities creating respectful workplaces where employees can do their jobs effectively improving service delivery to the full public, including veterans, seniors, rural communities, immigrants, and people with disabilities Good DEI practices do not replace equal treatment—they support it. They help ensure that public services are delivered efficiently, that employees can work in healthy environments, and that taxpayer-funded institutions are effective and accountable. HB 1788 treats those practices as something inherently suspect and makes them legally dangerous to reference in contracts, even when such provisions reflect best practices and reduce liability. 5. It increases pressure and politicization in public schools The bill extends beyond state contracting into public education governance. It links alleged DEI contract violations to educator discipline under the educator code of conduct and creates a taxpayer enforcement system against public schools and school districts. This will increase politicized complaints, force schools into unnecessary investigations, and strain limited administrative resources. Schools should be focused on teaching and student safety—not navigating legal threats over disputed contract language. 6. The bill imposes costs without providing funding HB 1788 does not provide funding. The fiscal note indicates indeterminable costs, and the Department of Justice acknowledged a potential fiscal impact in the range of $10,000 to $100,000. Local government impacts are similarly indeterminable. This is an unfunded mandate that shifts the burden to towns, cities, and school districts. Even if some contract language has been changed at the state level, HB 1788 creates new enforcement mechanisms that will generate costs through litigation, compliance work, procurement revisions, and investigations. Conclusion HB 1788-FN replaces effective governance with automatic contract invalidation and incentivized litigation. It undermines stable contracting, increases taxpayer liability, politicizes education administration, and discourages best practices that improve workplace culture and public service delivery. DEI, when used responsibly, strengthens institutions and communities. This bill does not improve equal treatment—it creates legal risk, confusion, and costly conflict. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to vote Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 1788-FN. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully submitted, Kim Lawrence

My name is Karen and I live and vote in Bristol. I OPPOSE this bill.

This is ridiculous. Just straight up silly. The NH House needs to use it's time better. What's wrong with you?

DEI has become a catchall for "everything the right does not like". It is vague and very hard to define.

The fact that the federal government has unjustly and often illegally backed away from DEI policies does not mean that our state has to follow. Preserve DEI in NH.

This is a waste of our legislators time. Please look forward to consider ways to working families struggling with high costs of child care and unaffordable housing expenses.

We have diversity and we need it, It is what makes “all men are created equal” true for everyone. Vote no.

Sate should uphold national DEI provisions.

DEI stands for Definitely Earned It! Let’s be fair !

This bill is wrong. It is not supported by majority of citizens. It is too broad.

This would impose unnecessary restrictions on the exact wording of contracts. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are not 'bad' words and should not have to be avoided in legal documentation when it's relevant. Federal funding already has restrictions in place here, what would be the point of more hurdles beyond causing undue distress?

We need to stop being afraid of diversity equity and inclusion. I strongly oppose this bill because I am not afraid of DEI.

To the Honorable Members of the House Executive Departments and Administration Committee, My name is Ehrin. I am a middle school educator in Concord, and I am also a resident of New Boston. I am writing to respectfully oppose House Bill 1788, which attempts to amend the state’s existing prohibition on diversity, equity, and inclusion–related programs in public education and the public sector. As an educator, I am deeply concerned that HB 1788 fails to address the serious constitutional and practical problems that led to the current law being enjoined by a federal court. Rather than clarifying or correcting the statute’s vague and overbroad language, this bill expands its reach and increases the penalties for educators and schools. HB 1788 would make alleged violations of this unclear law violations of the Educator Code of Conduct, placing educators’ professional licenses at risk. This creates a chilling effect in classrooms and schools, where educators may avoid lawful, age-appropriate instruction or student support out of fear of investigation or punishment. That fear does not improve education—it undermines it. As a middle school educator, I work with students who are learning how to navigate differences, build empathy, and understand their place in a diverse society. Policies that discourage honest discussion, inclusive practices, or student support services make it harder for schools to meet students’ academic and social-emotional needs. I am also troubled by the bill’s provisions expanding investigations and directing courts to declare contracts void if they are found to include vaguely defined prohibited language. This creates legal uncertainty for school districts and municipalities and invites costly litigation, rather than providing clear guidance or stability. As a New Hampshire resident, I value local control, due process, and limited government. HB 1788 moves in the opposite direction by expanding an already unconstitutional law and inserting the state more deeply into local educational decision-making. For these reasons, as both an educator in Concord and a resident of New Boston, I urge the committee to oppose HB 1788 and instead consider repealing the underlying statute rather than expanding it. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Ehrin Kelly Middle School Educator, Concord Resident, New Boston

I oppose HB1788 because this sounds like another lawsuit. Remember, the anti-DEI legislation is a matter in which the State is already defending in court and likely to loose on the taxpayer’s dime. NH can’t treat everyone the same because people aren’t the same. People have different abilities, so have to be treated differently. This is a terrible policy idea which will have unintended consequences.

I wish to remind everyone of these three definitions: Diversity - the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, religions, sexual orientation, etc. Inclusion- the practice or policy of providing equal access to opportunities and resources for people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized, such as those who physical or intellectual disabilities and members of other minority groups. Equality- the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities. Why would anyone be against our educators teaching these unifying & kind principles? This is exactly the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Position recorded without written comment.