HB686

I write in opposition to amendment 2935h, replacing HB 686-FN, as follows: Roman I, in the amendment specifically prohibits electioneering WHILE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OR HER OFFICIAL DUTIES. However, language at new paragraph Roman III, prohibits public employee electioneering ... with no time or place established within which electioneering is prohibited. There is no geographic or time of day, month, or even year during which the prohibition applies. One would be prohibited from the activities listed in the amendment while on vacation in a different state or country, prohibited, effectively by time, by ever being allowed to, for instance, conduct a survey. Without time and place, Roman III is a clear violation of the rights provided Americans by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; thus, clearly unconstitutional, and, as currently laid out and become law, will be rightfully litigated and rejected by the courts. Bob Perry Strafford

This amendment introduces a misdemeanor-level offense for public employees, including appointed City Clerks, who, in the course of performing their official duties, are perceived to act in “any way designed to influence the vote or a voter on any question or office.” This language is overly broad and could criminalize routine, nonpartisan actions such as sharing educational materials or distributing voter guides. It is important to note that RSA 659:44-a already prohibits public employees from using government resources for electioneering. The proposed amendment goes beyond this, creating unnecessary ambiguity that may lead to misinterpretation and costly legal challenges for cities and towns. Furthermore, it appears this amendment was prompted by a single incident in Goffstown involving a candidate forum. We believe legislation should address systemic issues, not isolated events or personal grievances.

PLEASE DO NOT PASS A BILL THAT LIKELY VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. YOU ARE CREATING POTENTIAL LEGISLATION THAT COULD SILENCE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FROM SHARING EXPERTISE. TEACHERS, FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE CHIEFS SHOULD BE ABLE TO SPEAK ON ISSUES THAT AFFECT THEIR WORK AND COMMUNITIES. IF YOU PASS THIS BILL AND IT BECOMES LAW, THERE MAY BE LITIGATION, AND YOU WILL BE CAUSING THE STATE OF NH TO SPEND MONEY IT DOES NOT HAVE OVER A FRIVILOUS, PETTY, POORLY THOUGHT THROUGH BILL.

As a long-time New Hampshire voter and concerned citizen, I urge you to recommend Inexpedient to Legislate regarding the non-germane amendment #2025-2935H to HB 686. This amendment changes the bill title to “AN ACT relative to electioneering by certain public employees, expands the definition of “electioneering” and unfairly broadens the scope to include, “organizing or conducting surveys that are expressly or primarily political..." without drawing a clear distinction between a public employee's rights as a private citizen and their official duties, I believe the amended bill will cause public employees to lose their rights as a private citizen to support the candidates and measures they care about and unfairly restricts their right to endorse a candidate or measure in their individual capacity. In my opinion, the amended bill amounts to illegal censorship, invasion of privacy and violates the public employees’ right to free speech as protected in Amendment I of the Constitution. This bill, if enacted, could also lead to very costly court challenges, some legal experts say. Free speech must be preserved, protected and defended for everyone including public employees. Therefore, I am urging you to recommend HB 686, as amended, as Inexpedient to Legislate. Thank you for your service.

I strongly urge you to vote against the Amendment to HB 686-FN. This bill poses a direct threat to public information access and the First Amendment rights of public employees. By restricting the ability of libraries, schools, and municipal governments to provide vital information, it undermines both civic participation and local control. This proposal is no different than SB 213, which was previously vetoed by Governor Ayotte. The amendment simply replaces language with a reference to RSA 652:16-h on “electioneering,” thereby obscuring what is at stake and making it less likely that legislators will fully understand the far-reaching consequences. Core Concerns • Overly broad definition of “electioneering”: Neutral activities such as hosting candidate forums or conducting public surveys could be considered violations, even though they are essential for informed public discourse. • Suppression of public information: The bill would prevent libraries and municipalities from fulfilling their mission to provide unbiased, factual information to the public. • Conflict with existing law: This amendment directly contradicts RSA 98-E, the Public Employee Freedom of Expression statute, thereby weakening long-standing protections for public employees. Harmful Consequences The bill’s extreme breadth means ordinary actions could be criminalized as misdemeanors, including: • Informing the public about proposed legislation affecting institutions, municipalities, or voting rights • Public employees warning of dangerous consequences of bills under consideration (e.g., police, fire, or library staff) • A library staff member alerting trustees that the NH State Library was slated for closure • Displaying or distributing neutral flyers in public spaces of municipal buildings Conclusion This bill represents an overreach of government power that will chill free speech, restrict intellectual freedom, and silence public employees whose voices are vital to protecting communities. Such restrictions pose a grave danger to democratic participation and deny citizens the open communication they deserve. I urge you to reject the amendment to HB 686-FN and prevent this harmful legislation from becoming law. Paul Henkel

Having a passport and real ID license doesn't help, if I cannot get to the town hall. I need an absentee Ballot. Getting a notary is more difficult. One of the librarians, who works 8 hours a week, is the only notary in town. It is unnecessary and only serves to discourage people from voting.

For the record, my name is Steve Fournier, and I serve as the Town Manager for Newmarket. I’d like to respectfully voice my opposition to this proposed amendment to HB696-FN limiting the ability for municipal staff to educate the public on issues facing the town. This legislation is yet another attempt—similar to the previously vetoed SB 213—to restrict the ability of public employees to share factual, nonpartisan information with the public. Specifically, it would have the effect of limiting municipal officials, such as town managers and administrators, from providing critical resources like voter guides and explanatory information on warrant articles. These materials are not political advocacy. They are factual tools that help residents understand what is on the ballot and how local government functions. Curtailing our ability to provide this information does not strengthen democracy—it weakens it. Voters are best served when they have accurate, accessible, and unbiased information. The Governor rightly vetoed a similar measure earlier this year, recognizing the chilling effect it would have on open government. This amendment tries to revive that same idea, and it risks silencing municipal officials from fulfilling one of our most basic duties: informing the public. I urge you to reject this amendment and allow municipalities to continue providing the transparency and clarity our residents expect and deserve. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I oppose this amendment for several reasons: 1. It seems unconstitutional to call free speech by citizens who are public servants 'electioneering', and to deny them a basic right. I think the NH legislature should have more respect our laws and the rights of NH citizens. Citizens should not have to give up their right to free speech when they take a job serving their community. 2. I am also concerned that passing an unconstitutional law will invite more unnecessary lawsuits for the state. This will waste not only the time of our state attorneys but will also waste public money by incurring easily avoided legal expenses. 3. By silencing NH citizens who serve the public you will not just harm them: You will harm our state. These people have valuable knowledge and insights which should be shared with the public and our elected officials so we can all make make good, well-informed decisions. Making decisions without the input of experts is poor governing. You should instead be soliciting their input when relevant. 4. Finally, I am just a citizen, and not very familiar with the legislative process. But I like to follow what you do, and I can't help but feel suspicious about what you are doing with this bill: It started out as a requirement for citizens to have to obtain notarization on their absentee ballot applications, but now a 'non-germane amendment' takes away the 1st amendment rights of public servants. The bill has changed completely. This seems like dirty politics to me, as if you are trying to sneak something by NH citizens. It is disappointing to see the NH legislature starting this legislative session in this manner. I encourage to please conduct yourselves in a more transparent, ethical manner going forward. Thank you.

I oppose NH HB 686 because it raises concerns about the First Amendment and the silencing of public employees from sharing their expertise and experience. Teachers, firefighters, and police chiefs need to be able to speak on issues that affect their work and communities.

This bill is a partisan attempt to silence public employees, and to prevent them from sharing factual information regarding laws and elections that directly affect their work. Public servants such as teachers, firefighters, and ,law enforcement officers should be able to speak on issues that affect their work and communities. Vote NO on HB686.

I am against this bill. It will throw an extra obstacle in the way of aged or sick voters who vote by mail because they have a hard time leaving their homes. If they have trouble leaving home, how do you expect them to get to a notary? This bill doesn't make sense and should die in committee.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.