SB464

Any attempt to water down or misrepresent the meaning and validity of the Civil Rights Movement or RSA, is a horrendous move by the sponsors and those that support such a hideous and impaired thought. NH is better than this!

This is a dangerous change to the Civil Rights enforcement law. Once you include that the prosecutor has to prove that a person's prohibited conduct be substantially motivated by hostility toward the victim's protected characteristics, you have given up practically all of your convictions. This is because you have to prove the persons state of mind. Who can prove what is in a person's mind. A good liar will always get away. Would it be acceptable to only be able to punish police officer's killers or attackers if we can prove that their conduct was substantially motivated by hostility toward police officers. If you violate a person's civil rights you need to be punished. It does not matter how much you hate them. Thanks Min. Ray

I believe SB464 would gut civil rights enforcement. It is already very difficult to prove any civil rights violation. The wording of this bill is incredibly vague and raises the burden of proof so high as to prevent successful litigation. How can a prosecutor prove that actions were "substantially motivated by hostility". What does that mean? Any defendant could claim that they were angry at the time of the action because of something that the person or persons might have done. They weren't "substantially motivated" just angry. In the case of racial discrimination any defendant can point to having a black friend or black co-workers and say they had no racist intent because of those relationships. The writing of a bill like this assumes that white people have suffered greatly from illegitimate claims of discrimination. That is not the case. It is incredibly difficult to get people to go forward with a complaint. I have served as a member of the Manchester branch of the NAACP. We take reports of discrimination and try to help people with those reports. When we hear about discrimination we tell people that they can file a complaint through our branch. Most of those people do not. They fear the repercussions. I can verify that even those who do file reports are afraid of what will happen to them if they file but decide to go ahead. Similarly women, disabled people and others fear repercussions whenever they stand up against discrimination. SB464 would cement that fear into New Hampshire law because anyone who had suffered discrimination would know that they would probably lose any case they filed and would pay for it dearly. Please vote against this bill.

SB 464 should be rejected because it weakens New Hampshire’s civil rights protections by raising the legal standard required to prove discrimination, making it significantly harder for victims to seek accountability. Under current law, a person can bring a claim if discriminatory conduct is shown to be motivated by bias against a protected characteristic. SB 464 would change this standard to require that the conduct be “substantially motivated by hostility.” This is not a minor technical adjustment—it is a meaningful and restrictive shift that raises the burden of proof for victims and narrows access to justice. In practice, this higher threshold will make it more difficult for individuals who experience discrimination to succeed in civil rights claims, even when bias is a contributing factor. Many real-world acts of discrimination are subtle, mixed-motive, or difficult to document. By demanding a stricter showing of “substantial” motivation, SB 464 risks allowing discriminatory conduct to go unaddressed simply because it is harder to prove. As a transgender resident, this change is especially concerning. Transgender individuals already face higher barriers to reporting, documenting, and proving discrimination. Raising the evidentiary bar further would make it even more difficult for people like me to seek accountability when bias occurs, effectively narrowing the protections that are supposed to ensure equal treatment under the law. This bill will also have a chilling effect on enforcement of civil rights protections by discouraging legitimate claims and increasing legal uncertainty. It shifts the balance away from individuals seeking redress and toward those accused of discriminatory conduct, while also inviting more prolonged and costly litigation over whether the higher standard has been met. SB 464 weakens the intent and effectiveness of New Hampshire’s civil rights laws. Instead of strengthening accountability and equal protection, it creates additional barriers for those seeking justice. New Hampshire should not raise hurdles for victims of discrimination. SB 464 moves in the wrong direction and should be rejected.

This bill would roll back civil rights enforcement, and I oppose any changes to civil rights enforcement. Please oppose this bill. I take into account voting records of those running for public office and hope you would consider my opinion.

Reading the bill, and the comments I agree with the Attorney General's office. "The department is concerned that SB464 takes NH in the wrong direction by reducing the protections afforded to the public to protect their civil rights from hate or biased-motivated violence, property damage, threats, and trespass."

This bill makes no sense and places an undue and unprovable burden on the victim--how can someone prove another person's motivation?? Regardless of motivation, the unlawful and poor treatment has occurred and the victim has still suffered from it.

The amendment to RSA 354 is entirely subjective and allows any perpetrator of a such an act to avoid prosecution under the statute by framing their animosity as fear, disgust or a requirement of their religion, thereby avoiding the appearance of hostility. Further, any degree of motivation for a crime that is based on protected characteristics should be prosecuted under such a statute; the addition of "substantially" simply adds another avenue for the avoidance of consequences.

This bill is discriminatory and is in opposition to the value of New Hampshire citizens.

AFT-NH opposes SB 464 because it weakens New Hampshire’s civil rights law by making it much harder to prove discrimination or bias based harm, by requiring showing that harmful conduct was substantially motivated by hostility toward a protected group. This higher bar limits the ability of schools and the state to respond to bias based threats, harassment, and intimidation. As a result, schools will have a harder time creating and enforcing policies that protect students, especially those who are LGBTQ+, disabled, or from minority communities, from harassment and bullying. It will be more difficult to create welcoming classroom and school communities where all our students feel welcome, can learn and thrive.

Stop treading all over our freedoms. Why would we limit how Civil Rights laws are enforced? Go home, Free Staters!

This looks like Politically motivated and subjective proposal. I feel that a small group is vying for nothing more than power and control.There are always two sides to the story. You should have weighed both of these with no bias.

While the wording of this bill looks simple and innocuous, it is done with the intent to weaken applications of justice under the state' civil rights laws. There is no problem with the current statute; it has worked. Leave it alone. Vote this bill ITL.

Thank you for your time in considering my opposition to Bill SB464. It is more important than ever that we fight for the rights of all people. Discrimination in any form has no place in NH. We must do our best to protect the most vulnerable and often marginalized community members. I have children who have special needs and I’ve worked with a variety of diverse groups. All deserve dignity and protection to live life equitably. Thank you in advance for protecting those rights. Penny Rouleau

We need to strengthen civil rights protection, not undermine it.

Please oppose this bill, which will impede enforcement against civil rights violations by increasing the threshold for action. The added requirement that the infringement be “substantially" motivated by "hostility” raises the burden of evidence required and enables violators to needlessly draw out enforcement actions by arguing over whether or not their actions can be shown to be substantially motivated by hostility. Enforcement should be based on the clear evidence of the harmful actions themselves, not on whether a particular motive can be "substantially" proven.

I oppose this bill. one might argue that only a few words are changed in this statute. The addition of 'substantially' and 'hostility' RAISE THE BAR for anyone protected under Civil Rights law to prove someone has violated their human rights. The 'actual or threatened conduct' must now not just be motivated, but 'SUBSTANTIALY MOTIVATED by HOSTILITY' - no longer will boyish or childish aggression, name calling, joking around, teasing, expressions of dislike, note passing, sign making, threatening motions or looks ALL OF WHICH ARE BULLYING qualify as a violation of my civil rights. This bill is a shield for bigots, a shield for assholes, a shield for those who thrive on putting others down, belittling and bullying others. The fact that the sponsors would even consider such a law shows what small, insecure and worthless people they really are. What does your support of this bill say about you? please vote ITL

This bill changes the standard for civil rights enforcement, adding language that creates a new threshold of motivation for those committing civil rights infringements. That threshold in turn creates an additional burden on prosecutors pursing action against those who have committed civil rights offenses. This weakens the ability to apply civil rights protections and enforcement within the state. The legal ramifications of changing this one sentence in existing state statute will have wide-sweeping implications for those seeking justice within one of the protected classes outline in existing law.

Why would any one want to make discrimination easier with fewer penalties. I am so disappointed in my state legislature right now for even considering this.

These bills harm our communities Civil liberties must protect all of us; not just those in power

Please Do NOT pass this bill. There's no reason to make it *harder* than it already is to enforce civil rights. Please DO NOT pass this bill.

I oppose this bill because it weakens civil rights law and will make civil rights violations harder to prove. This adjustment in language forces prosecutors and victims to prove that the violation was a result of the perpetrator's hostility, but discriminatory actions do not always unfold in these ways. Sometime inaction is discriminatory, too, such as when disabled or chronically ill people lose access to a service or space because it becomes expensive or difficult to provide that access. It is already difficult to prove discrimination in such situations, and this law will only increase that burden.

We need civil rights protections ENFORCED not weakened!

This is gutting our civil rights. Vote no.

Civil rights violations are serious and damaging to the reputation of the state. If those who act in violation of our human rights, the law should hold them accountable. If you try to quiet our voices, we will overcome those barriers. We have had to our whole lives. I want to work with you. So please don't take my power.