New Hampshire bill changes citizen to person in right to know law

The New Hampshire Senate Judiciary Committee convened on April 24, 2025, to discuss proposed amendments to the state's Right to Know law, specifically House Bill 66. The bill aims to redefine the term "citizen" to "person," thereby allowing anyone, regardless of residency, to submit records requests. This change has sparked significant debate among committee members and stakeholders.

The primary focus of the discussion centered on the implications of broadening the definition of who can request public records. Proponents argue that the change is a necessary clarification, reflecting historical interpretations of the law that have allowed out-of-state and even foreign requests. They cite a recent superior court decision in Rochester, which concluded that the law should not be limited to New Hampshire citizens. Supporters, including representatives from the ACLU of New Hampshire, emphasized that the bill does not expand access but rather clarifies existing rights.

Conversely, opponents raised concerns about potential abuses of the law, particularly from individuals or entities outside New Hampshire. They argue that the bill could lead to an influx of voluminous requests that would burden local municipalities and state agencies. Testimonies from various municipal representatives highlighted the challenges they face in managing existing requests, with some officials reporting extensive hours spent fulfilling requests that could exceed 20,000 pages of documents.

Another contentious point was the requirement for municipalities to provide records electronically, which some officials believe could impose an unreasonable burden, especially for records that exist only in paper form. Critics argue that this could fundamentally change the nature of the Right to Know law, shifting the responsibility from providing access to actively delivering documents.

The committee also discussed the potential for misuse of the law by individuals posing as media representatives to gain access to sensitive information. Concerns were raised about the vagueness of the term "media" in the bill, which could allow anyone with an online presence to claim media status.

As the meeting concluded, the committee members were urged to consider the implications of the proposed changes carefully. The discussions highlighted a divide between the desire for transparency and the need to protect local governments from overwhelming requests. The committee will continue to deliberate on the bill, weighing the benefits of increased access against the potential for misuse and administrative burden.