[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6582158,"mediaKeyId","3150498-9d2e3431aebac83a8079bf630dfe3370","parentId",3150498,"title","Sponsor proposes private right to sue over election-law breaches; opponents warn of ’floodgates’","audioSeconds",1343,"startMs",353000,"endMs",1696000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3150498-9d2e3431aebac83a8079bf630dfe3370&start=353&end=1696","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3150498-9d2e3431aebac83a8079bf630dfe3370/thumbnail_353000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6582158/New-Hampshire/Sponsor-proposes-private-right-to-sue-over-election-law-breaches-opponents-warn-of-floodgates","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6582158-ed3999d9ddc295a1e1157d31977f67f1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143286&Signature=WynHod3QkHA-Cbh8EYP69KA6ATINkOaaStw2zH19tYYbxIPezy-FQFfuz~wk00GyItxOc1TMzr7Dvu1y9LMHD9kR7NNVrETqMCzuQU0Z~07~TsnsQyKAE4UL6nreVJtPQv3QxNEpJj4k68S-LQ-U3dyNW-RyoOqF7yDjFEthZmtkLLc~zaaaYYcc8m76y9fKAe5YZDXmWJmKWTViJ~zBlDO97FbTHlf~SlrzbsQwtkppkl4F5vn-iIQVkhL~vWDCqtEXYxiWKqxfS8uqgGIdiyNTqJnLUms-7ycsjCzIPXGtt0KsvHQwVbK31OuAQnLocYzyc7Hb7t4Zm2~eHS-pFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-04-29T19:42:01.337Z","article","HB 514, introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Representative Ross Berry, would allow private citizens to sue for violations of election law contained in RSA 6:59 when the attorney general declines to pursue enforcement.

Representative Ross Berry, R‑Hillsborough 44, told the committee the bill responds to court rulings interpreting the provision that assigns civil enforcement to the attorney general as precluding private suits. “I am here today to introduce House Bill 514, private persons to sue for violations of elections law,” Berry said. He described the proposal as a framework that keeps the attorney general (AG) as the “first line of defense” while creating a limited private right of action where the AG does not act, and as preserving qualified immunity for election officials and limits on attorney fees.

The bill’s sponsor emphasized timing provisions he said are necessary for election disputes. Under the bill, Berry said, the Department of Justice (DOJ) would have five days to respond to complaints and, if the complaint arises within 15 days of an election, a private plaintiff could go directly to court. “Let's say I'm denied the right to register to vote on election day. I don't have six months — I have today,” Berry said.

Why it matters: RSA 6:59 covers many election procedural matters — electioneering, ballot access, conduct by public employees — and testimony before the committee focused on whether private lawsuits would improve enforcement or instead create legal and operational problems for towns and election workers.

Opponents warned of harms to volunteer election workers and municipalities. Representative Timothy Oregon (House Judiciary) urged the committee to ITL (inexpedient to legislate), saying the bill likely would invite “floodgates” of politically motivated lawsuits and burden the DOJ. “If you have to drop everything and reply to this in five days and report back in 15 days, they may have to put aside other matters to deal with these election law complaints,” Oregon said. Sarah Burke Cohen, representing the New Hampshire Municipal Association, testified in opposition, citing ambiguity about whether municipalities could be defendants and concerns about limits on attorneys’ fees.

Election officials who administer polls said the bill would chill recruitment and retention of workers. Kate Hill, a Dover moderator with roughly 16–18 years of local election experience, told the committee she and the volunteers she manages carefully follow state law and that the threat of litigation for mistakes would discourage service. “It strikes fear into our hearts to think that, because of a misunderstanding, we could be opened up to litigation,” Hill said.

Public-policy groups also opposed the bill. Kaylee Abstradio, a Durham voter and Open Democracy fellow, said enforcement should remain with institutions such as the attorney general’s office, which is equipped to investigate impartially. “Shifting this authority to private citizens invites a wave of frivolous and most likely politically motivated lawsuits,” she testified.

Supporters said the bill addresses real gaps. Multiple speakers recounted incidents the sponsor cited: a school letter sent to parents urging support for particular candidates, an allegedly unlawful library records release, and a candidate survey crafted to favor one party — examples Berry said illustrate why a private remedy is needed when the AG declines to act.

Committee action and next steps: After testimony and questions, the committee voted by voice to recommend ITL on HB 514. The committee’s motion to recommend ITL passed by voice vote, effectively recommending that the measure not advance out of committee.

Context and limitations: The bill would keep the AG complaint process in place as the initial avenue of redress, add a narrow private right of action under specified circumstances, preserve limited attorney‑fee rules in the draft, and retain qualified immunity for election officials per the sponsor. The hearing record shows disagreement over whether the bill would meaningfully improve enforcement or instead create litigation risks and operational burdens for local officials.

Ending: The committee’s ITL recommendation stops HB 514 from advancing at this time; supporters may seek amendments or reconsideration in future sessions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary (04/29/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","HB 514, introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Representative Ross Berry, would allow private citizens to sue for violations of election law contained in RSA 6:59 when the attorney general declines to pursue enforcement.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Senate , Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",29511,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6582143,"Bill would bar sanctuary policies and require local cooperation with federal immigration detainers; hearings spotlight jail costs and local control",2738,4976000,7714000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3150498-9d2e3431aebac83a8079bf630dfe3370&start=4976&end=7714","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3150498-9d2e3431aebac83a8079bf630dfe3370/thumbnail_4976000.jpg","/articles/6582143/New-Hampshire/Bill-would-bar-sanctuary-policies-and-require-local-cooperation-with-federal-immigration-detainers-hearings-spotlight-jail-costs-and-local-control","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6582143-a1839af1470e2fdc1ac7a8f6e5458488/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143286&Signature=iFbBz46Zhd0tyky3qfXQ6rI7RYjx8IqZBMjZATE9xORy3Jp5tgO38gVPVdnj6EGBae5Iq0KaExYDh6OguHEXyKLGm~0IdiRxj1ZfC1oy-gWB~IjdWlWOD2epa1K6sj4yxMxI0HQNqH1JEQl~e2Rapu~urVaEGmoMogfCk4mKtWIGD43x3PkQMORyjm0buwaoeLHJfJg2QntMS6Oh21~Sd59MMwojnUYA~9Mt6g0dGMwU6N-cyMMToV2U02EEDyqOhF85KpyC8fMllLDuTg0WS14N-mAlOYU~ZUS~TFQMECFNFH5qihnVX2Oggxb1~qK4qAX7rKr4I62-QupS7Hd~Ug__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Joe Sweeney introduced HB 511, a measure the sponsor described as outlawing sanctuary policies in New Hampshire and directing law enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and to honor lawful immigration detainers.

Representative Joe Sweeney (Rockingham District 25) told the committee, “If you are here illegally, you are not welcome in New Hampshire,” and urged support for legislation that would require local agencies to comply with federal immigration law and detainer requests. He said the measure includes protections for victims and witnesses of serious crimes while emphasizing cooperation with federal authorities.

Public testimony was strongly divided. Supporters argued the bill promotes public safety and ensures that local jurisdictions do not shield people subject to federal removal. Michael Lambert and others urged passage, framing immigration enforcement as necessary to protect communities and to preserve the rule of law.

County jail officials and municipal representatives raised operational and fiscal concerns. Tim Lethbridge, superintendent of the Grafton County Jail and a spokesman for the New Hampshire Association of Counties, said many jails already cooperate with ICE but warned the bill as written could impose costs and liabilities on counties that lack housing and operational capacity to hold civil immigration detainees. Lethbridge cited examples of high marginal costs: he told the committee that Strafford County recently incurred approximately $31,000 in officer manpower costs to provide security and life‑flight support for one ICE detainee who required medical evacuation. He urged the committee to limit any mandatory obligation to jails that have executed agreements with ICE so that ICE would be responsible for associated costs and legal defense.

Local officials and residents also warned of policing consequences. Linda Field, a resident of Peterborough, described her town’s local decision to limit police interaction with ICE and said the community is concerned about due process and the treatment of working people; other testifiers urged the committee to respect local control. Opponents argued that mandatory cooperation could chill trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, making communities less safe.

Supporters of the bill countered that local ordinances which restrict cooperation with federal authorities undermine statewide public‑safety policy. Representative Ross Berry, a cosponsor, urged adding the judiciary to the list of entities that cannot impede federal enforcement after citing instances he said showed local actors enabling avoidance of federal detainers.

Why it matters: The bill touches on competing priorities — enforcement of federal immigration law versus local discretion, community trust in policing, and the financial and liability burdens on county jails. Testimony highlighted that many counties already cooperate with ICE but that holding civil immigration detainees raises distinct classification, housing and liability issues.

Committee status: The hearing record included extensive testimony from sheriffs and jail superintendents, municipal officials and local residents; no committee vote is recorded in the transcript provided.

Ending: The committee concluded the hearing after wide-ranging testimony; several county officials recommended narrowing any mandate to facilities that have executed formal agreements with ICE to ensure federal cost and liability sharing.","HB 511 would ban sanctuary policies and require state and local law‑enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities, including honoring detainers; proponents emphasized public safety, opponents warned of unfunded mandates, legal liability and damage to community policing.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6582148,"‘Schools not shelters’ bill divides committee — sponsors cite student welfare; finance panel warns of federal funding loss",1802,3202000,5004000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3150498-9d2e3431aebac83a8079bf630dfe3370&start=3202&end=5004","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3150498-9d2e3431aebac83a8079bf630dfe3370/thumbnail_3202000.jpg","/articles/6582148/New-Hampshire/Schools-not-shelters-bill-divides-committee-sponsors-cite-student-welfare-finance-panel-warns-of-federal-funding-loss","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6582148-c870e46e29efb6ce960b9e159ada6d20/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143286&Signature=ozEpI3LvZgWupsfZAfI4LBQIL-N5hvl5Iwle2GM6yqHHbASIyIkW6t~CbRdxXmN3jWsLGDoOwlY-h-Ikvp0qF4N-fNIGNz2ROqyM-ieZl4XV-P4--e3A3PI2~6srs4-LNohI-yQIBWxhFYcYXeD1QZjyf6GICB5YtR6Cufes2~0g0NlVjOK0a6SPvhzBJ1UY-nGW5r0-p2XgK0vyfK-I5CyxasBI8WApE~II38V~qYHHkq0-w7cySMWp-I4Cgec4gia6zAbNQvGSQTQu2pn66McS7nKAGetBiIBdlBlJd0YlYpSRkj~4O1eTKzMvulWeyD3208W~~N8OdhXuZML41w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sponsor Juliet Harvey Bolia told the Senate Judiciary Committee HB 71 was motivated by closures of schools used for non‑student housing during emergency operations elsewhere and is intended to prioritize students and in‑person learning.

Representative Juliet Harvey Bolia (Belknap District 3) said the bill — modeled on legislation introduced in other jurisdictions — would prevent schools from being used exclusively to shelter ‘‘specified aliens’’ except for short‑term emergency use (the bill defines short‑term as not to exceed 72 hours) and carveouts for formally declared disasters. “After COVID happened and they shut our schools down…I swore that we would never let them shut our schools down again for political reasons,” Harvey Bolia told the committee.

Supporters argued schools are taxpayer‑funded educational facilities and should be preserved for students. Co‑sponsor Representative Lisa Freeman described instances in which airports and community centers were repurposed for large sheltering operations and urged a proactive measure to protect school operations.

Opponents stressed federal compliance and funding risks, constitutional concerns and the potential erosion of local emergency planning. Representative Timothy Horrigan (Strafford County) and others said the examples cited in testimony did not demonstrate that schools in New Hampshire have been used for this purpose and questioned whether the state should constrain municipal emergency responses. Kate Horgan of the New Hampshire Association of Counties testified that counties provide services (including long‑term care) to vulnerable populations and said ambiguity in the bill could put federal licensing and reimbursements at risk.

Finance committee testimony raised an explicit budget concern: Representative Stringham reported that committee review identified a potential loss of federal funding — cited in the hearing as up to $18,000,000 per year — if the state were out of compliance with federal refugee‑resettlement or HUD guidance. Stringham described the bill’s practical effect as limited (the committee estimated the number of qualifying incidents might be near zero), but highlighted the financial exposure if federal programs judged state practice noncompliant.

Other witnesses included parents and local officials who said using schools for long‑term sheltering damages students’ mental health and routine; Aubrey Friedman (Bridgewater) and others urged the committee to pass the measure. Several opponents urged ITL or significant amendment.

Why it matters: The bill raises a classic state–local tension between local emergency prerogatives and statewide statutory limits — with a specific overlay of federal funding and administrative compliance. Compliance with federal refugee and housing programs was a central practical concern.

Committee status: The hearing record closed with questions and public testimony; no vote on the measure was recorded during the session transcript. The committee received testimony from municipal, county and advocacy groups, and the finance committee comment about potential federal funding loss was a central part of the record.

Ending: The committee deferred decision at the close of the hearing; witnesses said planning for any future shelter operations should be transparent and coordinated with state and federal partners.","HB 71 would prohibit using public school facilities exclusively to house certain noncitizen populations, with carveouts for short-term disaster sheltering; supporters emphasized student welfare, opponents raised federal funding and local control concerns and finance testimony cited possible $18 million exposure.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6582153,"Committee hears bill to bar enforcement of international 'globalist' mandates; counties and nonprofits urge caution",793,2233000,3026000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3150498-9d2e3431aebac83a8079bf630dfe3370&start=2233&end=3026","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3150498-9d2e3431aebac83a8079bf630dfe3370/thumbnail_2233000.jpg","/articles/6582153/New-Hampshire/Committee-hears-bill-to-bar-enforcement-of-international-globalist-mandates-counties-and-nonprofits-urge-caution","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6582153-861a4860f3d89f943180d54886e1c612/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143286&Signature=AG2F8x4MTcvs8XZCLUpb3P~kKRpRUlw52RX1MfumMkUHudYFW9QMHQf3ki9ggYgu1r6Imcllu3A26Ic6zx9XvbzNHkdWTAJOxpVeQuPEV~bU90hJcO6DHy0N6I~13OJir~0KXnbLp~agPCXGAw4LICmXhqqfekb5PrMX9ybu-RGdd49q2KnMA~ns2TR0YY3xn8ikV4lVdcT4pz9zaIHhcdka-zdzU0bKhgKTrW3lv3Bheeqyu4iZXhoKgeWrD5XykzmsbKBMK6SUYZZ16N1fdTyrq9-Xqlz8s50BudH3q2-FF9d9WYjGVFxUXBDwToUSVKBYwiU4r5Pf0Now-y9BRA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Michael Granger introduced HB 584, a proposal that would bar state and political subdivisions from enforcing directives, mandates or “edicts” from international organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations (UN) and World Economic Forum (WEF).

Representative Michael Granger (Stratford 2) told the Senate Judiciary Committee the bill is intended to “curtail globalism” and prevent public employees from treating international guidance as if it had the force of law. “Globalism is an ideology that seeks global governance,” Granger said. He pointed to the WHO’s role during the COVID‑19 pandemic and the ongoing negotiations over International Health Regulations as examples.

Supporters framed the bill as a forward‑looking protection of state sovereignty. Melissa Blasek, representing Rebuild NH, said the measure would guard New Hampshire against future international overreach, citing proposed amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations and calling the bill a way to “ensure that New Hampshire's future will not be dictated by the political whims of national or international bodies.” Aubrey Friedman of Bridgewater also testified in support, calling the measure “a crucial step in protecting the sovereignty of New Hampshire.”

Opponents — including the New Hampshire Association of Counties — warned the bill’s private‑right provisions and broad language could create legal conflicts and jeopardize federal funding. Kate Horgan, on behalf of the Association of Counties, told the committee that counties provide services to vulnerable populations (including nursing homes) and could face a choice between compliance and losing federal grants and licensure. Horgan said the bill’s language left unclear whether following federal agencies such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would create liability if CMS guidance mirrored recommendations from an international body.

Why it matters: Testimony touched on the practical tension between federal funding and state policymaking. The Finance Committee later raised an estimate that failure to align with federal refugee/resettlement guidance could risk significant federal funds; debate also addressed whether the bill would create private causes of action that invite litigation.

Committee action: At a later point in the session the Senate Judiciary Committee voted by voice to recommend ITL (inexpedient to legislate) on HB 584. Committee members cited concerns about wording, potential for litigation, and the bill’s broad scope.

Context and limitations: Witnesses disagreed about whether the WHO or other international organizations ever have had direct regulatory force over states. Opponents argued existing federal and state mechanisms address international guidance and that the bill could produce unintended consequences for health and human‑services providers that rely on federal funds and licensing.

Ending: The committee’s ITL recommendation halts immediate progress on HB 584; sponsors and advocates framed the measure as a sovereignty safeguard and said they may continue to pursue similar protections.","HB 584 would prohibit state and local public employees from enforcing mandates of international organizations such as WHO, UN or WEF; supporters framed it as state‑sovereignty protection, opponents cited constitutional and funding risks and urged ITL.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Sponsor proposes private right to sue over election-law breaches; opponents warn of ’floodgates’

Bill would bar sanctuary policies and require local cooperation with federal immigration detainers; hearings spotlight jail costs and local control

‘Schools not shelters’ bill divides committee — sponsors cite student welfare; finance panel warns of federal funding loss

Committee hears bill to bar enforcement of international 'globalist' mandates; counties and nonprofits urge caution