Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Governance Warrant Articles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates giving voters both original and amended warrant articles at the ballot; opponents warn of voter confusion
Summary
Lawmakers and municipal officials traded sharply different views on House Bill 149 on Jan. 30, 2025, a measure that would place both an original warrant article and any amended version approved at deliberative session on the ballot for final voting.
The Municipal and County Government Committee heard roughly an hour of testimony and questions about House Bill 149 on Jan. 30, 2025, which would let voters cast ballots between an original warrant article and any amended version that passes at the deliberative session.
Sponsor Representative John Sellers said the bill ‘‘allows the voters the best of both worlds’’ by placing both the original and amended warrant articles on the ballot for the final vote. "So the voters have the ultimate say," Sellers said. He added that if both versions receive the same percentage of yes votes the amended version would be adopted (the bill text specifies that outcome in the tie case).
Lawmakers pressed the sponsor about practical effects. Representative Murphy and others asked how the measure would work with multiple amendments to a single article, and how it would affect default budgets in SB2 (ballot) towns. Sellers and other advocates said the amended and original versions would appear alongside the default budget when applicable; that outcome raised further questions about ballot complexity.
Opponents said the change would complicate voter education and election administration. Brody Deshaies of the New Hampshire Municipal Association said the committee should be wary of opening ‘‘ranked choice voting for warrant articles,’’ creating competing versions that most voters would find confusing. Deshaies and others worried about legal and drafting problems—an amended article might not be in legally binding form—and about additional ballot and accessible voting-machine costs. Representative Murphy highlighted accessible voting-machine printing costs in testimony.
Other witnesses noted practical logistics: venues for deliberative sessions are often too small to hold full electorates, and many voters participate only by absentee ballot. Supporters argued absentee and absent voters deserve a chance to choose between original and amended versions.
A blue-sheet tally reported to the committee recorded multiple online comments and in-person sign-ins, but the committee took no formal vote on Jan. 30.
