Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Narrow alternative proposed as right‑to‑know debate continues: HB 74 would define “citizen” by domicile
Summary
Committee heard House Bill 74, a narrower alternative to HB 66 that would define a citizen as someone domiciled in New Hampshire (or press acting to inform citizens). Sponsors said it aims to resolve the Rochester dispute without broadening access to any person worldwide; civil‑liberties groups opposed narrowing the law.
CONCORD — The Judiciary Committee also took testimony on House Bill 74, introduced by Representative Jess Edwards. HB 74 would amend RSA 91‑A to define “citizen” (for the right‑to‑know statute) as “any person having a legal status in relation to New Hampshire by virtue of domicile,” and would explicitly allow press acting to inform the citizens to request records.
Representative Edwards said HB 74 was drafted as a narrower, incremental fix after last year’s litigation and administrative disputes in which a Rochester municipality limited requests to state citizens. Edwards said the term “domicile” was chosen to hew to statutory concepts used in voting and other state laws and to preserve the law’s central purpose — enabling an informed public tied to New Hampshire.
Multiple witnesses weighed in. Gilles Bissonette of the ACLU of New Hampshire said HB 74 is “too narrow” and that his preference remained HB 66’s broader, clarifying language; he flagged that second‑home owners or people with property ties could be excluded by a strict domiciliary test. The New Hampshire Municipal Association supported HB 74 as consistent with constitutional principles requiring government accountability to those who formed it, and NHMA’s Sarah Bert Cohen told the committee that NHMA believes RSA 91‑A has been read to require ties to New Hampshire.
Right to Know New Hampshire’s Catherine Coco said the organization opposed HB 74 because it could narrow access; she noted the attorney‑general’s 2015 memorandum and followed Supreme Court interpretations that supported broader access in practice. Representative Edwards said the bill’s intent was to correct the Rochester dispute in a narrow way while preserving broad public transparency in state government.
No vote was taken; members said they would consider the two competing approaches (HB 66 broader clarification vs. HB 74 domicile‑based test) and possibly craft compromise language in a follow‑up work session.
