Committee advances amendment tightening electioneering rules for public employees, bans government surveys of candidates

The House Election Law Committee advanced a non‑germane amendment to House Bill 6 86 on electioneering by public employees, moving the measure toward a floor vote after a lengthy public hearing and debate.

Representative Barry, the sponsor of the amendment, told the committee the revised language removes a special intent‑based definition that applied to public employees and substitutes the standard election‑law definition found in RSA 6:52,16(h), which uses a “reasonable person” standard. "Instead of having a special ... definition for public employees, we're gonna use the standard definition," Barry said, and added the amendment also introduces a $1,000 fine as an alternative to misdemeanor prosecution and explicitly outlaws government political surveys of candidates.

Committee members and witnesses said the changes were intended to limit the use of official time and resources to influence elections. "The government should be running the election in a neutral way and not participating and trying to put its finger on the scales," Barry said.

Why it matters: supporters said the change closes loopholes that allowed different classes of public employees to be treated differently under the law, and they cited recent examples of government‑produced materials that critics call advocacy. Opponents warned the revised definition could chill legitimate information sharing by town officials, planners, and other appointed experts, especially when communities consider warrant articles.

Open Democracy’s executive director Olivia Zink, testifying in opposition, argued the state’s current law already protects against improper electioneering and urged the committee to let enforcement play out under existing standards. "This amendment ... silence[s] public employees and sets dangerous precedents," Zink told the committee, saying the revision was prompted by a single local dispute and a superior court decision involving the Goffstown Public Library.

Sarah Burke Cohen of the New Hampshire Municipal Association also opposed the amendment, telling the committee it would expand the class of covered public employees to include appointed technical staff and could chill speech by experts who advise officials on budgetary and planning matters. "This amendment ... is going to chill speech by these experts," Burke Cohen said, raising concerns about vague phrases in the text such as "clearly indicate a preference" and "reasonably anticipated to be on a ballot."

Committee members debated hypotheticals. Representative Muirhead and others said the reasonable‑person test could prevent, for example, a police chief or fire chief from explaining the operational need for equipment at a town meeting. Barry and supporters said the amendment was not intended to bar factual explanations and pointed to prosecutorial discretion and the amendment’s express‑advocacy threshold as protections. "You have to use a reasonable person standard to give that public employee the flexibility that they need to do their job," Barry said.

The amendment also contains a provision explicitly outlawing political surveys created by government entities. Committee members sought — and Barry invited — language that would better protect benign, neutral academic polling such as university public‑opinion surveys; the sponsor said he would accept floor amendments to clarify intent.

The committee adopted the non‑germane amendment by voice vote and later voted 10–7 to move HB 686 (as amended) out of committee with an "ought to pass as amended" recommendation.

Ending: The committee’s action sends the amended bill to the full House. Sponsor Barry said he will accept further drafting amendments on the floor to address specific concerns raised in testimony, and several committee members urged clearer statutory language to avoid chilling technical testimony from public employees.