Subcommittee advances bill requiring affidavits for buyers/lessees near select defense sites after debate on enforcement and discrimination

Representative Lily Walsh, sponsor and member of the Commerce and Consumer Affairs subcommittee, asked members to advance an amended bill that would require purchasers and lessees of property within a 10‑mile radius of specified defense installations to electronically file an affidavit with the New Hampshire Department of Justice stating whether they are a “foreign principal.” Walsh said the amendment removes short‑term rentals and notarization requirements and narrows leases covered to those longer than 14 days.

Why it matters: supporters, including officials from New Boston Space Force Station, described the measure as a layer of protection for a national‑defense facility. Opponents — including a real estate practitioner on the panel and several committee members — raised concerns about enforceability, overlap with federal processes, and potential for national‑origin discrimination.

What the amendment changes: Walsh told the committee she removed short‑term leases (to exclude typical VRBO/Airbnb stays), limited covered leases to periods greater than 14 days, and replaced a notarization requirement with electronic filing. She said she added language that “the lessor, seller, or agent has no obligation to personally authenticate the validity of the qualified renter or purchaser affidavit.” Walsh said filing deadlines in the amendment are three days for purchases and five days for leases.

National‑security testimony: David Dinwiddie, defense force director at New Boston Space Force Station, described the installation as “one of eight worldwide ground stations” that links Department of Defense satellites to users and told the committee the station conducts a critical national‑defense mission. Thaddeus Dickinson, anti‑terrorism program manager at New Boston Space Force Station, said the installation’s critical operational area sits near public property and that proximity increases the risk of observation and radio‑frequency interference. Dickinson said state action could help “push our adversaries away” and described the legislation as “critical to protecting our mission.”

Opposition and legal/process questions: A real estate practitioner on the committee warned the bill could produce burdens and create discrimination risks, saying real estate transactions are already heavily regulated and that shifting filing burdens could have unintended consequences. Several committee members questioned whether federal mechanisms (the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, and other federal review processes) already address the problem, whether federal agencies respond fast enough, and what remedies the state could realistically pursue if an affidavit were false.

Enforceability and penalties: Committee members discussed enforcement; the draft text cites penalties for failing to file the affidavit (discussion referenced a class A misdemeanor and stiffer penalties for entities). Witnesses and lawmakers noted the attorney general’s role is limited to receiving filings and that the bill does not on its face require the Department of Justice to undertake independent, timely investigations for every filing.

Committee action: The subcommittee first voted to retain the bill for further work (motion to retain moved by Representative Burrows; second by Representative Hunt; recorded voice vote 6 in favor, 1 opposed). After amendment work and further discussion, the subcommittee later moved that the bill “ought to pass as amended” (motion proponent recorded as Representative Thaxton; seconded by Representative Salvi) and recorded the subcommittee vote in favor.

What remains unclear: committee members asked for comparisons to other states (witnesses said 29 states had enacted similar statutes and that Texas had recently passed related legislation), for details on how the attorney general’s office would follow up on filings, and for a clearer statement of remedies for proven violations. Several members said they would prefer clearer alignment with federal processes or additional enforcement guidance.

Bottom line: The subcommittee advanced an amended version of the measure that would impose a narrow, electronic affidavit requirement on purchasers and longer‑term lessees within 10 miles of specified defense installations. Supporters framed it as a national‑security safeguard; critics questioned enforceability, overlap with federal review, and discrimination risks. The committee retained additional technical questions and the AG‑office implementation details for further work.