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

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.