Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let school districts choose partisan ballots; proponents say it boosts turnout, critics warn of polarization
Summary
House Bill 356 would let school districts decide by local vote whether to hold partisan school board elections; supporters said partisan ballots increase turnout and provide clearer voter information, while critics said the change risks local polarization and confusion.
House Bill 356, introduced by Representative Travis Toner, would enable school districts to adopt partisan local ballots for school board races if voters in the district choose to opt in. Testimony at the Election Law Committee hearing split along familiar lines: advocates said partisan ballots give voters clearer information, increase turnout and allow local party caucuses to nominate candidates; opponents warned the change would inject more partisanship into local governance and could reduce participation or intimidate would‑be candidates.
Supporters included Eric Power, president of the School District Governance Association of New Hampshire and a former cooperative school board member, who said partisan ballots can increase turnout in local elections where contest and voter information are often low. Power described the bill as “enabling at three levels”: enabling districts to adopt partisan ballots, enabling town party committees to hold optional caucuses to nominate candidates, and enabling individual candidates to run either within the partisan process or as unaffiliated candidates.
Open Democracy and other witnesses urged caution. Testimony from Representative Mark Vallone and others warned that partisanship could deepen local polarization and discourage candidates who prefer nonpartisan service. Witnesses and some members asked how mixed municipal rules would interact — for example, where a city charter sets a municipal election as nonpartisan but a school district overlaps and could opt in.
Committee members asked practical questions about turnout data and evidence. Proponents pointed to higher turnout in partisan municipal contests and argued the change is optional and reversible by local vote. Opponents urged that the draft bills be refined to clarify interactions with municipal charters and to protect unaffiliated candidates’ ability to run.
No formal committee action occurred during the hearing; witnesses asked the committee to weigh local choice and potential unintended consequences before recommending action.
