Granite State Literacy Act advances to hearing: sponsors seek model curation policy to protect school librarians and intellectual freedom

Senate Bill 208, dubbed the "Granite State Literacy Act" by its prime sponsor, would require public school libraries to adopt written curation policies and direct the Department of Education to develop a model policy in consultation with library professionals. The bill also includes protections for librarians and a process for handling challenges to library materials.

Senator Deborah Altschuler, the bill sponsor, told the Senate Education Committee the bill is "a balanced approach to protecting both intellectual freedom and appropriate content curation while providing clear procedures and protections for school library staff." She emphasized that the measure is intended to recognize professional training for librarians and to reduce frivolous or viewpoint‑driven challenges.

Witnesses who testified in favor said the bill would protect librarians and students' access to diverse viewpoints. Jacqueline Benson of Authors Against Book Bans said national data show a sharp rise in challenges and removals, and said the measure would "provide reasonable guidelines for school librarians to adopt policies that protect their collections from these viewpoint motivated book bans." Deborah Howes, president of the American Federation of Teachers‑New Hampshire, said the bill balances students' First Amendment rights and parents' interests while providing a predictable review process and avoiding litigation.

Other witnesses opposed or raised concerns. Parental‑rights advocate Emery Banfield opposed the bill, arguing it does not go far enough to shield children from sexually explicit content and urged clearer mechanisms to identify and limit pornographic or obscene materials in school libraries. The ACLU's legal director, Gilles Bissonnette, told the panel that while accountability for government decisions is appropriate, the bill's standards ("harmful to minors," "age‑inappropriate," "offensive") were vague and could invite viewpoint‑based removals unless the language were tightened to align with constitutional standards.

Committee members asked whether the Department of Education had a model policy in place (the sponsor said it did not) and how the department would resource the task; the sponsor said the fiscal note showed no incremental cost and that development could be done with existing staff and consultation with professional organizations.

The hearing included multiple stakeholders: library and teacher organizations in favor; parental‑rights advocates urging stronger limits on sexually explicit material; and civil liberties counsel cautioning that the bill's language could be used to censor viewpoint‑based material if not clarified. Senator Altschuler asked the committee to consider bifurcating the bill to remove the public‑library trustee portion if the committee preferred to focus on public school libraries.

No committee vote was taken at the hearing. The committee closed public testimony and paused for further consideration; the sponsor said she would work with colleagues and stakeholders on clarifying language and possibly narrowing the bill.