Judiciary committee hears HB 620 to codify strict‑scrutiny test for religious exercise; supporters cite state precedent, municipal group raises concerns

House Bill 620 would add state statutory language mirroring the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and require government actions that substantially burden religious exercise be justified by a compelling state interest that is pursued by the least restrictive means.

Representative Daniel Popovich Mueller, a co‑sponsor, said the measure is "bipartisan" and seeks to place the compelling‑interest standard into state law rather than relying solely on court precedent. "I've never found it to be good practice to rely on court precedence when legislation would do a better job," he said.

Lance Kinzer of First Amendment Partnership — who helped craft RFRA‑style bills in other states — told the committee the statutory language provides stable, predictable standards and invoked a tragic Kansas example where litigation uncertainty affected an individual's access to medical care. He said states that have clarified the standard in statute reduced later litigation risk.

Supporters included several faith leaders who told the committee they wanted statutory clarity to protect sincere religious exercise. Pastor Peter Chamberlain of Granite State Baptist Church said the statute would not provide "carte blanche" for religious institutions but would require the government to show it used the least intrusive policy where it burdens religion.

The New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA) testified in opposition, raising concerns about local zoning and land‑use conflicts. Sarah Burke Cohen of NHMA said the bill could encourage litigation where neutral, generally applicable laws like zoning are challenged as burdens on religion, and she recommended careful drafting to avoid unintended consequences.

Other opponents noted definitional and enforcement questions: how to distinguish a "religious" claim from secular objections, and how a statutory test might interact with existing constitutional protections the New Hampshire Supreme Court has recognized in State v. Mac. Supporters argued the statute would codify the court’s current approach and provide clearer direction for local governments and lower courts.

Why it matters: HB 620 would alter the statutory framework by which courts and local governments evaluate burdens on religious exercise, potentially increasing litigation and changing the balance between free exercise claims and neutral public‑safety, land‑use or nondiscrimination rules.

Next steps: Committee members asked clarifying questions about definitions and potential interactions with existing law. The measure drew broad testimony on both legal and practical impacts; no final committee action was recorded at the hearing.