Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administration Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
NH committee hears bill to let taxpayers sue over DEI‑related contract violations
Summary
Representative Rich Nelovanko told the House Executive Departments & Administration Committee that HB 17‑88 would add clarifying language to RSA 21‑I and create an enforcement path allowing taxpayers to sue public entities and seek injunctive relief and attorney’s fees; opponents warned of vagueness, impacts on ADA/DD Act obligations and litigation risk.
Representative Rich Nelovanko introduced House Bill 17‑88 to the House Executive Departments and Administration Committee on Jan. 15, saying the measure clarifies definitions in RSA 21‑I and adds enforcement steps for contracts allegedly in violation of that subdivision. "Any taxpayer is entitled to bring a cause of action against any public entity, state agency, or political subdivision that can demonstrably be shown to be in violation of any provision of this subdivision," Nelovanko told the committee, describing the proposal as a "good governance" measure to engage the public.
Why it matters: The bill would give taxpayers a route to court — including injunctive relief and reasonable attorney’s fees — and create a cause of action where some sponsors say existing enforcement is uneven. Agency and disability advocates warned the language as drafted is vague and could hamper compliance with federal disability laws or create new litigation burdens on schools and state departments.
Department and stakeholder concerns: Elizabeth Brown, general counsel for the Department of Education, reminded the committee that language similar to HB 17‑88 was added to last year’s budget bill and was preliminarily enjoined by a federal court as vague and unenforceable. She said implementing ambiguous statutory terms cost agency time and risked litigation that would divert limited legal resources.
Is it narrowly framed? Members pressed the sponsor on carve‑outs in the bill’s DEI definition and whether registered student organizations, bona fide ADA accommodations or programs funded under the DD Act would be affected. Nelovanko said the bill explicitly excludes registered student organizations and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) activities from the DEI definition and emphasized procedural guardrails: an agency must be notified and taxpayers must present bona fide evidence before filing.
Opposition testimony: Representative Timothy Horrigan urged rejecting the bill, calling it "an attack" on long‑standing priorities including equal rights and public‑library services; he said the taxpayer‑standing language could be broadened to "persons" rather than "taxpayers". Isadora Rodriguez Legendre of the New Hampshire Council on Developmental Disabilities urged that the DD Act be referenced alongside the ADA in any revision to avoid creating barriers to services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
What happens next: The committee heard the bill and extensive Q&A; no formal vote on this bill was recorded during the hearing. Staff and counsel were asked to provide drafting suggestions and fiscal information to clarify implementation risks and to reduce the chance of another court challenge.
