Proposed mandatory reporting of suspected judicial civil‑rights violations draws split response
Loading...
Summary
HB 14‑65 would require judges, clerks and court staff to report suspected civil or constitutional rights violations by judicial officers to the attorney general. Supporters say it fills an accountability gap; opponents warn it could conflict with attorney‑client privilege and judicial conduct processes and chill judicial discretion.
CONCORD — HB 14‑65, which would create a mandatory reporter duty for judicial branch employees to report suspected civil‑rights or constitutional‑rights violations by judges to the attorney general, prompted sharply divided responses at a Judiciary Committee hearing.
Representative Laurie Corson, sponsor of the bill, said the statute would protect due‑process rights and create a legal route for court staff and attorneys who witness rights violations to report them without fear of retaliation. Corson told the committee a mother facing termination of parental rights was denied the chance to present exculpatory medical evidence and said a reporting duty would help ensure corrective review.
Lauren Warner, deputy general counsel, said the Judicial Conduct Committee and court employment processes already address misconduct and cautioned the bill’s definition of "civil rights" is overly broad. Warner warned the statutory duty could put in‑house counsel and private attorneys in a bind between mandatory reporting and attorney‑client privilege, possibly exposing counsel to misdemeanor sanctions while their ethical obligations bar disclosure.
The plaintiffs’ bar (New Hampshire Association for Justice) opposed the bill, saying it would spawn a flood of complaints and chill advocacy and judicial discretion. Supporters argued whistleblower protections and careful drafting — including narrowing the covered violations to recognized constitutional rights — could address many concerns.
Following debate the committee moved HB 14‑65 to ITL by roll call (18‑0); committee members noted many of the bill’s policy goals could be addressed through careful drafting and committee amendments.
