House Ways and Means holds hearing on CACR 12 to send income-tax ban to voters
Loading...
Summary
The House Ways and Means Committee heard hours of testimony for and against an amendment (1134‑h) to CACR 12 that would bar the House from adopting an individual income tax; supporters said voters should decide, opponents said the amendment would hamstring future legislatures and would not reduce property taxes. A work session is scheduled for 2026‑04‑27.
The House Ways and Means Committee convened in Representatives Hall on April 16, 2026, for a public hearing on amendment 1134‑h to CACR 12, a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit the House of Representatives from adopting a tax on wages, earned income, personal income or other income of individuals.
Representative Jason Ullery introduced the amendment to the committee, explaining the proposed language and noting that, if approved by the legislature, the question would appear on the November 2026 ballot. Representative Joe Osborne, the amendment’s sponsor, framed the proposal as the “New Hampshire Advantage Amendment,” saying it would permanently protect the state’s income‑tax‑free status. "It would say to every worker, every small business owner, every family that their paycheck belongs to them," Osborne told the committee.
Supporters — including several state senators and dozens of House members who testified — urged the committee to let voters decide. Senate President Sharon Carson told the panel, "No income tax, not now, not ever." Representative Joe Sweeney and other backers emphasized the constitutional amendment process as a way to give the electorate the final say.
Opponents pressed procedural and fiscal warnings. Executive Councilor Karen Leo Hill testified against the amendment, arguing it would not lower property taxes and outlining state decisions she said shifted roughly $3,000,000,000 of costs onto local governments in recent years. Local elected officials and municipal leaders, including Somersworth Mayor Matthew Gerding, told the committee they opposed the amendment because it would limit tools future legislatures might need to respond to changing fiscal pressures and would not resolve the shortfall facing towns and school districts.
Committee members probed sponsors on multiple fronts: whether statutory tools or the regular electoral process would be preferable to constitutional entrenchment; how the measure would interact with existing constitutional provisions requiring revenue bills to originate in the House; and whether the amendment’s text could have unintended consequences for sole proprietors or other businesses. Representative Lang and others argued the amendment is intended to increase the threshold for a future income tax and to require voter consent for such a change.
Public comment spanned a range of views. Some residents argued an income tax would be regressive or harmful to liberty; others said the state’s reliance on property taxes is already unaffordable for many households and that prohibiting one revenue option could make future responses more difficult. Several speakers, including school‑funding advocates, urged a fact‑based review of revenue options tied to the goal of lowering property taxes for residents.
No formal committee vote was taken at the hearing. The chair closed public testimony and announced that the committee will hold a work session on Monday, April 27 at 10:00 a.m., followed by an executive session at 10:30 a.m., when members will consider the amendment and any recommendations to the full House.
The hearing record contains numerous factual claims and competing empirical arguments about fiscal effects, including sponsor statements about a projected multi‑billion dollar impact from a previously proposed "3‑3" plan and executive council testimony about billions shifted from the state to localities. Committee deliberations at the April 27 work session will determine whether the committee recommends the amendment "ought to pass" and sends it forward to the full House for further action.
