Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
NH bill would form task force to draft security plans for presidential campaign events; state police urge caution
Summary
Representative Sweeney introduced HB1667 to create a bipartisan, time-limited task force that would draft model security plans campaigns could use at presidential-primary events. Supporters said the move balances safety and free speech; New Hampshire State Police testified neutral, warning of duplication, funding gaps and risks from widely publishing operational security details.
Representative Sweeney introduced House Bill 1667, saying the measure would establish a bipartisan, temporary task force to develop a comprehensive security guide campaigns could use when planning presidential primary events in New Hampshire. "HB1667 is a truly bipartisan piece of legislation that would establish a task force to review security protocols, procedures, and put together a draft comprehensive plan that campaigns can utilize," Sweeney said during the public hearing.
Why it matters: New Hampshire's first‑in‑the‑nation presidential primary draws candidates and large crowds to town halls, campuses and other public venues. Supporters told the committee they want a trusted, practical set of best practices so smaller campaigns and event hosts can plan safely while preserving open access for voters and protesters.
Supporters' case: Co‑sponsor Representative Matt Wilhelm said the bill is "content neutral and values‑driven," and does not change election law or create enforcement authority. Wilhelm said the task force would bring together state and local law enforcement, higher‑education representatives, the two major political parties and civil‑liberties experts to craft guidance that preserves free speech while improving safety.
Law‑enforcement testimony: Captain Matt Amatuchi of the New Hampshire State Police testified the department signed on as neutral and urged caution. Amatuchi told the committee law‑enforcement agencies already coordinate with federal partners such as the Secret Service through mutual‑aid agreements during presidential visits, and that adding a state task force risks duplicating effort. He also warned that "publishing detailed security guidance and after‑action reports risks giving bad actors insight into law‑enforcement tactics." He said the bill does not specify how training or administrative support would be funded and asked the committee to consider confidentiality protections.
Committee exchange: Members asked whether the bill would be redundant for well‑funded campaigns and whether the inclusion of universities and free‑speech experts was necessary. Sweeney said some smaller campaigns are ‘‘fly‑by‑night’’ and would benefit from a standard plan; he acknowledged the expertise role could be refined to ensure protections for expressive rights on campus.
Next steps: The public hearing was closed with online comments read into the record. The committee did not take a final vote during the session; members discussed possible amendments to strengthen confidentiality and clarify funding and membership of the task force.
Context note: The committee heard similar testimony and questions from municipal and campus representatives in later items; HB1667 remains at the committee stage pending any amendments.
