Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House fails to override governor's veto on paint stewardship bill after heated floor debate
Summary
The House considered overriding the governor's veto of HB 451, a manufacturer-funded paint-recycling program. Supporters said it would provide free paint collection and save property-tax dollars; opponents called it a hidden sales tax. The override fell short of the two-thirds threshold (186–169).
The New Hampshire House on April 6 declined to override the governor’s veto of HB 451, a bill to establish a paint-product stewardship program funded by paint manufacturers.
Representative Barry urged colleagues to sustain the veto, calling the bill “a hidden sales tax” and warning it would make New Hampshire less affordable by allowing manufacturers to include recycling costs in paint prices. “If you have to mandate that the charge be buried into the price by law, you are not the good guy,” Barry said.
Representative People, who defended the bill, said HB 451 creates a free paint-recycling program paid for by manufacturers, not by a state fee or an added point-of-sale tax. “This recycling cost is state based and it’s included in the wholesale cost of paint. Retailers set their own prices,” People said, adding that the program would reduce landfill disposal costs and could save property taxpayers money. Several members invoked previous committee work and unanimous House passage last year as evidence of broad support.
Representative Judy Aaron framed the choice as one of household and municipal savings: she said the program would give residents “a free, convenient program for collecting hazardous waste” and urged members to press the green button to overturn the veto.
When the roll call was taken, 186 representatives voted to override and 169 voted to sustain the veto. The state constitution requires a two-thirds majority to override a gubernatorial veto; the motion therefore failed.
The debate hinged on two central questions: whether the manufacturer-funded stewardship model functions like a tax when costs are embedded in retail prices, and whether the program’s benefits — reduced landfill disposal and convenience for households — justify the statutory mechanism it uses. Supporters pointed to committee vetting and industry support; opponents warned of cumulative price impacts on everyday purchases.
Because the override failed, HB 451 remains vetoed. The House entered the debate into the permanent journal and proceeded to other business.
