View Details

For several years the New Hampshire Legislature has considered bills to license massage establishments, similar to how the state licenses nail salons and barbershops. At first glance this seems like many other licensing debates, with tension between public health and government overreach. A deeper look uncovers an ongoing discussion over how to fight human trafficking in the Granite State. READ MORE

View Details

New Hampshire legislators are sponsoring roughly 850 bills this year, but dozens of those are repeats from previous years. Sometimes legislators refine a bill based on feedback, but sometimes the bill text is identical. Here are three hot debates that will get a do-over in 2023. READ MORE

View Details

Story Produced by Citizens Count

It’s hard to think of a New Hampshire issue that impacts more people than the housing shortage. Whether you are a renter or you own your own home, the limited availability of housing in New Hampshire likely affects your finances directly or indirectly. As housing costs increase, the need for workforce housing, in particular, has come into focus.

This year, the Legislature considered a large piece of legislation, SB 400, meant to address the problem.

The bill, which was championed by Gov. Sununu, contained a slew of programs and incentives aimed at increasing the supply of workforce housing. The House tabled the bill on May 5, which means the bill is unlikely to pass this year. Still, many of the policies contained in SB 400 are repeats from previous years and might find their way into final bill negotiations. For the purposes of this article, we will focus on one of the more contentious parts of SB 400: the “Housing Champion Certification Program.” What is the Housing Champion Certification Program? The Housing Champion Certification Program, as laid out in SB 400, would encourage municipalities to promote the development of workforce housing and "other types of housing necessary for the economic development of the state." Towns and cities that receive the certification would get preferential access to state resources including discretionary state infrastructure funds.

The Office of Planning and Development would be responsible for the exact qualifications and procedures for a municipality to earn the New Hampshire housing champion certification, but the bill lays out some general guidelines. In order to earn this certification, municipalities would need to adopt policies that promote workforce housing. SB 400 specifically mentions adopting land use regulations and ordinances that encourage the development of workforce housing, establishing municipal economic development and revitalization districts, adopting energy efficiency residential building standards, training local zoning and planning board officials, and more.

The legislation would also establish a special advisory board to oversee the program and review and approve proposed rule changes. The board would include legislators and a wide array of community stakeholders. Certification would be valid for three years, and municipalities could renew their certification every three years. Options for municipalities Proponents of the Housing Champion Certification Program say it is necessary to incentivize municipalities to take steps to increase housing. According to a report from NH Housing, New Hampshire is currently short about 20,000 housing units statewide. This lack of housing contributes to the critical workforce shortage in New Hampshire. However, municipalities are often reluctant to increase workforce housing due to concerns about the impact on water and sewer infrastructure, safety services, and schools. Housing champion-certified municipalities could gain access to money to develop their systems to handle greater residential density.

Proponents are also quick to point out that this program would be entirely voluntary. This sort of development might not make sense for every town in New Hampshire; this certification would help direct state resources to the towns that will use it. Questions and concerns Some feel this proposal is not right for New Hampshire, however. Many feel that the wording of the legislation leaves the details of the program too open-ended. For instance, the bill states “the procedure for a municipality to earn the New Hampshire housing champion certification shall be based on a scoring system,” but there is almost no explanation of what the scoring system would look like, how many points there would be or how exactly they would be awarded. This means the procedure for scoring would be developed by unelected officials at the Office of Planning and Development.

There are similar concerns that the advisory board for the program gives too much representation to special interest groups and developers. Some opponents fear this could lead to an unfair distribution of state funding or even backdoor deals. Others argue that consideration should be made for towns that have already made these important investments. A high priority Gov. Sununu highlighted SB 400 during his State of the State address in February. Along with the Housing Champion Certification Program, the bill also contains changes meant to speed up planning board approvals for new housing projects. The bill has since hit legislative headwinds, however. Since the governor has made clear the bill’s passage is an important priority for him, some in the Legislature have seen it as an opportunity to add in conservative policy objectives. Many representatives also oppose the Housing Champion Certification Program, in particular, and voted to strip that part of the bill. Now that the House voted to table the bill, the bill is unlikely to pass. However, there can be surprising negotiations in conference committees at the end of the legislative session, and parts of SB 400 might be added to other bills. If not, expect to see some of the policies in SB 400 reintroduced next year. Get involved Do you have an opinion on this issue? While the Housing Champion Certification Program is just one part of a much larger bill (SB 400), it is important to let your legislators know how you feel about it. As legislators continue to work on the legislation, make sure you tell them whether you think this part of it should be kept or removed. Get started by finding out who represents you at citizenscount.org.

Citizens Count is a nonprofit serving the New Hampshire community by providing objective information about issues, elected officials, bills, elections, and candidates. These articles are being shared by partners in The Granite State News Collaborative. For more information visit collaborativenh.org.

View Details

For millennia humans have used different methods to preserve the deceased, from Egyptian mummification to modern embalming. While embalming is common in the United States, there is growing interest in “green burials” and other alternative body dispositions that reject embalming. Now the New Hampshire Legislature is deciding whether to repeal a law on the books that requires embalming in some circumstances. Embalming and green burials Embalming uses chemicals to slow down the process of decomposition, even more than refrigeration. After a loved one dies, embalming is often used to preserve a body for an open casket visitation or funeral.

While embalming is common in the United States, it is not so common in other countries. Religions including Judaism and Islam consider embalming a desecration of the body and forbid it.

Some environmentalists also object to embalming because of the use of chemicals, particularly formaldehyde. “Green burials” generally reject end-of-life practices that can harm the environment, such as burning fossil fuels for cremation or using a vault with nonbiodegradable material.

A Girl Scout fights for green burials in NH New Hampshire high school senior Anya Nicoll learned about green burials as part of a class assignment on sustainability. Now she is working towards her Girl Scout Gold Award by advocating for the right to a green burial in New Hampshire.

When Nicoll started researching New Hampshire laws related to green burials, she received conflicting answers from town officials and funeral directors about what is allowed in state law.

“Each town had different levels of available information, many didn’t even know what their requirements were, and some just referred me back to the state statutes, making the whole experience quite like I was going in circles,” Nicoll said at a recent public hearing.

Nicoll contacted Rep. Jerry Knirk (D-Freedom), who filed a bill, HB 1320, to repeal New Hampshire’s one state law that requires embalming, RSA 325:40-a. That law says, “No dead human body shall be exposed to the public for a period in excess of 24 hours unless said body is properly embalmed.”

According to members of the public who testified at public hearings for Knirk’s bill, some funeral directors tell family that RSA 325:40-a requires embalming for all burials. However, other funeral directors testified that the law only requires embalming if there is a public viewing; families can reject embalming for private and family services. Debate over NH law on embalming Supporters of HB 1320 argue that repealing RSA 325:40-a would make it clear that Granite Staters do not have to consent to embalming after a loved one dies, whether they have religious or environmental or other concerns. Funeral homes and cemeteries could still set their own policies related to embalming, but they would no longer be able to claim that state law requires it.

Opponents of HB 1320 express concern that repealing this law will lead family members to make misguided decisions about embalming a loved one after death.

Eric Rochette, a current member of the New Hampshire State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers, submitted written testimony opposing HB 1320. He wrote, “The human body undergoes not only physical changes but chemical changes as well once it has stopped functioning. These include, but are not limited to, discoloration and gas buildup. If any of the members of this committee has ever had the unfortunate chance to see a deceased person that has been gone longer than 24 hours, unembalmed, then you would understand the reasons necessary to embalm for public or even private viewing.”

Supporters of HB 1320 countered that refrigeration is enough to slow down decomposition.

Supporters and opponents of HB 1320 also disagreed on whether embalming protects public health. According to the World Health Organization, “Human remains only pose a substantial risk to health in a few special cases, such as deaths from cholera or hemorrhagic fevers.” In other words, while decomposition of a human body may be upsetting, it is not necessarily dangerous to people nearby. In fact, if someone dies of a disease like HIV or tuberculosis, it may actually be safer for funeral workers to leave the body intact rather than go through the embalming process.

However, some funeral directors expressed concern about the potential health risk of a family member embracing or even kissing an unembalmed body during a viewing. They say embalming essentially “disinfects” the body. Next steps in the embalming debate Repealing RSA 325:40-a will not remove all barriers to green burial in New Hampshire. For example, most local cemeteries still require vaults. However, the debate over HB 1320 could open the door to more green burials in the Granite State.

If you have an opinion on HB 1320, contact your state senator. They are next to vote on the bill. You can start by finding who represents you at https://www.citizenscount.org/elected-officials Citizens Count is a nonprofit serving the New Hampshire community by providing objective information about issues, elected officials, bills, elections, and candidates. These articles are being shared by partners in The Granite State News Collaborative. For more information visit collaborativenh.org.

View Details

This month, the New Hampshire House of Representatives will vote on a measure prohibiting landlords from discriminating against renters who use Section 8 housing vouchers. While the bill got a thumbs-down from the committee that worked on it, the House could still decide to pass it anyway. If the legislation becomes law, it could have a big impact on New Hampshire’s low-income renters and landlords. About the bill The federal Housing Choice Voucher Program, commonly known as Section 8, provides very low-income families, the elderly, and people with disabilities a voucher for rent. The program pays a landlord directly for the amount of the voucher; if the actual rent charged exceeds the voucher amount, the renter pays the landlord the difference.

HB 1291, proposed by Durham Democrat Rep. Cam Kenney, makes it unlawful to deny a rental unit to a prospective tenant on the basis they receive a housing voucher. The bill also shores up some potential loopholes; it makes clear that landlords wouldn’t be held responsible for denying a tenant if the rent for the unit is higher than the housing authority allows. Landlords also wouldn’t be held responsible for denying a Section 8 tenant if the unit fails to meet the Housing Quality Standards laid out by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. These standards include, for example, how many electrical outlets and windows each room must have.

This new legislation amends New Hampshire’s law against discrimination. Therefore, if a renter was denied an apartment solely because they used Section 8 housing vouchers, that renter could file a complaint against the landlord with the state Human Rights Commission. Section 8 Housing in New Hampshire It’s no secret that affordable housing is in short supply in the Granite State. There is a long wait to receive housing assistance, with many waiting anywhere from five to nine years. Once a renter receives their housing voucher, they only have between 30 and 90 days to find an apartment. If they miss the deadline, they lose out on the assistance money.

As if meeting that deadline weren’t difficult enough, many landlords explicitly state on rental advertisements that they do not accept Section 8 recipients. This could help explain why last year, out of 1,581 vouchers, 294 expired without ever being used, according to the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority. A matter of fairness Supporters of HB 1291 argue that it is unfair to discriminate against a tenant based on whether the government subsidizes their rent.

The bill also doesn’t state that landlords are required to rent to anyone with housing vouchers; tenants can still be screened in other ways. Rental applications may include a criminal background check, references, questions about pets, and so on. Under HB 1291 Landlords just couldn’t deny people strictly based on their Section 8 status, just as they can’t deny someone based purely on their skin color.

At the public hearing for this bill, proponents offered other arguments in favor of the bill that those unfamiliar with Section 8 might not be aware of. For example, the bill could have an impact on New Hampshire’s disability community, because many of those who receive Section 8 housing vouchers experience disabilities. Unfair to Landlords? Opponents argued the bill would have unintended consequences. For one, it could be a burden on landlords, not necessarily because of the tenants but because of the bureaucratic red tape that comes with these vouchers. The program requires landlords to fill out extra forms, modify their existing leases, and offers little protection if renters break their leases.

They also worry that the law could make housing even less affordable. One way for landlords to avoid taking Section 8 vouchers under this law would be to simply raise rents for everyone.

Rather than putting the onus on landlords, opponents of this bill say the answer lies with the state housing authority and the federal government. They argue there should be more subsidized housing development and more money for vouchers to help address the housing shortage. There could also be ways to incentivize landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers rather than forcing them to do so. What do you think? Though this bill was given a thumbs-down by its committee in an 11-10 vote, the full House of Representatives will still get a chance to vote on the bill soon. They are under no obligation to follow the committee’s recommendation. Therefore, whether you side with proponents of the bill or opponents, you still have time to contact your legislators and tell them how you think they should vote on HB 1291. You can get started by visiting citizenscount.org/elected-officials to learn who represents you and how to contact them.

Citizens Count is a nonprofit serving the New Hampshire community by providing objective information about issues, elected officials, bills, elections, and candidates. These articles are being shared by partners in The Granite State News Collaborative. For more information visit collaborativenh.org.

View Details

Want to know more about this legislation? Press Play above as hosts Anna Brown and Mike Dunbar, of Citizens Count break it down in $100 Plus Mileage. Story Produced by Citizens Count

Chances are, you can’t drive down any street in your neighborhood without being confronted by this issue: litter. New Hampshire is famously picturesque, but it seems many are intent on changing that given the number of discarded cans and fast food bags strewn along our roadsides. Now, some legislators in Concord say it’s time to increase the penalties for littering, and they’ve introduced two bills to do just that: HB 1461 and HB 1571. Still, some say the legislation goes too far. New Hampshire’s litter laws There are two different areas of New Hampshire law that forbid littering, RSA 265:102 and RSA 163-B. Most littering offenses are treated as a violation, subject to a $62 fine. More serious littering involving hazardous materials or large quantities of trash can be a misdemeanor. If you throw litter out of a car, truck, or boat, you can get your license suspended for up to seven days. A judge can also order a person to clean up what they dumped.

Towns sometimes pass their own litter laws imposing heavier fines. Proposed changes to litter laws Legislators introduced two bills this year to increase the fine for littering.

First, HB 1461 would fine litterers a minimum of $300 for a first offense and $500 for a second offense. Any third or subsequent offense would cause the suspension of the person's driver’s license for 90 days. That last part was too much for some legislators on the House Transportation Committee that considered the bill. They are recommending the full House amend the bill and drop the part about a 90-day suspension.

Second, HB 1571 would increase the fine for littering by 20 percent and send this new revenue to the Fish and Game Department to support conservation officers. The House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee is recommending the full House kill this bill because the estimated one-time costs to implement the bill (about $75,000) would eclipse any new revenue from fines (less than $5,000 a year).

The bigger fine increases in HB 1461 would more quickly cover the one-time costs to update state systems. According to the fiscal note on HB 1461, the state issued 170 fines for littering in 2020 and 244 fines in 2019. If each of those violations carried a $300 fine, the state would generate $124,200 in two years, more than enough to cover any system updates. Advantages and drawbacks Increasing the fine for littering across the state would give sharper teeth to the state’s litter laws. Given the prevalence of rubbish along New Hampshire’s roadways, some folks argue that small fines just aren’t getting the job done. Instituting these substantial fines might be enough to make would-be litterers think twice before hurling that empty soda bottle out the car window. It might also encourage officers to enforce litter laws more frequently; it’s hardly worth stopping a motorist for a $62 fine.

Then again, some argue police officers should not be focused on litter enforcement. A stricter litter law could lead to more hostile interactions between officers and the public.

Others favor a positive approach to the issue, such as education campaigns, more public trash receptacles, organizing litter collection crews, and more.

Another alternative would be a bottle deposit law, which creates an incentive for people to return their bottles to designated receptacles instead of tossing them. HB 1652, another 2022 bill would do just that. The state could also ban or limit distribution of some commonly littered items, like plastic bags or straws. Yet another 2022 proposal, HB 1119, would allow towns to regulate the distribution of single-use plastic and paper bags to customers. Both of those bills have their own heated debates; we’ll save the pros and cons for another article. What’s next? The House of Representatives last week voted on both bills. HB 1461 was voted "Ought to Pass" with an amendment; HB 1571 was ruled "inexpedient to legislate."

If you have an opinion on the state’s litter laws you can reach out to the legislators who represent you and let them know where you stand. Get started by visiting citizenscount.org/elected-officials

Citizens Count is a nonprofit serving the New Hampshire community by providing objective information about issues, elected officials, bills, elections, and candidates. These articles are being shared by partners in The Granite State News Collaborative. For more information visit collaborativenh.org.

View Details

Story Produced by Citizens Count

During the COVID-19 emergency Gov. Sununu allowed parts of driver education to take place online or with a parent. Those adjustments ended along with the state of emergency, but some legislators believe the allowances should go even further. Ten state legislators are sponsoring a bill that would let parents provide all of driver education instead of enrolling their teen in an approved course. Current driver education requirements in NH Under current state law, a person over age 16 but under age 18 must complete over 86 hours of training before taking the written and road tests at the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). First, a teenager must complete an approved driver education course. That includes at least 30 hours of classroom instruction, ten hours of behind the wheel driver training, and six hours of driver observation. 15 hours of that classroom instruction may take place online. A teenage driver must also complete 40 hours of supervised driving with a parent, guardian, or other responsible adult over age 25. Ten of those supervised driving hours must take place after dark.

This year Rep. Timothy Lang (R-Sanbornton) and nine other New Hampshire legislators are sponsoring HB 1208 to change these requirements. HB 1208 would waive the driver education course requirement for teenagers if a parent or guardian submits in writing that they have provided driving instruction and 40 hours of behind-the-wheel driver training. Arguments for, against parents providing driver education Supporters of HB 1208 argue that the cost and time commitment of driver education courses are too much for some families, particularly low-income families. The cost of driver education varies, but generally falls between $500 and $1,000 in New Hampshire.

There is also limited driver education availability in some parts of the state. The list of approved driver education schools on the state DMV website includes just one in Cheshire county and two in Coos County.

Opponents of HB 1208 point out that teens are far more likely than adults to be involved in fatal motor vehicle collisions, and therefore more rigorous driver education requirements are appropriate. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, drivers aged 16 to 19 are nearly three times as likely as drivers aged 20 or older to be in a fatal crash. Parents may not teach teens about the latest safety technology and laws, from anti-lock braking systems to distracted driving penalties.

There are also other ideas to make driver education courses cheaper or more widely available. For example, HB 1615, another 2022 bill, would reimburse driver education providers in return for lowering the cost for students. The state could also allow all of the classroom portion of driver education to take place online. An executive order from Gov. Sununu allowed online driver education during the coronavirus emergency. Other states Driver education requirements vary greatly from state to state. For example, Missouri does not require any driver education courses. In Nevada, you can take the classroom portion of driver education online; if you lack access to the internet and live more than 30 miles from a classroom course, you can complete 100 hours of driving instead of a formal driver education course. In Massachusetts drivers under age 18 must complete 30 hours of classroom driver education along with 12 hours of behind-the-wheel instruction and 6 hours of observation.

In previous decades, states from Michigan to North Carolina provided driver education at no cost to students through public schools. Funding for those programs has been slashed, with most states moving towards private driver education courses. Take action The House Transportation Committee recently voted 14-5 in favor of killing HB 1208, but this vote is only a recommendation for their fellow representatives. The full House will get their chance to vote on the bill in the coming weeks. Contact your representative to share your opinion on this bill before they vote. You can find who represents you at citizenscount.org/elected-officials.

Citizens Count is a nonprofit serving the New Hampshire community by providing objective information about issues, elected officials, bills, elections, and candidates. These articles are being shared by partners in The Granite State News Collaborative. For more information visit collaborativenh.org.