The House Municipal and County Government Committee completed its hearings on House bills this week and took final action on all its remaining bills. The following (including a couple from the week before) are the most significant, and all of them presumably will be going to the full House at its next session, in early April. Every one of these bills is bad for local government. Oddly, the committee vote on each bill was straight down party lines—but in some cases the vote was “ought to pass,” while in others it was “inexpedient to legislate.” 

There are so many bills with differing 10-9 committee recommendations that it is difficult to keep them straight, even for those of us who are following them closely. To make things easier, we will issue a “cheat sheet” that summarizes our recommendations on the major bills that will be going to the House floor at its next session. Look for that in a future Bulletin or in a separate legislative alert. 

Powers of city councils. We reported on HB 439 in last week’s Bulletin, but it warrants another mention. This bill repeals the authority of city and town councils to adopt ordinances “which may seem for the well-being of the city.” This authority has been in statute for 175 years and has never been controversial. Nevertheless, the committee recommended the bill as “ought to pass” on a 10-9 vote. Representatives should vote no on the “ought to pass” motion and support a subsequent motion of “inexpedient to legislate.” 

Adoption of SB 2. We also reported in last week’s Bulletin on HB 374, which would change the process for adopting the official ballot referendum (SB 2) form of town government. The law was changed two years ago to require that the question be voted on at the town meeting’s deliberative session, like almost every other town meeting question. Under the previous law, the question had been relegated to one sentence on the official ballot, leaving voters a few seconds in a voting booth to make up their minds on the most significant change a town meeting is ever likely to make. The 2019 change enabled voters to have a full, informed discussion at town meeting before voting. HB 374 would reverse that change and reinstate the flawed process that encourages uninformed decision making. 

In addition to NHMA, three local officials, one of whom is the former chairman of the Municipal and County Government Committee, testified in opposition to the bill. The only people to speak in support of the bill were the sponsor and a resident of her town. Twenty-three people signed in opposition to the bill, and one in support. 

Nevertheless, the committee voted 10-9 to recommend the bill as “ought to pass.” As with all the others, this was a straight party-line vote. We cannot imagine why this is a partisan issue. Representatives should vote no on the “ought to pass” motion and support a subsequent motion of “inexpedient to legislate.” 

Enforcement of immigration laws. HB 266 would prohibit municipalities from adopting any policy that restricts or discourages “inquiring about the immigration status of any individual.” It also would require municipalities to “fully comply with, honor, and fulfill any instruction or request made in [an immigration] detainer request and in any other legal document provided by a federal agency” with respect to a person in its custody who is the subject of such a request. (An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer request is merely a request—not a document with the force of law. Federal law does not require local authorities to hold anyone based on an ICE detainer request alone.) 

We believe police chiefs and other local officials should be left alone to adopt the policies they believe are best suited to their cities and towns; their priority is ensuring public safety, not ascertaining anyone’s immigration status. Further, local and state law enforcement agencies have been held to violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures when they hold a person based on an immigration detainer request alone. This is particularly troubling in light of another House bill that seeks to hold police officers responsible for constitutional violations even when they are simply following state law. Together, these bills would leave police officers in an impossible situation. 

The committee voted 10-9 to recommend the bill as “ought to pass.” Representatives should vote no on the “ought to pass” motion and support a subsequent motion of “inexpedient to legislate.” 

Tiny houses. The committee had a lengthy debate about HB 588, which would require every municipality with a zoning ordinance to allow “tiny houses” in all residential districts. Several committee members, arguing in support of the bill, stated that it is only “enabling,” and that it would not require any municipality to require tiny houses. That is incorrect—the bill very clearly states, “A municipality that adopts a zoning ordinance pursuant to the authority granted in this chapter shall allow tiny houses as a matter of right in all zoning districts that permit single family dwellings, and may allow in its discretion tiny houses in all other districts.” 

Much of the argument for HB 588 centers on the belief that it will alleviate the state’s affordable housing problem, but there is little evidence of this. NHMA has supported, or at least not opposed, several efforts in recent years to make more affordable housing available, but this is not one of them. This is mandatory zoning for a niche market. HB 588 would immediately preempt zoning ordinances across the state to accommodate a housing option that sounds interesting but ultimately appeals to extremely few people. Any municipality that wants to allow “tiny houses” can already do so—no enabling legislation is necessary—and if people want their town to allow them, they can petition for any necessary zoning amendments. 

This was another 10-9 committee vote, but this time we support the committee’s recommendation, which was “inexpedient to legislate.” Representatives should vote yes on the ITL motion. 

Mandatory four-unit zoning. The committee had a similar discussion, with an identical result, on HB 341, which would require municipalities to allow every single-family dwelling in a residential district that is served by municipal water and sewer to be configured as a four-unit building. Converting large single-family homes into quadruplexes is undoubtedly a good idea in some circumstances, and municipalities certainly should consider this kind of innovative approach to creating more affordable housing and encouraging more compact development. But for the state to mandate this in every residential district in the state, with no regard for local conditions, is excessive. 

Again, the committee voted “inexpedient to legislate,” 10 to 9, and, again, we support the committee’s recommendation. Representatives should support the ITL motion. 

Amending petitioned warrant articles. As originally filed, HB 67 provided that if a petitioned warrant article is amended at the deliberative session in an SB 2 town, both the original article and the article as amended would go on the official ballot. We opposed this as being certain to cause confusion. 

The committee recommended an amendment, but the amendment is no better than the original bill. It states that no petitioned article in an SB 2 town may be amended “to change its specific intent.” 

We have seen this proposal more times than we can count, and the legislature has killed it every time, with good reason. We know of no legislative body in the United States where a legislative proposal—whether it is a warrant article in a town meeting or a bill in Congress or the state legislature—cannot be amended before the body votes on it. If the body can improve the bill/warrant article, why should it not? What if the sponsors/petitioners themselves change their minds and want to approach the subject differently? What if the petitioners made a mistake in writing the article and would like to amend it so it properly reflects their “specific intent”? 

By yet another party-line vote, the committee recommended passage of the bill with this amendment. Representatives should vote against the committee report and support a subsequent motion of “inexpedient to legislate.” 

Please encourage your representatives to vote to kill every one of these bills.

On Wednesday the House Judiciary Committee voted to retain HB 379, the NHMA policy bill that would allow municipalities to substitute electronic notice for newspaper notice in some instances. (We discussed the bill in more detail in Bulletin #9.) 

While we are disappointed with the result, at least the bill will come back next year. It is not possible to change the current result, because the full House does not get to vote on retention of a bill. The committee vote to retain ends this bill’s journey until the fall. We will continue to work with legislators to build support for this needed change over the summer and into the fall.

While the Senate continues to hold weekly remote sessions, the House has met in session only twice since the beginning of the year because of the challenges of hosting a 400-person gathering safely and the limited availability of venues. The House is not meeting again until April 7, at which time it is scheduled to hold a rare three-day session. On those days it will act on all of its remaining bills; we have not counted, but there must be several hundred. 

The next three weeks should afford plenty of time for local officials to contact their representatives and urge them to take appropriate action on the bills they will be considering. In almost all cases, the correct action will “inexpedient to legislate.” We will provide a list as the time draws nigh.