On Monday, April 11, at 1:20 p.m. in State House Room 100, the Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs Committee will hold a hearing in on HB 1194, which applies to towns, school districts, and village districts. This bill would require a 3/5 majority vote, by written ballot, of a town meeting to approve any appropriation that would cause the amount of local taxes raised to exceed the town’s tax cap. 

The purpose of a tax cap is to limit the budget authority of an elected body. This means that a tax cap limits the budget amount that the select board or budget committee can present to the town meeting. 

However, once the budget is presented to the town meeting, it is now in the hands of the voters to make their own decision. That is why current law allows the town meeting to override a tax cap “by the usual procedures applicable to annual meetings,” and states that the tax cap “shall not limit the legislative body’s authority to increase or decrease the amount of any appropriation or the total amount of all appropriations.” 

HB 1194 changes the authority of the town meeting and would have the same stringent requirements as a bond issue, which means the voters could not choose to adopt a budget that exceeds the tax cap unless they can muster 60 percent of the vote. 

Please contact your Senator and members of the Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs Committee to oppose the bill.

On Monday, April 11, beginning at 1:30 p.m. in State House Room 100, the Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs Committee will hear testimony on two related bills: HB 1268, limiting the general authority of city councils to make bylaws and ordinances to the abatement of nuisances that interfere with the use or enjoyment of property, and HB 1272, limiting the authority of local health officers in making bylaws or ordinances relating to public health matters. NHMA opposes both bills. 

HB 1268 as amended by the House replaces the phrase “which may seem for the well-being of the city” in the city council powers statute, RSA 47:17, with the phrase “for the abatement of nuisances that interfere with the use or enjoyment of property.” 

NHMA has two concerns about this particular bill. The first is that there is already a provision relating to “nuisances” in RSA 47:17 in section XIV. This new language might limit that existing language, putting city ordinances already in place to deal with nuisances at risk of being nullified. 

Second, the existing, broad language allows cities to timely deal with local issues at the local level. Without that language, whenever issues arise that are not already covered by RSA 47:17 arise, cities and citizens will need to appeal to the legislature to deal with these local issues. That change delays solutions and clogs the wheels of state government by requiring it to deal with issues that can and should be dealt with by local officials. 

HB 1272 as amended by the House replaces the phrase “and such other regulations relating to the public health as in their judgment the health and safety of the people require” in the health officer’s statute, RSA 147:1, with a definitive list of powers – “such as garbage, insects, unsanitary conditions, septic, rodents, and safe drinking water inspections.” 

NHMA’s major concern is that the list is not comprehensive. We are learning of new areas where local regulations have been proposed by the local health officer and adopted by the local governing body on a weekly basis. Issues such as efforts to combat mosquitoes by regulating standing water and regulating massage parlors have been brought to our attention since the House hearing. The current language allows these local issues to be dealt with at the local level, and changing to a specific list will impact the ability of municipalities to deal with local issues at the local level, particularly in the context of self-inspecting municipalities, i.e. municipalities with their own local health department that do much of the work that might otherwise be completed by the state. 

Please contact the Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs Committee and ask them to recommend both HB 1268 and HB 1272 as Inexpedient to Legislate.  

On Tuesday, April 12, at 9:00 a.m. in State House Room 103, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hear testimony on HB 1134, establishing a committee to study proper labeling and disposal of disposable wipes. This was an issue that we mentioned in our Legislative Preview article in Town & City Magazine, and has concerned municipal wastewater operators for years. It’s a simple issue – for years wipes, many of which are labeled “flushable,” have been flushed down toilets, and clogged pipes and machinery at local wastewater treatment plants, costing taxpayers significant amounts of money to clear.   

This summer, a coalition of interested parties, including us, worked on legislation to create a study committee to consider the issue. That legislation was amended by the House committee to change the composition of the committee, then passed the House on the Consent Calendar. Now, the bill is before the Senate, where we hope it will receive an Ought to Pass recommendation from the committee. Please contact the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and ask them to pass this legislation.

Today the House Election Law Committee heard testimony on SB 418, which would introduce the use of “affidavit ballots”—essentially provisional ballots—for state and local elections. The governor appears opposed to the bill, and so is NHMA. Just to be clear, we do not oppose efforts to ensure that voters provide proper identification and documentation, but the process created by this bill will have serious implications for many aspects of our elections. 

The bill would apply to voters who are required to submit one of the three kinds of affidavits because they lack the necessary documentation while registering to vote or, if already registered, proof of identity: Domicile (proof of where they live), Qualified Voter (proof of age, citizenship, identity), or Challenged Voter (lack of ID at the polls). 

All of these voters would be handed an “affidavit ballot package” that contains (1) a prepaid U.S. Postal Service Priority Mail Express envelope addressed to the secretary of state and (2) an “affidavit verification letter” listing the documents required to qualify to vote and indicating which documents are missing. The voter would be required to return the letter and any necessary documentation to the secretary of state’s office within 10 days after the election. The cost of mailing would be paid for by the state and is estimated at $26.95 per voter. 

Meanwhile, the moderator would be required to forward separate copies of all affidavit verification letters to the secretary of state. If the voter fails to send the required documents within 10 days, the secretary of state would instruct the moderator to retrieve the associated ballot and deduct all of the votes on that ballot from the vote totals. 

There are several serious issues with this bill: 

The compromised secret ballot. There are many municipalities that saw only a handful of ballots requiring domicile, qualified voter, or challenged voter affidavits in the 2020 election. Some only saw one or two. In those municipalities, the requirement to separate out and hand-count the affidavit ballots will result in local officials – and probably the public at large – knowing how individual voters voted, compromising the sanctity of the secret ballot. 

The process. The process created by the bill will require the voter to be handed a prelabeled “affidavit ballot,” enter the voting booth, vote, exit, and remember to place the ballot in the side pocket (probably notifying the select board member standing next to the machine that they need to do so, since the select board member will likely let the voter know where ballots ordinarily go). Frankly, that’s unlikely to happen. In all likelihood, when the vote count occurs that evening, local officials will end up searching through the pile processed by the machine for the “missing” affidavit ballot. 

Delivery of the affidavit ballot package. The bill states that “the authorized election official shall hand the affidavit ballot voter an affidavit ballot package and explain its use.” But it does not say who “the authorized election official” is. This is not a small point. Each election official has very specific duties, and they are not interchangeable, so it needs to be clear who would provide the ballot package and explain its use. Another provision of the bill suggests that the supervisors of the checklist would give the voter the affidavit ballot package, but this is not clear. It needs to be clear what each election official’s role is in this process. 

Counting of disqualified ballots and deadlines.  The bill requires the secretary of state to instruct the moderator, on the tenth day after the election, to retrieve the affidavit ballot associated with any voter who has failed to return the required documents and deduct the votes on that ballot from the vote totals. “The counting of votes on affidavit ballots identified by the secretary of state as unqualified shall be conducted . . . using the same methods of counting and observation utilized on the day of the election for hand counted ballots.” 

This raises several questions that are not answered:  How is the secretary of state to notify the moderator? Is it really possible for the secretary of state, within a single day, to notify every moderator in the state about the disqualified ballots in his or her town/ward? When is the counting of the votes to take place? How and when is the public to be notified? 

Because almost all elections take place on a Tuesday, the secretary’s notice to the moderator must occur on Friday of the following week. The moderator then has until the following Tuesday to file “a summary report, by race or ballot issue, of the total votes cast by the unqualified voters.” Presumably the moderator would need to post notice of the counting session in advance and have several election officials prepare to participate in it over the weekend or on Monday or Tuesday. 

In the case of primary elections, this pushes out the date by which elections are finalized, risking running into UOCAVA deadlines, and those candidates in close races may not get a final result until even closer to the general election, making contested general election races even more perilous for those with contested primaries. 

NHMA opposes SB 418 due to the ambiguities and logistical problems with the bill. We encourage local officials to speak with their representatives and explain why this bill won’t work for local elections and election officials.