For decades, the “New Hampshire Advantage” has been celebrated, often framed as our low tax burden. But the real New Hampshire Advantage lies in something far more fundamental: our government’s unparalleled transparency and accountability to the people.
At the heart of this transparency is the requirement that every bill introduced in the New Hampshire House of Representatives receive a public hearing. This rule is not just a procedural safeguard; it is a cornerstone of our democratic process. The proposed rule change, which would allow a House committee to table a bill before a public hearing with a three-fourths vote, strikes at the very foundation of this transparency and must be soundly rejected.
Unlike other state legislatures and the federal Congress, where special interests routinely quash bills in back rooms without hearings or substantive debate, New Hampshire’s legislative process is distinct in its openness. Here, the people are guaranteed the opportunity to make their voices heard on every bill. This is not just a formality; it is an essential mechanism for ensuring that government remains accountable to the public. If this rule change is adopted, it will strip away one of the most important checks on political power in our state.
Public hearings are more than an opportunity for show. They are often where the people’s representatives gain new insights and change their minds. In many cases, a public hearing reveals perspectives and impacts that lawmakers might not have considered. For example, issues that may seem unimportant or irrelevant to legislators often resonate deeply with their constituents. Without public hearings, these vital connections between the governed and the governing are severed. Representatives cannot adequately serve the public if they are insulated from its concerns.
The primary alternative for constituents to communicate their will—email—cannot replicate the impact of a public hearing. With the volume of correspondence representatives receive, it is all too easy for individual voices to get lost in the noise. Public hearings cut through that clutter by providing a forum where constituents can speak directly to their representatives and the broader public can engage in the legislative process.
Proponents of the rule change argue that it will save time by allowing committees to dismiss “stinker” bills—repeated attempts at legislation that have been rejected in the past. Rep. Dan McGuire recently claimed that these bills clog the system and waste valuable time. But this argument is both shortsighted and dismissive of the legislative process. Many of the laws that define our state today took years—sometimes decades—of repeated attempts to pass. Constitutional carry, a landmark bill for New Hampshire, was debated for over a decade before becoming law. The Parental Bill of Rights, an ongoing legislative effort, has required years of persistence and refinement. Legislative consensus takes time. Dismissing bills before a public hearing undermines the iterative process necessary for meaningful, durable solutions.
Another troubling aspect of the proposed rule change is its potential to entrench committee biases. Committees are often stacked with members who hold specific views on contentious issues. This stacking can skew the committee’s perspective, making it less representative of both the public and the broader legislative body. Allowing such committees to preemptively table bills without public input further concentrates power in a way that is fundamentally undemocratic. The people’s House must remain a place where all voices are heard, not a venue where a few committee members wield outsized influence.
The justification that this change is needed to reduce workload doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. While the number of second-year bills has increased in recent years, the number of first-year bills—the type most impacted by this rule—has remained steady since 2010. If legislators find their schedules burdensome, the solution is not to curtail public input but to reaffirm their commitment to the people they serve. Transparency and accountability are far more important than saving a few hours of legislative time.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives has long prided itself on being the most accessible and responsive legislative body in the country. This proposed rule change betrays that legacy. It diminishes the people’s voice, weakens transparency, and makes our government less accountable.
Every citizen of this state, regardless of their political persuasion, has a stake in ensuring that their voice can be heard on every bill. Public hearings are not just a tradition; they are a testament to our commitment to democracy and good governance. Once we start taking shortcuts in the legislative process, it becomes all too easy to erode the principles that make New Hampshire unique.
The House should reject this dangerous proposal and reaffirm its commitment to the people of New Hampshire. Transparency and accountability are not inconveniences; they are the foundation of our democracy. Let us protect the true New Hampshire Advantage—not just for today, but for generations to come.
