In the N.H. Senate, budget writers are finalizing their version of the state’s two-year budget. The Senate Finance Committee met three times in the last week, and on Tuesday, May 19, the Ways and Means Committee received an update on revenue projections for the next two years. Already, the Senate’s budget is looking significantly different than the $11.2 billion budget House lawmakers came up with in April. Among the most recent changes: a unanimous vote from Finance Committee members to restore $52 million to the state’s dedicated renewable energy fund. House budget writers had previously pulled that money out of the fund.
Finance Committee members heard testimony on the budget from more than 400 people earlier this month, many of whom spoke against the House’s cuts to elderly services, addiction treatment and prevention programs, and other services. The Finance Committee next meets on Thursday, May 21 at 3 p.m. Senators have until early June to vote on their version of the budget. After that, Senate and House members will begin negotiating a final budget, which will take effect July 1.
EBT restrictions: Legislators in both houses are considering a pair of bills that would place restrictions on how people can use EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards. The bills, HB 219 and SB 169, prohibit anyone on public assistance from using EBT cards to gamble or buy tobacco products, alcohol, lottery tickets, firearms, or adult entertainment. Senators recently amended HB 219 to make it similar to SB 169, which also prohibits EBT cardholders from using cash obtained from the card to purchase any of the above items. Both bills have received support in the House and Senate. State law already prohibits using EBT cards to pay for body piercing, branding, and tattooing. However, in a fiscal note attached to HB 219, the Department of Health and Human Services states the new provisions would be difficult to enforce, as the bill does not provide additional funding for enforcement or investigation.
Common Core prohibition vetoed: Gov. Maggie Hassan issued her first veto of the year on May 8 with a veto of SB 101, a Republican-backed initiative that would have blocked the state’s Board of Education from implementing Common Core standards anywhere in the state. In a statement, Hassan said the bill was unnecessary, as “no school district is required to implement Common Core under current New Hampshire law.” Hassan pointed to Manchester as an example of a community that implemented its own education standards rather than Common Core, and went on to say the bill “undermines the importance of high standards in education.”
Overdose drug bill heads to governor: Earlier this month, Senators voted in favor of HB 271, which allows doctors to prescribe Narcan, a drug that reverses the effects of an opioid overdose, to opioid users, their families, and friends. The House passed the bill in February and it now heads to Hassan, who has not said if she’ll sign it into law. Earlier this year, state regulations were changed to allow police officers to administer anti-overdose drugs. Previously, only first responders could administer the drug.
“Although this bill does not solve the increasingly serious opioid problem facing the state of New Hampshire, it does allow Narcan to be more easily accessible during emergency situations, which is a critical and effective step in preventing overdose related deaths,” said Sen. Andy Sanborn (R-Bedford).
Voter registration law falls: On May 15, the New Hampshire Supreme Courte ruled against a 2012 law that placed residency conditions on voter registration laws. New Hampshire law requires voters be “domiciled” in the state (that is, have “established a physical presence” in the state and “an intent to maintain a single continuous presence” here). The conditions adopted in 2012 would have linked voter registration with getting a New Hampshire driver’s license. Former Gov. John Lynch vetoed the bill in 2012, but legislators overrode the veto. The American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire challenged the law. The state Supreme Court ruled it “inaccurately states New Hampshire law” regarding domicile and residency rules and that the language in the law is “confusing because it is susceptible of different interpretations.”