HB768

Unconstitutional! Oppose this bill which ignores the separation of church and state. Also public tax money should not be used for private entities! Vote NO. On HB 768.

It’s anti-American to mesh church and state

Honored Committee, This bill does not represent the will of the large majority of New Hampshire citizens. As shown by the overwhelming majorities that testify in opposition to the never-ending stream of anti-public school bills, and against the never-ending stream of pro religious schools, New Hampshire citizens do not support their tax dollars flowing to religious or private schools. Please honor your oath to discern and uphold the will of the people you govern instead of private ideologies. Thank you, Janine Lesser

Church and state are SEPARATE. TAX DOLLARS SUPPORT PUBLIC EDUCATION

"One more unconstitutional way to give tax dollars to religious institutions." - KSC

"One more unconstitutional way to give tax dollars to religious institutions." - KSC

I disagree with this bill

The citizens of the state of NH should not be funding religious institutions; if churches don’t need to pay taxes then they can use that uncollected money to provide education to students without the state and tax money going toward vouchers.

Public school monies should not be going to religious schools. There is (or should be) a separation of church and state.

I oppose this bill. I do not want public schools to contract with private schools.

The separation of church and state is critical. This bill would create a precedent that could evolve into more and more state funding going towards religious institutions.

I strongly oppose this bill. The Separation of Church and State was made a part of our Constitution for very, very good reasons. As an ex-evangelical who suffered much harm from the bible's teachings, I would NEVER want my hard-earned tax dollars going towards funding a religious school. The NH Legislature has to keep in mind that they represent EVERYONE in the state, and there are many who are NOT religious. You *must stop* trying breaking our Constitution in this way. When I was a Christian, I often heard that Jesus "stands at the door of your heart and knocks, and it is *up to you* to LET him in. He never forces his way in." And God is said to give his creation "free will" to choose to worship and obey him or not. Granted, there is Hell to pay if you don't, but still no one is FORCED in this life. For those who would choose to follow Christ in our government, they ought to also follow his example. No more forcing religion onto the public or using OUR money to pay for your own religious in beliefs.

School districts should not be contracting with religious schools because (a) under the NH Constitution no one should be required to send money to any religious schools; (b) many religious schools discriminate based on religion, disability, LGBTQ+ status, and/or academic record, and our taxes raised for public education should not go to discriminatory institutions, nor should taxpayers have to pay taxes that will go to schools their own children would be barred from; and (c) many religious schools infuse religion into every class, and even Comm'r Edelblut agrees that our tax dollars can't be used to actually teach religion.

School districts shoiuld not be able to contract with religious schools as this would be against separation of church and state, our public schools. I opppose this bill's passage.

Under our current laws, New Hampshire's public schools can contract with and pay tuition to non-religious private schools who experience hardship at their local school. While I am personally not okay with the public school system giving money away to private schools, I can absolutely understand situations where this would be a benefit for students. However, I cannot support a bill that further expands this to allow a public school district to contract with religious schools as well. We have separation of church and state for a reason, and we should be using our state's tax dollars to fund religious institutions.

Tax dollars should not be used to fund religious education.

Currently, public school districts may contract with and pay tuition to non-religious private schools to serve students from their districts who are experiencing hardship at their local school. This bill would enable the district to contract with religious schools as well—one more unconstitutional way to give tax dollars to religious institutions.

This bill is a blatant violation of the principle of the separation of church and state. Public tax dollars were never intended to be given to religious institutions and this bill is just a roundabout way of allowing taxpayer dollars to subsidize the promotion of specific religious beliefs. Religious freedom was one of the founding principles of our country and this bill is an insult to that core tenant of American identity.

Public education funds should not go to religious schools.

Public funds should not be going to religious schools.

I’m writing today to urge you to continue the independence and integrity of the Office of Consumer Advocate by maintaining it as a separate body from the Department of Energy or the Public Utilities Commission. The Office of Consumer Advocate has a unique structure that supports a perspective focused on serving the many and diverse needs of residential ratepayers. For many years I attended the Residential Ratepayers Advisory Board (RRAB) meetings in person (and online during Covid). Although I’m less able to attend meetings due to family obligations, I still appreciate reading through the documents the OCA’s office produces related to legislation and dockets at the Public Utilities Commission. As a clean energy advocate, retired engineer, and activist, I have always been proud of the way New Hampshire’s PUC treated us and permitted our participation in dockets for which we had standing as customers. The OCA was a kind of champion for we lowly consumers. While he never would side with us on the basis of climate considerations, he was quick to point out that we had a right to be heard and to hear (this came up when we had to leave the room when utilities were discussing “sensitive business of a competitive nature.”) and see as much unredacted information as possible. The Office of the Consumer Advocate answers to the Governor, Legislative Body and the RRAB. The RRAB consists of nine members appointed by the Governor, Speaker of the House and Senate President to advocate for the interests of residential ratepayers, small business owners, low income, elderly and disabled consumers and the environment. The OCA should be able to launch a challenge or hire consultants to render a second opinion on dockets and projects supported by the PUC or the DOE that will have a lasting impact on consumers. It reminds me of the stranded costs associated with the scrubber on the Bow coal plant that we continue to pay. The OCA resisted saddling ratepayers with the cost overruns of the Burgess wood plant. Who will fight for us in the future if it means going up against their bosses? The OCA is a bulwark against regulatory capture. The OCA is constantly reminding all the lawyers for the utilities and energy companies that it is the consumer who ultimately foots the bill. I respectfully request that you deny any attempt to dismantle the OCA and RRAB. It is giving the residential and small business consumers of New Hampshire a voice.

I do not want my tax dollars subsidizing religious education of any kind.

Taxpayer funds being directed towards any type of religious education is not what New Hampshire needs. Fair and equitable fully funded public education is long overdue in our state, and HB768 is taking us down the wrong path as, once again, the education of our kids is being used as a political football for opportunist politicians.

Not in favor. I oppose this bill