HB1300

HB1300 began as a bill on congressional redistricting but was reshaped by a non-germane amendment (2026-0093h) into a measure creating a mandatory, recurring biennial local ballot question capping property tax and school-district budget growth, along with limits on central-office administrative spending. Supporters frame it as a needed check on rising property taxes and school spending, while opponents object both to the process used to attach the tax-cap policy to an unrelated bill and to the substance, arguing it strips local control, revives a recently rejected proposal, and ignores the state's own role in driving up property taxes. A smaller stream of testimony addresses the bill's original redistricting purpose, which opponents call an unfair mid-decade gerrymander.

• General support for a voter-approved property tax capSupport285 of 480 reviewed

  Many supporters expressed general backing for the 'Property Tax Protection Amendment' and its concept of a recurring ballot question limiting local tax and budget growth, without elaborating further reasoning beyond endorsing the idea.

  • “TIRED OF PAYING FOR LAND I AM SUPOSSED TO OWN WHAT JOKE ! THE JOKE IS ON US WE THE PEOPLE support the Property Tax Protection Amendment.”

    — Lawrence Hurd, Plaistow · #540583 — read full submission →

• Property taxes threaten homeownership, especially for seniorsSupport9 of 480 reviewed

  Supporters describe property tax increases as unsustainable and say fixed-income seniors, disabled residents, and other vulnerable homeowners risk losing their homes without a cap.

  • “Property taxes are increasing at an unsustainable rate above inflation and elderly, disabled, and other vulnerable citizens are in danger of losing their homes.”

    — Mary Murphy, Francestown · #540281 — read full submission →

  • “We are seniors, and the Town Senior Exemptions are built so that if you're on SS, you make TOO MUCH TO QUALIFY ??. We got SCREWED with the Medicare changes and losing of 22 advantage plans.”

    — Kelley Wile, N Haverhill · #542457 — read full submission →

• School and town spending has outpaced enrollment and inflationSupport6 of 480 reviewed

  Supporters argue that local spending, including administrative costs, has grown faster than inflation even as student enrollment has declined, and that a cap would restore fiscal discipline.

  • “Enrollment in public schools peaked 20 years ago. The graph of enrollment and spending is a giant X.”

    — Shelley Murphy, WAKEFIELD · #541304 — read full submission →

  • “Town and especially school district spending is often increasing double the rate of inflation, and for school districts this is happening despite long term declining student enrollment.”

    — Eric Pauer, Brookline · #539979 — read full submission →

• Low turnout lets a small electorate control local budgetsSupport3 of 480 reviewed

  Some supporters contend that local budget votes are dominated by a small, motivated turnout, and that placing a tax-cap question on general-election ballots would produce a more representative outcome.

  • “Property taxes are out of control, and dominated by special interests who are highly motivated to turn up to low-turn out elections.”

    — Matthew Stedjan, Berlin · #540148 — read full submission →

  • “Local property taxes are out of control, driven by fringe special interests taking advantage of low voter participation.”

    — Jason Osborne, Auburn · #541274 — read full submission →

• Some supporters wanted an even stronger capSupport2 of 480 reviewed

  A few supporters said the amendment does not go far enough, calling for stricter limits such as a two-thirds vote requirement to raise property taxes.

  • “I support the property tax amendment. More, the way it was amended to death previously is absurd. Specifically, I want a 2/3 majority needing to vote to raise property taxes.”

    — Nathan Dwyer, Manchester · #541954 — read full submission →

  • “The only problem with this amendment is that it doesn't go far enough. Towns like mine will never opt into this framework. Enough is enough.”

    — Jared Gorski, Newmarket · #539709 — read full submission →

• Broader anti-tax, small-government sentimentSupport2 of 480 reviewed

  A small number of supporters framed backing for the amendment as part of a broader desire to shrink government and reduce or eliminate property taxes altogether.

  • “Our property rights are being eroded by our high property tax rate and will eventually lead to a country of tenants since very few people will be able to afford to pay these outrageous taxes.”

    — Enid Mackenzie, Goffstown · #548681 — read full submission →

• Amendment is a non-germane, procedurally improper insertionOppose63 of 480 reviewed

  Opponents argue that attaching a sweeping property-tax-cap and budget-limitation policy to HB1300, a bill originally about redistricting, through a late amendment bypasses normal committee review and public process, characterizing it as a backdoor or underhanded way to revive a rejected policy.

  • “This amendment represents a fundamental misuse of election law, a profound intrusion into municipal and school district governance, and a significant departure from long-standing principles of local control in New Hampshire.”

    — David Preece, Manchester · #545587 — read full submission →

  • “I am OPPOSED to this bill because this unrelated amendment to the original bill that brings state-level school budget caps (SB675) back from the dean.”

    — Karen Bemis, Bristol · #544480 — read full submission →

  • “I am registering my opposition to the proposed amendment to HB 1300 (#2026-0093h) that is a backdoor effort to resurrect state-level school budget caps.”

    — Charles Hotchkiss, Durham · #550185 — read full submission →

• Policy already rejected by the House and local votersOppose52 of 480 reviewed

  Opponents note the amendment's substance mirrors HB 675, which the House recently voted down, and that numerous towns have already defeated local budget-cap measures at the ballot, arguing the amendment disregards those outcomes.

  • “School and town caps were rejected just two weeks ago and here we are again. This is not wanted by your constituents.”

    — Sarah Gentile, Rochester · #547618 — read full submission →

  • “There has been widespread, bipartisan rejection of the school budget caps and yet an attempt to sneak this through. Stop ruining our schools.”

    — Michael Gentile, Rochester · #547616 — read full submission →

• Local budget decisions belong with towns and school districtsOppose40 of 480 reviewed

  Many opponents argue that spending and tax decisions should remain under local control, set by towns and school boards rather than the state legislature, and some note the amendment could override tax-cap approaches communities already adopted on their own.

  • “I feel towns should choose how much they spend in schools not legislatures. I am a retired educator and am disappointed in the lack of support and funding for public schools in NH.”

    — Judith McChesney, BRIDGEWATER · #542010 — read full submission →

  • “Our town adopted a tax cap last year and this amendment would conflict with RSA 32:5-b and force a vote on a different approach that the town did not ask for.”

    — Rep Eric Turer, Brentwood · #548701 — read full submission →

• Objection to mid-decade congressional redistrictingOppose32 of 480 reviewed

  Separate from the tax-cap provisions, many opponents object to HB1300's original purpose of redrawing congressional districts mid-decade, calling it an unfair, partisan gerrymander that undermines fair representation.

  • “There is no reason to create a new US House of Representatives district. This is a waste of your valuable time and taxpayers money.”

    — Leonard Cadwallader, Hanover · #546213 — read full submission →

  • “Our state and its residents deserve fair and equal representation. This bill skews representation in ways that insult and deny democracy to our citizens.”

    — Michele Chalice, Keene · #545467 — read full submission →

• State's failure to fund education adequately drives property taxesOppose22 of 480 reviewed

  Opponents argue the real cause of rising property taxes is the state's failure to adequately fund public education and other obligations, and that capping local budgets treats a symptom rather than that underlying cause.

  • “If the state of NH would pay its fair share, we taxpayers would save far more on property taxes. Stop the gop tax scam for once and for all. NH must fund public education.”

    — Kathy Archibald, Warren · #543281 — read full submission →

  • “Tax caps do not work. The best way to reduce property taxes is to fund adequately the school systems, the pension plans, and return the money to the municipalities owed under the rooms and meals tax.”

    — Stanford Diehl, Concord · #545398 — read full submission →

• Threat to funding for schools, police, and fire servicesOppose21 of 480 reviewed

  Opponents argue that capping local budgets would force cuts to essential local services, including public schools, police, and fire departments.

  • “Please do not cut funding for local communities for schools, police, and fire services. Strong communities need our support!”

    — Sarah Graham, Rindge · #540952 — read full submission →

  • “We don’t want or need state politicians hurting public services by forcing budget cap mandates on our communities.”

    — Patricia Hamilton, Epsom · #541935 — read full submission →

• Rigid formula-based cap ignores unpredictable local cost driversOppose6 of 480 reviewed

  Opponents argue that a cap tied only to inflation cannot account for volatile, often mandated costs such as special education, health insurance, staffing shortages, and enrollment shifts, and could force program cuts.

  • “Second, this amendment would impose a rigid, formula-based cap on local budgets that fails to reflect real-world needs.”

    — Katie DeAngelis, Nottingham · #545507 — read full submission →

  • “The current education funding model in the state makes it exceedingly difficult for local school boards to propose consistent budgets due to the unpredictable nature of special education and healthcare, which do not adhere to inflation rates.”

    — James Newcomb, Henniker · #544679 — read full submission →

• Process and local-control concerns raised outside a formal stanceNeutral2 of 480 reviewed

  A couple of submissions not tagged as formal support or opposition nonetheless urged rejection of the amendment, raising the same non-germane process and local-control concerns voiced by opponents.

  • “I am writing to urge you to oppose amendment 0093h to HB 1300. Additionally I'd ask you all to consider why the democratic process can be completely disregarded in such a way”

    — Danielle Van Dusen, Ossipee · #545099 — read full submission →

Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 20, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.