HB1422
House · 2026 sessionRepublicanVeto — override pendingExtended deadline for new trial petition
AI-generatedAllows additional time to petition for a new trial in certain circumstances.
relative to the time to petition for a new trial.Official record
Division of testimonyComputed by this site
46 submissionsAll 6 written submissions were individually written — no organized campaign detected.
Status
Vetoed by the governor — the override vote has not been held yet · July 10, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✓House
- ✓Senate
- Governor
- Law
Argument analysis · complete record
AI-generatedall 6 hand-written submissions read in fullThe written record on HB1422 contains six submissions, five of which appear to address a different bill (a "bathroom bill" restricting facility access based on sex assigned at birth, referenced by some as HB1442) and oppose it. Only one submission addresses the stated subject of HB1422, the time to petition for a new trial, and supports it. The opposing testimony raises enforceability, privacy, safety, and discrimination concerns about gender-based facility and sports restrictions.
- Bathroom restrictions cannot be enforced without invasive checksOppose3 of 6 · 50%
Opponents argue that restricting facility use by sex assigned at birth cannot be enforced without invasive questioning or physical verification, which itself violates privacy.
- No evidence transgender people cause harm in these settingsOppose2 of 6 · 33%
Opponents state there is no evidence that transgender and non-binary people using facilities, sports, or shelters based on their gender identity harms others, and that existing laws already address individual wrongdoing.
“There is no evidence that, as a group, transgender and non-binary people using the bathroom, participating in sports, or being in a shelter, prison, or other publicly funded facility based on their true gender causes harm to others.”
— Lynn Lippitt, MILFORD · #635683 — read full submission →
“Trans individuals are not a threat to women or children, in fact, statistically the people who attack and rape women and children at an incredibly high rate are primarily straight white men”
— Lauren Blanchette, Concord · #632742 — read full submission →
- Government overreach and removal of existing protectionsOppose2 of 6 · 33%
Opponents characterize the bill as an overreach that strips freedoms and existing anti-discrimination protections that have been in place in New Hampshire, driven by political climate rather than new facts.
- Bill is discriminatory and a waste of legislative timeOppose2 of 6 · 33%
Several submissions characterize the proposal as rooted in transphobia or hate and argue the legislature should not spend time on it.
- Extended time allows the wrongly convicted to clear their nameSupport1 of 6 · 17%
A supporter argues that because legal processes are slow and evidence can change over time, people who can demonstrate their innocence should have the opportunity to do so.
- Forced use of opposite facilities endangers transgender peopleOppose1 of 6 · 17%
Testimony argues that requiring transgender people to use facilities matching their sex assigned at birth exposes them to harassment and violence, and creates a choice between breaking the law and being endangered.
- Bill would enable outing, harassment of cis and trans people alikeOppose1 of 6 · 17%
Opponents contend the bill would empower anyone to question another person's sex at birth based on appearance, which could be used to harass or intimidate both transgender and cisgender individuals and could result in job loss.
- Rule produces absurd results given appearance after transitionOppose1 of 6 · 17%
One submission argues that requiring facility use by birth certificate marker leads to absurd outcomes, such as a bearded transgender man being required to use the women's room, and describes forcing children into non-matching facilities as abusive.
- No documented cases of men posing as women to enter restroomsOppose1 of 6 · 17%
One submission asserts that there are no instances nationwide of men dressing as women in order to access women's restrooms.
- Privacy concerns can be met by stalls; comfort vs. safetyOppose1 of 6 · 17%
Testimony argues that individual privacy can be addressed through single stalls and changing areas, and that the underlying issue is discomfort rather than safety, trading a few people's comfort against many people's safety.
- Sports funding, not birth-sex rules, best supports girls' athleticsOppose1 of 6 · 17%
One submission argues that restricting sports participation by sex assigned at birth is not the best way to support girls' and women's athletics, and that funding for coaching, equipment, and supervision would matter more.
Percentages are of the 6 individually-written submissions, every one of which was read in full — not a sample. A submission making several arguments is counted under each.
Form-letter detection only groups a template once at least ten people send it, so smaller sets of submissions sharing near-identical wording are counted here as individual testimony. On bills where a handful of writers worked from the same talking points, a count may therefore run slightly ahead of the number of independently-written arguments.
Generated by anthropic/claude-opus-5 on Aug 10, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Argument groupings are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
The record · every submission as filed
46 submissions| Expand | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ST LU for Myself Merrimack I support HB1422. Justice is blind, and law slow. Neither is accommodating of changing evidence and circumstances. Those who have the ability to clear their name should be allowed to do so. I urge the committee to vote Ought to Pass. | Merrimack | Support | 233 | Feb 20, 2026 | ||
Lynn Lippitt for Myself MILFORD Dear Honorable Members of the Judiciary Committee, I am Lynn Lippitt, a resident of Milford, and I have transgender family members and friends who are at risk of being adversely impacted by this bill. I oppose HB1442 for the following reasons: This bill removes freedoms and inflicts harm on a vulnerable group of people. Transgender and non-binary people have been protected by New Hampshire’s anti-discrimination laws for years based on the due diligence of prior legislators and the support of the majority of New Hampshire’s citizens. Nothing of substance has changed, just the political climate, and people should not be used as political pawns. There is no evidence that, as a group, transgender and non-binary people using the bathroom, participating in sports, or being in a shelter, prison, or other publicly funded facility based on their true gender causes harm to others. If an individual member of any group causes harm there are laws that cover that. The fear that an individual might cause harm is not a reason to deny a group of people their freedom and liberty. Girls and women can protect their privacy by using single stalls and changing areas in bathrooms and locker rooms. It seems the real issue is that some people are simply uncomfortable with the idea of using the same facilities as someone of the same gender who may not have the same body parts they do. But how will they know this? Whose privacy is being violated to find out? It’s not possible to know someone’s sex assigned at birth by how they look. This bill encourages anyone to violate the privacy of anyone else because they feel uncomfortable. The real danger is to transgender people being required to use a bathroom that is the opposite of their true gender. Violence against transgender people has been documented and is on the rise. Passing this bill will put transgender people in a catch 22: either break the law and face arrest, fines, and a criminal record or be harassed, bullied, and perhaps even worse. This bill seems like just another way to “out” transgender people without providing any real protection for women and girls. And this “outing” could result in physical harm and perhaps loss of employment. This is not a case of equal concerns: it is comfort vs. safety. The result of passing HB1442 will be to put the majority of transgender and nonbinary people in harm’s way in order for a few people feel more comfortable. There is no way to enforce this bill without an invasion of privacy, the very thing this bill wants to curtail. This bill allows anyone to legitimately question someone’s sex at birth based on what they look like. This power can be used to harass and intimidate cis-gender people as well as transgender and non-binary people. Legislation limiting participation in sports based on sex assigned at birth is not the right, or the best, mechanism to ensure girls and women can safely participate in sports. Funding for proper coaching, equipment, and supervision for sports will have a much greater impact. For these reasons, I oppose HB1442 and any similar bill and I urge you to please oppose this bill or at least find it ITL. Thank you, Lynn Lippitt | MILFORD | Oppose | 3,193 | Feb 20, 2026 | ||
Michael Watson for Myself Durham NH does not need to be wasting it’s time on this kind of hateful discriminatory nonsense. | Durham | Oppose | 89 | Feb 20, 2026 | ||
Lauren Blanchette for Myself Concord This is an incredible overreach of government authority. Not only is this entire bill pretty much unenforceable without incredibly invasive questioning practices at best, or "gender checks" at worst, this also does nothing to protect women. Trans individuals are not a threat to women or children, in fact, statistically the people who attack and rape women and children at an incredibly high rate are primarily straight white men, but it appears this legislature has no interest in that conversation. This is only going to create a witch-hunt situation for a group of people that are already marginalized and vulnerable. | Concord | Oppose | 622 | Feb 20, 2026 | ||
Kathleen Farrell for Myself Boscawen Bathroom bills cannot be enforced, they are silly and based on transphobia. | Boscawen | Oppose | 75 | Feb 20, 2026 | ||
Rachael Booth for Myself LANDAFF I vehemently oppose any attempt to keep people from going the bathroom of the gender with which they identify. They are not "men" trying to use the ladies' rooms. They are women or girls wanting only to go to the bathroom. There are no instances in the entire country of men wearing women's clothes just so they can get into the ladies' rooms. Imagine if you were born with a female body and have transitioned to male. You have a bald spot on your head and a full beard and moustache. Now imagine some politician has ordered that you have to use the ladies' room because it says "F" on your birth certificate. This is patently ridiculous and to make transgender girls or boys go into the bathooms of the genders they don't identify with is pure and simple child abuse. Imagine as a young boy being told that you had to use the girls' bathroom. Put yourself in these people's shoes and THINK before you legislate. | LANDAFF | Oppose | 912 | Feb 20, 2026 | ||
Winnie Ye for Innocence Project New York Position recorded without written comment. | New York, NY | Support | — | — | Feb 20, 2026 | |
Michael VonAllmen for Myself Louisville Position recorded without written comment. | Louisville, KY | Support | — | — | Feb 20, 2026 | |
Geoffrey Hubbell for Myself Canterbury Position recorded without written comment. | Canterbury | Oppose | — | — | Feb 20, 2026 | |
Kathleen Smith for Myself Canterbury Position recorded without written comment. | Canterbury | Oppose | — | — | Feb 20, 2026 | |
Danielle Alley for Myself Dover Position recorded without written comment. | Dover | Oppose | — | — | Feb 20, 2026 | |
Aubrey Freedman for Myself Bridgewater Position recorded without written comment. | Bridgewater | Support | — | — | Feb 20, 2026 | |
Joan Lang for Myself Hanover Position recorded without written comment. | Hanover | Oppose | — | — | Feb 20, 2026 | |
Patricia Hunt for Myself Franconia Position recorded without written comment. | Franconia | Oppose | — | — | Feb 20, 2026 | |
Patricia Button for Myself HANOVER Position recorded without written comment. | HANOVER | Oppose | — | — | Feb 20, 2026 | |
Kelly Butler for Myself Gilsum Position recorded without written comment. | Gilsum | Support | — | — | Feb 20, 2026 | |
Stephanie Melone for Myself Hollis Position recorded without written comment. | Hollis | Oppose | — | — | Feb 20, 2026 | |
Diane Eagle for Myself Nashua Position recorded without written comment. | Nashua | Oppose | — | — | Feb 20, 2026 | |
Susan Moore for Myself Whitefield Position recorded without written comment. | Whitefield | Oppose | — | — | Feb 20, 2026 | |
Corinne Gordon for Myself Salem Position recorded without written comment. | Salem | Support | — | — | Feb 20, 2026 | |
Margaret Konze for Myself Pembroke Position recorded without written comment. | Pembroke | Support | — | — | Feb 20, 2026 | |
Cheryl Burns for Myself Nashua Position recorded without written comment. | Nashua | Oppose | — | — | Feb 20, 2026 | |
Amy Lantz for Myself Peterborough Position recorded without written comment. | Peterborough | Oppose | — | — | Feb 20, 2026 | |
Erika Coombs for Myself Greenland Position recorded without written comment. | Greenland | Oppose | — | — | Feb 20, 2026 | |
Beth Edwards for Myself Lisbon Position recorded without written comment. | Lisbon | Oppose | — | — | Feb 20, 2026 |