HB1595
House · 2026 sessionBipartisanKilled in HouseDomestic violence program and protections
AI-generatedExpands judicial training requirements, establishes a domestic violence program under the judicial branch, amends the definition of domestic violence and protective order procedures, requires a lethality assessment form when domestic violence is suspected, allows victims to file safety affidavits in family court, and amends the stalking statute.
establishing a domestic violence program and relative to orders of protection, stalking offenses, and annulment of criminal records.Official record
Division of testimonyComputed by this site
6 submissionsAll 3 written submissions were individually written — no organized campaign detected.
Status
Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · February 19, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✕House
- Senate
- Governor
- Law
The record · every submission as filed
6 submissions| Expand | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kathleen Malsbenden for Myself Newmarket I oppose this bill as it looks like HB 1591 takes discretion away from the courts and risks unintended consequences. | Newmarket | Oppose | 116 | Jan 16, 2026 | |
Jason Boothe for Myself Washington Considering the abundance of domestic violence offenses that would otherwise be considered a lifetime sentence of removal of firearm rights, I would propose making domestic violence incidents only apply to felony or above convictions. It is the only criminal offense to repeatedly serve life sentences upon predominantly men, indicating a discriminatory bias, without the commission of a felony, and potentially due to false accusations from their partner. While domestic violence is a serious offense, and should be viewed as such especially in the extremety of cases, a misdemeanor is unable to be absolved unlike a felony, so even felons have more options to rectify their unalienable rights being "temporarily" removed during due process through expungement. | Washington | Neutral | 762 | Jan 16, 2026 | |
David Jenkins for Myself Jaffrey I oppose this legislation only for the language "if the order was not served at the time of the hearing, and shall be mailed to the defendant’s last address of record." Mailing a final protective order to a defendant's last known address does is not effective service. If a defendant subsequently violates that protective order, prosecutors cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge of the protective order and the condition or conditions in the protective order that the State alleges that the defendant violated. This language makes final protective orders unenforceable unless a defendant confesses to knowing that their charged conduct violated the final protective order. Final protective orders need to ALWAYS be served on defendants, not merely mailed to their last known address. | Jaffrey | Oppose | 817 | Jan 16, 2026 | |
Efstathia Booras for Myself Nashua Position recorded without written comment. | Nashua | Oppose | — | Jan 16, 2026 | |
Teresa Rosenberger for CASA NH Concord Position recorded without written comment. | Concord | Support | — | Jan 16, 2026 | |
Daniel Richardson for Myself Nashua Position recorded without written comment. | Nashua | Oppose | — | Jan 16, 2026 |