SB434
Senate · 2026 sessionRepublicanVeto — override pendingSchool material complaint procedures
AI-generatedRequires local school boards to adopt and publish policies and procedures for parents to submit and appeal complaints about school materials alleged to be obscene, harmful to minors, or age-inappropriate.
relative to regulation of public school materials.Official record
Division of testimonyComputed by this site
752 submissionsAll 162 written submissions were individually written — no organized campaign detected.
Status
Vetoed by the governor — the override vote has not been held yet · July 9, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✓Senate
- ✓House
- Governor
- Law
Argument analysis · complete record
AI-generatedall 162 hand-written submissions read in fullAll 162 individually-written submissions on SB434 are marked in opposition. Writers most commonly argue that districts already have local policies for challenging materials and for parents to opt their own children out, that the bill's terms ("age-inappropriate," "otherwise offensive") are undefined and invite subjective enforcement, and that it would let a single complainant remove materials district-wide. Additional themes include administrative and litigation costs, loss of local control, deference to trained educators and librarians, First Amendment concerns, and disproportionate effects on materials about race, LGBTQ+ identities, and marginalized communities.
- Government censorship violating free speechOppose55 of 162 · 34%
Writers characterize the bill as state censorship inconsistent with the First Amendment and with New Hampshire's "Live Free or Die" motto.
“This bill is a direct attack on our First Amendment rights. We don't need more vague, pro book-banning laws.”
— Gail Hernandez, Wilton · #662880 — read full submission →
“This bill is an attempt to limit free speech and local autonomy. It would set a precedent that whichever political party is in control could have wide powers of censorship.”
— Jeffrey Davis, Keene · #660809 — read full submission →
- One complainant could remove materials for everyoneOppose40 of 162 · 25%
A recurring argument is that the bill lets a single parent or individual trigger district-wide removal, overriding the choices of all other families.
“SB434 would allow a single person within a school district to challenge items and have them removed for the entire district.”
— Gabrielle Jack, Dover · #661471 — read full submission →
“it does not give a parent the right to opt their own child out of material. It gives one parent the power to trigger a process that can result in district-wide removal for every child. That is not parental rights.”
— Sara Tirrell, Plymouth · #663542 — read full submission →
- Trained educators and librarians should select materialsOppose34 of 162 · 21%
Writers argue that certified teachers and library media specialists have the professional training and knowledge of child development to select appropriate materials.
“Furthermore, certified library media specialists in New Hampshire schools, with their training, know how to make informed decisions about educational resources without political interference. Let them do their job.”
— Catherine Bushueff, Sunapee · #660881 — read full submission →
“Educators have strong understanding of child development. They will use their professional training and knowledge to deem what should be in their schools and classrooms. We can trust them.”
— Gayle Hoisington, Merrimack · #659949 — read full submission →
- Overrides local control from ConcordOppose28 of 162 · 17%
Writers frame the bill as a one-size-fits-all state mandate that displaces the discretion of locally elected school boards and communities.
“It replaces local discretion with a detailed, one-size-fits-all procedural mandate—dictating timelines, investigative steps, reporting requirements, and appeal structures that every district must follow, regardless of size or capacity. This is not local control. This is micromanagement from Concord.”
— David Preece, Manchester · #660211 — read full submission →
“School board members are elected by the voters in their districts and voters can bring any issues to the school board members. This bill would rip away that right to self determination.”
— Stephen Bilotta, Brookline · #663718 — read full submission →
- Districts already have reconsideration policiesOppose26 of 162 · 16%
Many writers state that school districts and SAUs already maintain publicly posted policies for curriculum selection and for challenging materials, making the bill redundant.
“Schools already have policies in place to allow for the public/parents/students to challenge materials. These policies are all posted on school & SAU websites. There is absolutely no need for the state to create laws regarding materials in schools.”
— Meg Murphy, Bartlett · #659966 — read full submission →
“I see nothing in this bill that is not already covered in school board policies across the state as mandated by the NH DoE. This is excessive legislature for a process that is already in process.”
— Benjamin Russell, Concord · #662347 — read full submission →
- Undefined terms like "offensive" invite subjective removalOppose23 of 162 · 14%
Opponents argue the bill relies on terms such as "age-inappropriate" and "otherwise offensive or inappropriate" that have no legal definition, so enforcement will turn on personal belief or discomfort.
“The bill requires every district to establish a complaint process for materials deemed "harmful to minors," "age-inappropriate," or "otherwise offensive" — without ever clearly defining any of those terms. That vagueness isn't an oversight. It's the mechanism.”
— Jaclyn Blute, Manchester · #659978 — read full submission →
“My concern is simple: who decides what is “offensive,” “inappropriate,” or “age-inappropriate”? These are subjective terms, and this bill gives them enormous power.”
— Shae Goodell, Stoddard · #662413 — read full submission →
- Adds administrative burden and unfunded mandateOppose20 of 162 · 12%
Opponents say required investigations, written findings, appeals, and public records processes would consume staff time and taxpayer money in already stretched districts.
“School administrators would be required to investigate complaints within tight timelines, produce detailed written findings, coordinate appeals, and ensure full public documentation under RSA 91-A. That means more staff time, more legal exposure, and more taxpayer dollars spent on process—not on students.”
— David Preece, Manchester · #660211 — read full submission →
“This bill represents another unfunded state mandate to local schools that does absolutely nothing to increase the education of students.”
— Edward Haas, Keene · #662316 — read full submission →
- Guiding a child's reading is a parent's private roleOppose16 of 162 · 10%
Writers argue parents should monitor and discuss their own children's reading, using disagreements as teaching moments, rather than imposing their views on other families.
“As parents, it is inevitable that our kids will sometimes hear things that misalign with our family's values. If something comes up, we can use that as an opportunity to speak with our kids. This is a core aspect of parenting.”
— Gayle Hoisington, Merrimack · #659949 — read full submission →
“As a parent, I made sure I knew what books my children were reading. That is a parents job. However it is not the job of one parent to decide what all children will be ale to read.”
— Deborah Lievens, Londonderry · #663015 — read full submission →
- Bill is politically motivated grandstandingOppose15 of 162 · 9%
Writers describe the bill as partisan or special-interest driven, aimed at undermining public education or generating attention rather than solving a documented problem.
“SB 434 is yet another grandstanding circus bill to undermine faith in public education, call attention to the sponsors for having "family values," and create another layer of bureaucracy”
— Thomas Ciglar, Keene · #660167 — read full submission →
“This is an attempt by Free Staters and the National far-right to weaken our Public Education and instill an extreme agenda. Vote NO”
— Donna Baker-Hartwell, Andover · #660923 — read full submission →
- Parents can already opt their own child outOppose14 of 162 · 9%
Writers note that existing policy already allows a parent who objects to request alternate materials or exempt their own child, so no new mechanism is needed.
“Again, when a parent finds material inappropriate for their child, there is a policy in place for that parent to request alternate materials. The current policies and practices work well.”
— Karin Cevasco, Milford · #659937 — read full submission →
“Policies already exist in which parents may opt their child out of materials, instruction, and experiences that they consider to be objectionable. NH does not need a new law.”
— Cindy Spencer, Gilford · #661016 — read full submission →
- Disproportionately erases diverse and LGBTQ+ storiesOppose14 of 162 · 9%
Writers cite evidence and experience that challenged materials most often involve characters of color and LGBTQ+ people, so the bill would erase stories of already-marginalized students.
“Nationally, 44% of the most commonly banned books feature people and characters of color, and 29% feature LGBTQ people and characters. That's not a coincidence either.”
— Jaclyn Blute, Manchester · #659978 — read full submission →
“History shows us that when systems allow materials to be removed based on subjective complaints, it is not neutral outcomes that follow. It is the erasure of stories that challenge dominant narratives particularly those of Black and Brown communities.”
— Gina Burke, Keene · #662468 — read full submission →
- Legislature should address more pressing problemsOppose14 of 162 · 9%
Writers argue the bill wastes legislative time and taxpayer money while issues like housing, child care, health care, and grocery costs go unaddressed.
“Stop wasting time banning books and start working on REAL issues that NH parents are worried about. Child care, housing, cost of groceries, etc.”
— ELIZABETH Marino, GOFFSTOWN · #660204 — read full submission →
“How about sponsoring some bills that address the everyday real needs of NH citizens, such as affordable housing, high health care costs, etc?”
— Mary Meyers, Hancock · #663303 — read full submission →
- Book banning associated with authoritarian regimesOppose12 of 162 · 7%
Many submissions invoke history, fascism, or Nazi book burning to argue that censorship signals authoritarianism and societal decline.
“Book banning is what the Nazis did. Why on earth would be want to emulate them unless we are seeking to destroy public education, democracy, and freedom? Please stop this fascist nonsense.”
— Leo Sandy, Chesterfield · #663641 — read full submission →
“As both a parent and a professional librarian, I will remind you that the people who have championed book banning in the past have never been on the right side of history.”
— Kathleen Bardascino, Merrimack · #661619 — read full submission →
- Students need honest history and truthful contentOppose12 of 162 · 7%
Educators and parents argue that confronting difficult historical topics honestly is essential to learning, and censorship prevents students from engaging with the truth.
“As a parent and teacher I believe in education and facing history and challenging issues honestly. I do not support censorship in the classroom. If we are not honest about our past mistakes and achievements we do not learn what history can so richly teach us.”
— Holley Daschbach, Exeter · #662857 — read full submission →
“There have always been objections to teaching the full truth of our history—whether it be about slavery, civil rights, or systemic racism. And too often, those objections have led to silence.”
— Joel Iwaskiewicz, Exeter · #661974 — read full submission →
- Scope reaches far beyond library booksOppose11 of 162 · 7%
Opponents highlight that the bill's definition of "material" covers websites, artwork, plays, dances, statues, recordings, and guest speakers, not just books.
“The bill specifically includes “books, magazines, motion picture films or videos, pamphlets, phonographic records, pictures, drawings, photographs, figures, statues, plays, dances, or other representations.””
— Kathy Anderson, Hancock · #661880 — read full submission →
“It opens the door to challenges against websites, artwork, plays, dances, statues, pamphlets, recordings, and even visiting speakers. The scope of this bill isn't about protecting children. It's about control.”
— Jaclyn Blute, Manchester · #659978 — read full submission →
- Students need to see themselves and build empathyOppose10 of 162 · 6%
Opponents argue access to diverse books helps students develop empathy and critical thinking, and lets students who feel invisible see themselves represented.
“When we remove books from school libraries or classrooms, we limit students’ opportunities to develop empathy, critical thinking, and a broader understanding of the world.”
— Robyn Malchanoff, Nottingham · #660252 — read full submission →
“Throughout time, letting students see themselves in books and read books about a variety of types of people has allowed them to develop empathy and compassion.”
— Elizabeth Dickerson, Derry · #660695 — read full submission →
- Invites costly litigation and constitutional challengeOppose6 of 162 · 4%
Writers predict the vague standards will lead to inconsistent enforcement and lawsuits, with state or district money spent defending the law.
“The bill’s vague standards invite inconsistent enforcement and expose districts to costly litigation. If material truly violates obscenity law, courts already exist to make that determination.”
— Deborah Sweeney, Grantham · #663325 — read full submission →
“This is also so blatantly against the first amendment that it would go to court pretty much immediately and cost the state a bunch of money before it could ever be enforced.”
— Jeffrey Davis, Keene · #660809 — read full submission →
- Chilling effect causing teacher self-censorshipOppose6 of 162 · 4%
Writers report or predict that teachers will avoid contemporary or challenging material out of fear of complaints, and that the bill would formalize that fear.
“My daughter's English teacher told us this year that he would love to teach more contemporary literature, books that reflect the world students actually live in, but that he worries about backlash from certain parents, so he sticks to texts like The Scarlet Letter and The Great Gatsby.”
— Sara Tirrell, Plymouth · #663542 — read full submission →
“It would further stress our teachers! It will make them have to question if it is safe to present all kinds of materials!”
— Kathy Anderson, Hancock · #661880 — read full submission →
- No cap on repeated or bad-faith challengesOppose5 of 162 · 3%
Some writers warn there is no limit on how many complaints an individual may file, no requirement that the complainant have a child in the district, and no consequence for frivolous challenges, so districts could be flooded.
“there is no limitation on the number of challenges an individual may make, and there are no provisions that create legal consequences for individuals who present challenges to materials without having a child present within the school or school district.”
— rick suhr, grantham · #663490 — read full submission →
“There is also a real risk that this process will be used not sparingly, but repeatedly—turning school districts into battlegrounds of constant challenges.”
— David Preece, Manchester · #660211 — read full submission →
- State shouldn't dictate while underfunding schoolsOppose5 of 162 · 3%
Several writers argue that because most education costs are borne locally and the state is reducing its funding obligation, the state should not dictate material decisions.
“Since the majority of the cost is paid at the local level, and our laws say education is up to the local decisions, books selection should also be there. When the state decides to adequately fund education and pays all of the cost of education then they can determine what books are in schools.”
— Sarah Ohl, New Hampton · #660031 — read full submission →
“There is no purpose to this law other than to create more cost and more work for employees in a system that YOU REFUSE TO FUND.”
— rick suhr, grantham · #663490 — read full submission →
- Process could be used by any ideological groupOppose5 of 162 · 3%
Some writers note that a complaint mechanism this broad could be exploited by any faction, liberal or conservative, including religious groups objecting to varied content.
“It does pander to special interests, both liberal and conservative - do you really want school administrators responding to every inquiry that finds some offense in every representation of any religious or historical thought?”
— Edward Haas, Keene · #662316 — read full submission →
“The subjective nature of the law allows for challenges on any nonsensical rationale, so that various religious groups will be able to continuously challenge materials that go against cherry-picked "teachings" from their religion.”
— rick suhr, grantham · #663490 — read full submission →
- Decision left to one administrator with no public processOppose4 of 162 · 2%
Some writers object that a principal or superintendent would decide alone, without public input or, in some readings, without an avenue of appeal for those who disagree with removal.
“It puts decision-making in the hands of a single individual with no public process or opportunity for input.”
— Jack Cheevers, East Hampstead · #659927 — read full submission →
“School principals or superintendents could remove books from libraries after only one complaint, and the terms used for complaints, such as "offensive" or "inappropriate" are extremely vague and subject to personal beliefs and tastes.”
— Alecia Magnifico, Durham · #663175 — read full submission →
- No evidence of a problem to solveOppose3 of 162 · 2%
Some writers argue no data has been presented showing meaningful amounts of age-inappropriate material in schools, making the issue a non-issue.
“No data has been presented showing any significant incidence rate of truly age-inappropriate materials appearing in public K-12 schools.”
— rick suhr, grantham · #663490 — read full submission →
“This is essentially a non-issue affecting very few people and as such constitutes a politically-motivated bill wasting time and resources.”
— Brian Scadova-Vose, Laconia · #663328 — read full submission →
- Bill seen as targeting transgender and LGBTQ+ peopleOppose3 of 162 · 2%
Some writers connect the bill to a broader set of legislation they view as discriminatory toward transgender and LGBTQ+ residents, saying it emboldens hostility.
“Stop demonizing trans people. We do not post a threat to you. Please stop these hateful bills and the harmful rhetoric surrounding them.”
— Adam Whittier, Manchester · #661591 — read full submission →
“There is overwhelming evidence that this type of disciminatory legislation creates unsafe spaces for LGBTQIA+ people - not anyone else. It emboldens hate and mistreatment.”
— Ellie Masson, Dover · #662308 — read full submission →
- Bill itself imposes ideology on schoolsOppose3 of 162 · 2%
Writers argue that letting individuals or political actors dictate materials is itself the indoctrination or control that supporters claim to oppose.
“Educators should be in charge of school curricula, not radicals or any other individuals. This bill would advance the 'indoctrination' you are claiming to oppose.”
— Alice Passer, Greenland · #661935 — read full submission →
“Public education is meant to educate, not indoctrinate. ALL of my experience tells me that almost ALL public school teachers have a clear understanding of this premise.”
— Helen Fields, Keene · #660791 — read full submission →
- Similar bills have already been rejected or vetoedOppose3 of 162 · 2%
Writers point out that this is a repeated effort, with a prior similar bill vetoed, and argue the public does not want it.
“This is one more censorship bill, like the one the Governor vetoed recently. Granite staters don’t want book bans. One person’s complaint shouldn’t limit what’s available for others.”
— Nancy Jerauld, Litchfield · #662007 — read full submission →
“Please vote NO on SB 434. It's yet another overly broad, eminently veto-able attempted book ban in NH.”
— Jack Cheevers, East Hampstead · #659927 — read full submission →
- Superintendents shouldn't make constitutional judgmentsOppose2 of 162 · 1%
Opponents argue that determining whether material is obscene is a judicial function, and the bill improperly assigns constitutional determinations to school administrators under unclear standards.
“It puts the decision in the hands of the principal and superintendents to make constitutional decisions with no clear standards.”
— Tiffany Johnson, Hudson · #663308 — read full submission →
“We should not place superintendents in the position of making constitutional judgments under unclear statutory language.”
— Deborah Sweeney, Grantham · #663325 — read full submission →
- Classic literature and science texts could be targetedOppose2 of 162 · 1%
Writers give examples of canonical authors and standard curricular material, such as biology chapters on reproduction, that could be challenged under the bill's standards.
“A parent unfamiliar with the purpose and value of Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, Mark Twain, or other classic authors could object to language, themes, or historical context and trigger a process that pulls educators and administrators away from far more important responsibilities.”
— Meg Cowan, Wilmot · #662617 — read full submission →
“The chapter was about the Biology of Human Reproduction. I believe it important that young teens understand these Biological processes, as they go through puperty. Yet under this bill, parents of a single student might complain about the text, asking the school district to reject the it.”
— Anita Klein, Newmarket · #663188 — read full submission →
- Erasure harms vulnerable students' well-beingOppose2 of 162 · 1%
A writer with training in trauma and neuroscience argues policies enabling erasure of identity-related material can have lasting psychological and social consequences for vulnerable students.
“Policies that make inclusive or challenging material easier to target can have lasting psychological and social consequences, especially for students who are already vulnerable or underrepresented.”
— Shae Goodell, Stoddard · #662413 — read full submission →
“Oppression only leads to poor mental health and constant battles; fighting for our right for freedom shouldn't be present in America in 2026.”
— Andrea Goldsworthy, Portsmouth · #662160 — read full submission →
- Banning books is ineffective and counterproductiveOppose2 of 162 · 1%
Writers argue banned material remains readily accessible elsewhere and that banning increases interest in the material.
“Banning books is ridiculous. Any person can get hold of a book at any time from anywhere. Banning books only demonstrates ignorance and a desperate need for control. In fact banning books increases the desire to read the banned book.”
— Maura Willing, Concord · #661771 — read full submission →
“Banning knowledge is the death knell of a democracy and the banned material will always surface. Group up.”
— Gregory Davis, Salem · #661306 — read full submission →
- Formal process replaces existing parent-teacher dialogueOppose2 of 162 · 1%
Writers argue an adversarial mandated process undermines the current practice of parents discussing concerns directly and collaboratively with teachers and boards.
“Adding a burdensome process to challenge every decision is going to bog down our already overworked school administrators and undermines the already existing parent-teacher relationship where we are able to respectfully discuss any concerns we may have with curriculum choices today.”
— Jessica Ogden, Stratham · #660066 — read full submission →
“Local control and parental partnership are already the standard in our schools; this legislation merely replaces successful local collaboration with an adversarial and unfunded administrative mandate.”
— John D'Entremont, Lebanon · #662552 — read full submission →
- School library may be a student's only accessOppose2 of 162 · 1%
One writer notes that some students only have access to books and databases through their school, so removals hit those students hardest.
- District-wide bans ignore age differencesOppose2 of 162 · 1%
A writer argues that material appropriate for one age group differs from another, so district-wide removals based on one complaint would eliminate legitimate teaching material for other grades.
- Removal decisions should require collective deliberationOppose2 of 162 · 1%
A writer argues censorship should be a last resort requiring majority agreement through careful deliberation, not unilateral action by one objector.
- Other parents get no notice or voice in changesOppose1 of 162 · <1%
One writer argues that curriculum changes made in response to a single complaint would occur without informing other parents or giving them a forum to object.
- Real threats to children lie elsewhereOppose1 of 162 · <1%
One writer argues that if protecting children is the goal, lawmakers should address abuse, neglect, bullying, exploitation, and social media harms rather than restricting educational materials.
- Families wanting narrower material can choose homeschoolingOppose1 of 162 · <1%
One writer argues that parents who want a restricted set of materials have the option to educate their children outside the public system.
- Requiring materials to be posted is burdensomeOppose1 of 162 · <1%
A writer objects that continually updating and publicly posting every piece of educational material used would be impractical for educators.
- Process lacks expert involvementOppose1 of 162 · <1%
A writer objects that the bill's review process provides no avenue for subject-matter or education experts to participate in decisions.
Percentages are of the 162 individually-written submissions, every one of which was read in full — not a sample. A submission making several arguments is counted under each. 13 registered a position without giving a reason, so they count toward the total but under no argument.
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
752 submissions| Expand | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Will Oliver for Myself Center Conway Book bans are anti-freedom and against the values of NH! | Center Conway | Oppose | 56 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Elven Ealy for Myself Litchfield I oppose this bill because it allows a very few or even one person with too much time on their hands to dictate to everyone else because they think they know better. Usually there is a hidden agenda that is directing their actions. Rule by democracy is always better than a dictatorship and we should always seek the groups opinion or stay the course. A single person who does these book bans is usually an eccentric who thinks outside the main stream. They have an over inflated sense of self and will lead in a destructive direction. History has shown this over and over. Any society that has a lot of book banning and book burnings is a society that is headed to a destructive conclusion. Less knowledge makes no one better. Thanks Minister Ray | Litchfield | Oppose | 753 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Judith Blachek for Myself Nashua I oppose book banning. No one should be making these decisions for others. If you don't want to read it, just don't. But don't prevent others who want to. | Nashua | Oppose | 155 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Darcy Orellana for Myself Hudson This is another book ban. Education is the marketplace of ideas. Libraries must be free from censure. This bill poorly and broadly defines materials. This bill creates a bureaucratic process that takes educators away from actually educating. If one wants a narrow choice of materials then home school. | Hudson | Oppose | 304 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Stephen Bilotta for Myself Brookline This is school censorship! The local school boards can determine the appropriate material to be in public schools. School board members are elected by the voters in their districts and voters can bring any issues to the school board members. This bill would rip away that right to self determination. Please oppose this bill. I take into account voting records of any person running for public office and hope you will consider my point of view. Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter. | Brookline | Oppose | 515 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Benjamin Stinson for Myself Concord Speaking as a librarian, attempts to censor books are of great concern to me. Allowing parental complaints to dictate what other people's children can read or have access to violates fundamental rights and is flagrantly unAmerican. What is valuable to one reader may not be to another. What is obscene to one reader may not be to another. There is absolutely no good reason to let the overall availability of books be dictated by individual complainants with no background in childhood development or experience in an educational setting. | Concord | Oppose | 539 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Jennifer Chromik-Foley for Myself Thornton When is enough…enough? Educators and librarians are more than capable of including or omitting books for our children. Stop trying to control people’s lives!!! | Thornton | Oppose | 160 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Eric Lofstedt for Myself Concord Stop banning books. Give kids a choice. | Concord | Oppose | 40 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Linda Riendeau for Myself Canterbury As a citizen of the live free or die state, why are we banning books and limiting choices. We are known for independence and freedom. | Canterbury | Oppose | 134 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Leo Sandy for Myself Chesterfield Book banning is what the Nazis did. Why on earth would be want to emulate them unless we are seeking to destroy public education, democracy, and freedom? Please stop this fascist nonsense. | Chesterfield | Oppose | 188 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Nicole Cogdill for Myself Dover Can you please stop wasting time on frivolous legislation such as book bands, and focus on issues that actually affect the well-being and livelihood of residents of New Hampshire? You are wasting precious time and taxpayer money with your ridiculous trivial legislation. | Dover | Oppose | 271 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Christine Moss for Myself Lee I adamantly oppose any effort to ban books. This is clearly censorship. | Lee | Oppose | 73 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Mary Livingston for Myself Langdon Students have a right to read; restricting access to any reading material based on another person's or group of persons', particular perception of what is or is not "appropriate" is simply wrong in a free society. | Langdon | Oppose | 213 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Sara Tirrell for Myself Plymouth My name is Sara Tirrell, I live in Plymouth, and I am here as the parent of a 17-year-old daughter who attends Plymouth Regional High School. I ask this committee to vote ITL on SB 434. This bill is called the "Right to Challenge Act," and it sounds reasonable on its face - of course parents should be able to raise concerns about school materials. But the devil is in the language. The bill ties its complaint process to New Hampshire's legal definition of "harmful to minors", which is actually our obscenity statute, a narrow and well-defined standard. But then it goes much further, allowing complaints about anything deemed "age-inappropriate" or "otherwise offensive or inappropriate." Those phrases have no legal definition. Under that standard, any parent could file a formal complaint against a book, a speaker, or a lesson simply because a character is transgender, gay, or from a background different from their own. "Offensive" to one family can be "life-saving" to another. And this isn't a hypothetical chilling effect. It is already happening. My daughter's English teacher told us this year that he would love to teach more contemporary literature, books that reflect the world students actually live in, but that he worries about backlash from certain parents, so he sticks to texts like The Scarlet Letter and The Great Gatsby. This is a teacher who wants to do more for his students. He is already censoring himself, and SB 434 hasn't even passed yet. This bill would hand that fearful instinct a formal legal mechanism - with written appeals, public records, and school board votes, and it would make things far worse. There is one more thing this bill does that I want this committee to understand: it does not give a parent the right to opt their own child out of material. It gives one parent the power to trigger a process that can result in district-wide removal for every child. That is not parental rights. That is one parent's preferences overriding every other family in the school. My daughter deserves to go to school and find books, speakers, and materials that reflect that she exists and belongs in this world. SB 434, despite its title, would give any other parent the legal tools to erase her. I urge this committee to vote it down. Thank you. | Plymouth | Oppose | 2,286 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Elizabeth Jipson for Myself Goffstown It is ridiculous to think that the legislature knows better than individuals and parents what should be available to readers. Who and what are you afraid of? | Goffstown | Oppose | 157 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Rebecca Beaulieu for Myself Dover Another bill to censor educational materials. Allowing people to ban books, videos, and other materials in our schools. Another bill where I'm sure a lot of us are weighing in today, telling our legislators that it is important to not pass this bill. I have no impression that the majority of this committee will actually listen to members of the public, I bet you'll skim by these testimonials and decide you know better than the people you're supposed to serve. Despite that, let me tell you a story in case you'll actually read this. I was fortunate to grow up in a diverse community. My friends came from different cultures, different backgrounds. We all read a lot of books. We were particular fans of the Magic Tree House series and would imagine where we would go if we took the journey alongside the characters. In fifth grade a few of my friends and I decided to write a book. It was clearly inspired by the Magic Tree House. I asked my friend to draw some pictures for the book. And like any fifth grader would do, she drew pictures of people who looked like us! Including a character wearing a hijab, like she wore. It was a story of love and of adventure and princes and princesses. It was silly, but here's the thing: we didn't see many picture books with characters who wore hijabs, and this story reflected our real lives. Under a law like what this bill suggests, someone who doesn't agree with my best friend's religion could make an argument to the school to ban that picture book we created. They could remove it. They could sterilize the classroom of anything that is "different" than the, frankly, cisgender, white, christian view that is reflective of what the bill sponsors would prefer. When you start banning materials from schools, you take away children's opportunities to learn, to grow, and to make their own decisions based on research and independent reading. You sanitize education and take away students' autonomy to make decisions for themselves about what they want to read and write about. I urge the committee to vote no. And to start listening to the people showing up to testify online and in person. | Dover | Oppose | 2,148 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
rick suhr for Myself grantham This bill will do two things. First, it will provide yet another avenue for censorship and book-banning. No data has been presented showing any significant incidence rate of truly age-inappropriate materials appearing in public K-12 schools. The subjective nature of the law allows for challenges on any nonsensical rationale, so that various religious groups will be able to continuously challenge materials that go against cherry-picked "teachings" from their religion. Second, it will place an undue burden on school administrators, as every challenge must be addressed in specific ways that cost time and money. Further, there is no limitation on the number of challenges an individual may make, and there are no provisions that create legal consequences for individuals who present challenges to materials without having a child present within the school or school district. I trust our school administrators choice of materials, as we are well informed of them every single year. There is no purpose to this law other than to create more cost and more work for employees in a system that YOU REFUSE TO FUND. | grantham | Oppose | 1,123 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Kevin Baringer for Myself Newmarket This bill is discriminatory and is in opposition to the value of New Hampshire citizens. | Newmarket | Oppose | 88 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Nancy Nichols for Myself Goffstown One size does not fit all. What is appropriate for one age group is different for another. The teacher and individual school should make decisions on what should be taught or read by their students. Making district-wide bans based on one voice would severely limit appropriate teaching moments and materials. | Goffstown | Oppose | 311 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Marci STONE for Myself Somersworth Stop treading all over our freedoms. Let teachers teach. Go home, Free Staters! | Somersworth | Oppose | 79 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Marsha Morrow for Myself PETERBOROUGH This looks like Politically motivated and subjective proposal. I feel that a small group is vying for nothing more than power and control.There are always two sides to the story. You should have weighed both of these with no bias. | PETERBOROUGH | Oppose | 230 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Regina Conrad for Myself Lyndeborough More rules to take the time of an overworked school administration and the teachers. Book challenges have been successfully addressed through existing district policies. This is not going to assist in a better education the next generation. | Lyndeborough | Oppose | 242 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Ned Beecher for Myself Tamworth This bill is an insult to public school & education professionals. There are existing systems and policies to address any concerns about teaching materials. This is something school boards and districts work out and have addressed for decades. Leave them alone. The Legislature has no role here. Vote ITL. | Tamworth | Oppose | 308 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Jennifer Bakos for Myself Portsmouth Another day wasting people's time when there are bigger issues to be dealing with! Stop banning books and stop messing with the arts! | Portsmouth | Oppose | 134 | Apr 8, 2026 | ||
Jillian Leigh for Myself Hampton Falls Please oppose SB434. The proposed bill would codify a procedure for unnecessary censorship, thus restricting materials that should be available to all children. Under the proposed legislation, any one parent could force the review of materials previously deemed to be appropriate in a particular classroom/library/school setting. One parent's disapproval should never be sufficient to censor school materials and overturn the judgement of education professionals. Thank you. Jillian Leigh Hampton Falls | Hampton Falls | Oppose | 509 | Apr 8, 2026 |