Committee Revives ‘Obscene Materials' Bill Vetoed By Gov. Ayotte

By Katharine Webster, InDepth NH

The House Education Policy and Administration Committee on Wednesday revived parts of a bill banning “obscene” materials in schools that Gov. Kelly Ayotte had vetoed in July, by inserting some of its language into a Senate bill.

In her veto message for House Bill 324, which was sponsored by committee chair Rep. Glenn Cordelli, Ayotte said the bill was not needed because state laws already allow parents to opt their children out of certain lessons and materials they object to.

HB 324 would have allowed parents to appeal any adverse decision by their child’s school, superintendent and board to the state Board of Education, which opponents said would lead to statewide book bans. The bill also would have allowed for lawsuits against districts and educators.

On Wednesday, the committee took up Senate Bill 33, a similar bill sponsored by Sen. Kevin Avard, R-Nashua. Avard’s bill leaves decisions on whether to remove or restrict materials to local school districts, and it does not spell out standards for what materials would be considered “obscene,” “harmful” to minors or “age-inappropriate.”

Republican legislators introduced an amendment that would insert those definitions from Cordelli’s bill into SB 33, including a broad definition of “obscenity” that includes depictions of nudity and sexual arousal, not just certain sexual acts. The amendment also specifies that K-12 schools would no longer be exempt from the state obscenity law, potentially opening educators up to criminal prosecution.

Those definitions were too vague, broad and subjective for the Democrats on the committee – and apparently for the governor. Rep. Hope Damon, D-Croydon, read Ayotte’s veto message aloud in explaining why she couldn’t support the amendment – and why SB 33, if passed, might also draw a veto.

“Current state law appears to provide a mechanism for parents through their local school district to exercise their rights to ensure their children are not exposed to inappropriate materials,” Damon said, quoting the governor. “Therefore, I do not believe the State of New Hampshire needs to, nor should it, engage in the role of addressing questions of literary value and appropriateness, particularly where the system created by House Bill 324 calls for monetary penalties based on subjective standards.”

Rep. Loren Selig, D-Durham, said she opposed “banning books in any form.”

“I cannot possibly support anything that suppresses free speech,” she said.

But Rep. Kristin Noble, R-Bedford, referring to several books with graphic depictions of sex that are available in schools, said that she and her Republican colleagues would continue their push to let parents seek to remove them.

“It’s unbelievable to me that anyone could think that material is good for minors, so that is why it is coming back, again and again,” she said.

The amendment passed along party lines, and the committee approved the bill 10-8.

Local Education Freedom Accounts and Open Enrollment

A bill that would allow voters in a school district to require the district to provide “local Education Freedom Accounts,” or school vouchers, was amended to set up a legislative committee to study the feasibility of such a program and how it would work financially, especially for students needing special education services.

House Bill 748, as introduced, would have required school districts to provide parents with double the amount of the state’s per pupil aid, which the parents could then use for tuition at a private school, for home-schooling or at a charter school.

Rep. Patricia Cornell, D-Manchester, reminded her colleagues that when they held a hearing on the bill, more than 2,600 people registered in opposition, while only 25 people supported it.

“I was against this when it first came up, and I don’t think a study committee would make it any better,” Cornell said.

But Republican committee members said that similar local voucher laws had passed in Texas, Tennessee and Montana, and that the idea was worth pursuing. The amendment passed and the committee approved the bill along party lines, 10-8.

Meanwhile, another bill that would allow parents to send their children to school in any district where they pay property taxes was amended by the committee to exclude owners of commercial properties and parents who live out of state.

Democrats suggested that it might be a good idea to pause House Bill 709, as another legislative committee is already studying the concept of open enrollment.

Rep. Valerie McDonnell, R-Salem, the amendment’s sponsor, said HB 709 was not an open enrollment bill, but acknowledged that “It’s moving in that direction.”

The amendment passed 10-8 and the bill was approved 11-7.

Last Bills of the Year

In moving through the final education bills of the year, the committee approved a bill that would require districts to put the budget for School Administrative Units, or SAUs, on the ballot separately from the rest of the district’s budget.

House Bill 564 is based on Republican efforts to rein in school budgets, as well as claims that districts are bloated with unneeded administrative jobs. The committee approved it 11-7.

Two bills dealt with medical services for students. House Bill 360 was amended so that it would bar school nurses and doctors from performing surgeries or prescribing pharmaceutical drugs in schools; the original bill also banned diagnostic procedures.

Rep. Megan Murray, D-Concord, objected that no one was performing surgery or prescribing drugs in schools now. Noble, the bill’s chief sponsor, agreed – but said it was an issue elsewhere.

“It’s happening in school-based clinics all over the country, so this is a preventative bill,” she said.

That bill was approved along party lines, as was Senate Bill 34, which requires a parent’s signature for every service provided to students under Medicaid.

Two other bills were voted inexpedient to legislate.

One, regarding educator qualifications, died quietly because a similar bill had already passed into law.

The other, Senate Bill 211, aimed at the issue of whether transgender athletes can play on school sports teams matching their gender identity, was killed because the Senate is bringing forward a similar bill.

This article first appeared on InDepthNH.org and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.