NH Election Ballot Measures On Data Collection, Suing Government

CONCORD, NH -- New Hampshire is the "Live Free or Die" state and at least one of the ballot questions up for voter approval November 6 seeks to underscore that motto. Granite State voters will decide on two ballot measures during the midterm election that would amend the state constitution. Question 1 addresses suing the state government and Question 2 addresses citizens' right to privacy regarding government data collection.

State lawmakers recently approved both measures, paving the way for their appearance on the ballot. Each question requires a two-thirds majority from voters for approval on Election Day.

Question 2 has perhaps the broadest appeal to voters. It reads, in part, "Are you in favor of amending the first part of the constitution by inserting ... a new article to read ... An individual’s right to live free from governmental intrusion in private or personal information is natural."

Question 2 made the ballot after State Rep. Robert Cushing, a Hampton Democrat, and Neal Kurk, a Weare Republican, wrote a bill that fellow lawmakers approved by a margin of 235-96 in the House and 15-9 in the Senate.

Kurk told The Keene Sentinel the measure seeks to address the rise of electronic personal data collection, ranging from DNA to one's health history.

If the question is passed, Kurk told the Sentinel the state "would only be able to get this (electronic) information if they were able to show an overwhelming public purpose, such as a warrant."

The conservative organization Cornerstone Action opposes Question 2.

"There is a legal argument to be made that this amendment can only be used to construct policy regarding 'informational privacy,' as opposed to 'decisional privacy,'" Cornerstone Action said in a statement. "However, given the past unpredictability of decisions in this area and the extreme pressure created by activism, Cornerstone is concerned that the distinction between 'informational privacy' and 'decisional privacy' is too thin to prevent the Question 2 language from being used to concoct abortion rights. Absent explicitly limiting language, Cornerstone believes this language could -- and will -- be used in an effort to expand the scope of abortion protections in NH, even though that application would in fact deviate from the original intent of the amendment."

Question 1 would provide citizens with expanded grounds to sue the government regarding funding. It reads, in part, "Any individual taxpayer eligible to vote in the State, shall have standing to petition the Superior Court to declare whether the State or political subdivision in which the taxpayer resides has spent, or has approved spending, public funds in violation of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision. In such a case, the taxpayer shall not have to demonstrate that his or her personal rights were impaired or prejudiced beyond his or her status as a taxpayer."

The Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers supports the measure.

"(The amendment) is key to keep our government in check," taxpayer coalition Vice Chairman wrote in an op-ed in the Union Leader. "A constitutional amendment is necessary because the Supreme Court has denied our rights several times since 2010 by denying standing to people who have brought cases before it, even when the Legislature had specifically passed laws upholding those rights."

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire also supports the question's passage.

"(Question 1) is not a partisan issue," ACLU-NH Legal Director Gilles Bissonnette said in a statement. "It is in everyone’s best interest that our government be held accountable for its actions, all of which are done with our money and on our behalf."

No state groups have come out in opposition to Question 1.

Below is the full text of the ballot questions:

Question 1:

"Are you in favor of amending article 8 of the first part of the constitution to read as follows: [Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted. The public also has a right to an orderly, lawful, and accountable government. Therefore, any individual taxpayer eligible to vote in the State, shall have standing to petition the Superior Court to declare whether the State or political subdivision in which the taxpayer resides has spent, or has approved spending, public funds in violation of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision. In such a case, the taxpayer shall not have to demonstrate that his or her personal rights were impaired or prejudiced beyond his or her status as a taxpayer. However, this right shall not apply when the challenged governmental action is the subject of a judicial or administrative decision from which there is a right of appeal by statute or otherwise by the parties to that proceeding."

(Passed by the N.H. House 309 Yes 9 No; Passed by State Senate 22 Yes 2 No) CACR 15

Question 2:

“Are you in favor of amending the first part of the constitution by inserting after article 2-a a new article to read as follows: [Art.] 2-b. [Right to Privacy.] An individual’s right to live free from governmental intrusion in private or personal information is natural, essential, and inherent.”

(Passed by the N.H. House 235 Yes 96 No; Passed by State Senate 15 Yes 9 No) CACR 16

Lead photo credit: Shutterstock