New Hampshire House members vote in June 2024. (Annmarie Timmins | New Hampshire Bulletin)
Ever since their $100-a-year salary no longer sufficed as a part-time salary, New Hampshire lawmakers have served as volunteers. It’s an arrangement that means many House and Senate members have jobs outside of the State House.
But despite the large number of lawmakers who work for businesses or organizations, the state has had relatively lenient laws around conflicts of interest – until this year.
On Aug. 2, Gov. Chris Sununu signed a law that will require lawmakers to abstain from participating in votes and discussions on bills that might affect them or members of their household financially.
House Bill 1388 will take effect Jan. 1, just before a newly elected legislature is sworn in. Here’s what you need to know about it.
Recusal rules
The new law seeks to make clear when a lawmaker must recuse themselves.
It identifies two situations: the first, where the lawmaker has a conflict of interest personally; and the second, where the lawmaker or a member of their household could reasonably expect to benefit financially – or suffer – from the outcome of a bill.
The statute also stops a lawmaker from voting on bills if they or a household member works for an organization that lobbies for those bills.
That applies to any business or organization that has “lobbied, testified, or otherwise attempted to influence the outcome” of a bill, provided that the lawmaker or household member is paid by that organization and “holds a position to exercise substantial influence over the affairs of the organization.”
The category can include someone who founded the company or organization, is “a substantial contributor,” is paid based on the revenues of the organization, has control over the organization’s expenses or budget, or who owns a controlling interest in that organization.
But the law doesn’t apply to everyone in such jobs. If neither the lawmaker nor their direct supervisor has substantial influence over the organization, or if the lawmaker has taken a “vow of poverty” and the organization is religious, or if the lawmaker is a contractor for the organization and is merely giving advice, they will not need to recuse themselves.
Older laws and advisory opinions
New Hampshire has legislative ethics laws that predate the new changes, but they have been limited in scope.
The New Hampshire Constitution states that “no member of the General Court shall take fees, be of counsel, or act as an advocate in any cause before either branch of the legislature and upon proof thereof such member shall forfeit his seat in the legislature.”
And the Legislative Ethics Committee has published a 73-page “Ethics Booklet” that details general guidelines and best practices for lawmakers to follow.
Until the passage of HB 1388, state law defined a financial interest only as a situation in which a lawmaker or household member would directly benefit from the passage of a law – but did not mention the lawmaker’s employer.
Absent a more detailed law, the committee has had to fill in the gaps through advisory opinions. The committee, which takes up complaints and issues rulings about specific lawmaker conduct, has used those rulings to create guidelines to follow in the future, similar to a Supreme Court.
In December 2023, for instance, the House Ethics Committee issued an advisory opinion seeking to clarify when lawmakers who work for advocacy organizations should recuse themselves.
The committee found that lawmakers who work for advocacy organizations should be held to a higher standard than lawmakers who work for businesses that might be affected by a bill. They must not vote on bills their employer organization has directly lobbied for or against, the committee ruled, but they may vote on other bills related to that organization’s work as long as they file a declaration of intent.
In another opinion, the committee found that two state senators, Sen. Sharon Carson, a Londonderry Republican, and Sen. Dan Innis, Bradford Republican, did not need to recuse themselves from votes related to higher education simply because they are employed by the Nashua Community College and the University of New Hampshire, respectively.
While the advisory opinions of the committee have helped advance an understanding of the broad, existing laws, supporters of the new law say it will help to create much clearer guidelines.
Drawing the line
HB 1388 comes at the end of three years of efforts by lawmakers on the Legislative Administration Committee and Legislative Ethics Committee.
Prior to the bill’s passage, New Hampshire was one of only a few states that did not have robust laws requiring recusal for financial conflicts of interest, Rep. Vanessa Sheehan, a Milford Republican and the prime sponsor of the bill, noted at a Senate hearing in May.
But as the bill was developed, some lawmakers have raised questions about how far to penalize lawmakers, noting that sometimes their careers can give them helpful perspectives.
“One of the problems that we have is because we are basically a volunteer legislature, people work outside of here,” said Carson, speaking at a hearing on the bill. “Sometimes it’s very difficult to decide where that line is, where you work for a particular industry and you know a lot about it and you will testify. How do you separate someone who’s very knowledgeable about an industry and can share that information versus someone who is advocating for it?”
Rep. Bob Lynn, a Windham Republican and a supporter of the bill, agreed, arguing there is a fine line between a lawmaker’s expertise being helpful to legislating and posing a conflict.
“This is an incredibly complex matter, to draw the line where it properly should be,” he said.
The new law comes as questions of ethics have been more frequent, some lawmakers say.
Rep. Greg Hill, chairman of the Legislative Administration Committee, said the committee has seen “an increased number” of requests for clarification over proper procedure from lawmakers.
The new statute should help provide vital clarity, he argued.
“What we found as we’ve been looking at this throughout the years is that it’s very difficult, without specific language before us, to determine what someone should do in a vacuum,” he said in a hearing. “If you are a firefighter, does that mean you’re not allowed to vote on any issues to do with firefighting?”