Why Senate Bill 626 Undermines New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know Law

Why Senate Bill 626 Undermines New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know Law

By Jeffrey Thomas Clay
Senate Bill 626 represents a fundamental departure from New Hampshire’s long‑standing commitment to open government. While framed as a modest administrative fix, the bill would narrow the Right‑to‑Know Law (RSA 91‑A) in ways that weaken transparency, invite constitutional challenges, and harm both residents and non‑residents who are directly affected by New Hampshire government actions.
New Hampshire is not an isolated jurisdiction. It is a regional economic, legal, and vacation destination. Thousands of people from outside the state own vacation homes, rent property for extended periods, or reside in New Hampshire for several months each year. Under Senate Bill 626, it is unclear whether these part‑time residents would be able to access public records at all, or whether they would be required to prove domicile, permanent residency, or property ownership before making a request. This uncertainty alone undermines the clarity and accessibility that RSA 91‑A was designed to ensure.
Current law is explicit and intentional: a requester does not need to identify themselves, does not need to justify why they seek records, and does not need to demonstrate residency. These provisions are not loopholes; they are core protections. They exist to prevent government agencies from screening requesters, questioning motives, or discouraging oversight by erecting bureaucratic barriers.
Senate Bill 626 would reverse this principle. By requiring proof of domicile or residency, the bill transforms a right into a conditional privilege. It creates a two‑tier system of transparency where access depends on who you are rather than what the government has done. Once the state begins asking for identification and residency documentation, it becomes far easier for officials to delay, deny, or discourage lawful requests.
Proponents argue that out‑of‑state requests are burdensome and costly. Yet no data has been offered to demonstrate widespread abuse or to show that existing tools are inadequate. Municipalities already have legal mechanisms to extend response deadlines, narrow overly broad requests, and recover costs when appropriate. Administrative inconvenience is not a valid justification for restricting a civil right.
The bill also ignores the reality that New Hampshire government actions routinely affect non‑residents. Out‑of‑state motorists stopped by New Hampshire police, prospective property buyers, former residents investigating past government conduct, journalists, researchers, and civil‑rights organizations all rely on equal access to public records. Denying or conditioning that access does not prevent misuse; it prevents accountability.
Invoking “foreign actors” and data mining may be politically appealing, but it is not a serious policy rationale. Bad‑faith actors are not deterred by residency rules, while legitimate watchdogs and affected individuals are. Transparency laws are designed to expose misuse of power, not to shield government from scrutiny by outsiders.
New Hampshire has long prided itself on limited government, individual liberty, and open civic institutions. Senate Bill 626 moves the state in the opposite direction by allowing government agencies to decide who is entitled to know what their government is doing. That shift should concern every resident, property owner, and citizen who values accountability.
Right‑to‑Know laws function precisely because they are blind to identity and motive. Once those protections are eroded, the door is opened to future restrictions based on convenience, politics, or discomfort with criticism. Senate Bill 626 does not strengthen transparency. It weakens it, and it does so in a way that contradicts both the spirit and the letter of New Hampshire’s tradition of open government.