The governor also vetoed House Bill 148, which would allow businesses and organizations to separate people by biological gender in bathrooms, locker rooms, athletic events, and settings such as jails and mental health facilities.
She vetoed House Bill 358, which would make it easier for parents to apply for religious exemptions to child vaccine requirements in school; House Bill 446, which would require schools to get explicit parental permission before giving students non-academic surveys; and House Bill 667, which would require sex education courses to include “a high quality computer generated animation or ultrasound video that shows the development of the heart, brain, and other vital organs in early fetal development.”
Ayotte also vetoed House Bill 475, which would require the alternative “default budget” option at town meeting to cut spending for unfilled town positions, arguing it would make it harder to recruit and retain town positions. And she vetoed House Bill 115, the bill to create a continuing resolution for the budget in case lawmakers failed to pass a budget; that bill proved to be unnecessary.
The vetoes will require a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate to overturn, a difficult bar in the House, where Republicans do not hold a veto-proof majority.
And they represent some of Ayotte’s most public — and politically fraught — clashes with Republican lawmakers, many of whom had hoped their stronger House and Senate majorities would lead to victories for socially conservative priorities.
School book removal bill quashed
One of the most closely watched bills vetoed by Ayotte Tuesday would have required public schools to adopt complaint procedures to allow parents to object to, and potentially remove, material deemed harmful from schools.
According to HB 324, such material would be considered harmful if it depicted “nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse” and did so “in a manner that is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors,” the bill states. The material would also need to be inappropriate to the age level of the children it is presented to and to “serious literary, scientific, medical, artistic, or political value for minors.”
Sponsored by Rep. Glenn Cordelli, a Tuftonboro Republican, HB 324 was championed by parental rights advocates as a means to give parents more control over school instruction and to remove graphic depictions of sexual activity. Earlier this year, Cordelli attempted to illustrate that point by reading aloud on the House floor portions of a novel describing sexual assault.
But opponents of the legislation said it could lead to the removal of books that include LGTBQ+ representation and allow one parent to make decisions for all students over what should be included. And teachers unions objected to potential professional consequences for educators laid out in the bill.
In her veto message, Ayotte noted that state law already allows parents to opt their child out of instructional material they object to, as long as they provide an alternative material.
“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,” Ayotte said. “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.”
Under the required policy in HB 324, parents and guardians could submit written complaints to school principals describing the material allegedly harmful to minors. The principal would be required to conduct an investigation and decide whether the material is in violation and should be removed.
According to the policy, the school would have 10 school days to inform parents of their decision. If parents disagree, they can appeal the decision to the local school board and, ultimately, to the State Board of Education, which has the final say.
That provision drew opposition from the New Hampshire School Boards Association, which said it would threaten local control by giving the state board final decision-making power.
The bill would allow the state Attorney General’s Office, Department of Education, or “any person claiming to be aggrieved” to bring a civil action against a school if it is not in compliance. It would also designate any defiance of an order banning material to be a violation of the teacher code of conduct, which could lead to disciplinary action against educators.
The National Education Association of New Hampshire, the state’s largest teachers union, hailed the veto Tuesday, calling it a “classroom censorship effort.”
“Every student deserves to see themselves reflected in the pages of their books,” said NEA New Hampshire President Megan Tuttle in a statement. “NEA-New Hampshire applauds Governor Ayotte for standing up for the freedom to read in New Hampshire.”
Republicans, some of whom have sparred with Ayotte recently over the state budget, quickly voiced frustration. House Majority Leader Jason Osborne, an Auburn Republican, compared the vetoed bill to the recently passed legislation barring cellphones in K-12 schools.
“Now that kids can’t get porn on their phones while at school, at least they can still find it in the library,” Osborne wrote in a post on X.
Vetoes on biological sex separation bill, religious vaccine exemptions, others
In vetoing HB 148, Ayotte followed the path of her predecessor, Gov. Chris Sununu, who vetoed a nearly identical bill last year.
In her veto message, Ayotte said the law ran the risk of doing more harm than good, and brought up concerns about discrimination of transgender people.
“I believe there are important and legitimate privacy and safety concerns raised by biological males using places such as female locker rooms and being placed in female correctional facilities,” Ayotte wrote. “At the same time, I see that House Bill 148 is overly broad and impractical to enforce, potentially creating an exclusionary environment for some of our citizens.”
Her message to veto HB 358 highlighted the importance of childhood immunizations. “While parents must be the final decision makers on what immunizations their child receives, the State already has an established process by which parents can claim a religious exemption, and I see no reason to change it,” Ayotte wrote.
She wrote that by requiring parents to opt in to surveys, rather than opt out, HB 446 would reduce participation in the “Youth Risk Behavior Survey,” an anonymous tool to measure the mental health, and sexual health, and alcohol and drug use of public school students.
Ayotte said she had “heard tremendous concerns about this bill from those on the front lines of addressing our mental health crisis and helping those with substance use disorders, including state and local public health officials, youth mental health professionals, as well as the Governor’s Commission on Addiction, Treatment, and Prevention.”
And she said HB 667 should be developed because it is “not an appropriate role for the State to be mandating such requirements” onto school districts.
House Democrats cheered on the vetoes, though declined to give Ayotte direct credit. “We’re grateful that today New Hampshire chose to protect the rights and dignity of our transgender neighbors — and House Democrats will keep fighting until every Granite Stater can live freely, openly, and safely, no matter who they are,” said House Democratic Leader Alexis Simpson in a statement Tuesday evening.
Republican legislative leaders were silent.
