HB 264 creates a new criminal offense related to New Hampshire delegates to an Article V convention under the U.S. Constitution. The bill defines key terms such as “Article V application,” “Article V convention,” “delegate,” “legislative instructions,” and “unauthorized amendment,” and then prohibits a state delegate from supporting or approving any proposed constitutional amendment that falls outside the scope of the legislature’s application and instructions.
If a delegate knowingly violates that prohibition, the bill makes the conduct a class B felony. The act would take effect January 1, 2026. In practical terms, the bill is designed to bind delegates to the General Court’s directions and criminalize participation in any broader or different amendment proposal at a convention.
Impact
The bill would add a new section to RSA 643, expanding state criminal law to cover conduct by delegates representing New Hampshire at an Article V convention. It would create potential felony liability for a delegate who knowingly supports an unauthorized amendment, which could affect how delegates are selected, instructed, and monitored by the legislature. Because the bill imposes a new criminal penalty, the fiscal note anticipates indeterminable costs to the judicial and correctional systems, with possible impacts on prosecution, incarceration, probation, and parole expenses for state and local governments.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript, recorded votes, or other debate, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from floor discussion. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears to reflect a strong precautionary approach toward Article V conventions and a desire to tightly control delegate behavior. The fiscal note is neutral and technical, focusing on possible criminal justice costs rather than policy merits.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s use of criminal penalties to enforce legislative instructions on delegates, especially the decision to make a violation a class B felony. Supporters would likely view the measure as necessary to preserve legislative control over the scope of any constitutional convention and prevent a “runaway convention.” Opponents would likely argue that the bill is overly punitive, could chill delegate participation, and raises constitutional or practical concerns about how far a state can criminalize delegate conduct at a federal constitutional convention.