HB 361 prohibits school boards, chartered public schools, and public academies from adopting, enforcing, or implementing policies that require students or members of the public to wear facial coverings on school property. The bill defines “facial covering” broadly as any item covering a student’s mouth, nose, or both, and it applies to masks required for any purpose unless another law specifically requires them or they are needed for a specific extracurricular or instructional purpose.
The bill includes several exceptions. Schools may still require protective gear such as athletic equipment intended to prevent concussive or similar sports injuries, or protective equipment used when handling chemicals, fire, or other hazardous materials in science or similar educational settings. It also preserves the ability to require facial coverings when they are part of an individualized education program under RSA 186-C or an accommodation plan under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Impact
HB 361 would add a new section to RSA 189 governing school policies on facial coverings, limiting the authority of local school boards and public school administrators to impose general mask mandates. It would not ban all face coverings in schools, but it would prevent broad mandatory masking policies except where another law, a specific instructional or extracurricular need, or disability-related accommodations apply. The bill would take effect 60 days after passage and would affect public school districts, chartered public schools, public academies, students, and visitors on school property.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have generally favorable support in the Legislature, as reflected by its passage through both chambers with majority votes of 203-164 in the House and 16-7 in the Senate. The vote margins suggest meaningful support, but also substantial opposition, indicating the issue remained politically divisive. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the voting pattern shows the measure was not unanimous and drew clear partisan or policy-based disagreement.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether school boards should retain authority to require masks or other facial coverings for health, safety, or administrative reasons versus whether such mandates should be prohibited absent a specific legal or educational justification. Supporters likely view the bill as protecting parental choice and limiting broad school mandates, while opponents likely object to restricting local control and school discretion during public health or safety situations. The exceptions for athletic, hazardous-material, and disability-related uses appear designed to address some concerns, but the core prohibition on mandatory school masking remains the central dispute.