prohibiting public disclosure of personal information on the Internet by an elected official.
Summary
HB 1408 creates a new criminal offense aimed at elected officials who knowingly post or otherwise make available on the Internet a constituent’s personal information with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or facilitate violence against that person, or with knowledge that the information will be used for that purpose. The bill defines “personal information” broadly to include names, addresses, contact information, social media accounts, online identifiers, photographs, videos, employment and education information, and images of a constituent’s home or vehicle. A violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $500, or both.
The bill also creates a process for constituents to request removal of personal information from online government records. If a constituent submits a written request with proof of residency and an affirmation that disclosure poses an imminent and serious threat to safety or wellbeing, a state or local government official must not knowingly make the information available online. False statements in support of such a request are treated as false swearing under existing law. The act would take effect January 1, 2027.
Impact
HB 1408 would amend RSA 643 by adding a new section governing abuse of office through online disclosure of constituent information. It would expand criminal liability for elected officials and impose a new misdemeanor penalty for certain doxxing-like conduct involving threats or violence. It would also affect state and local recordkeeping and online publication practices by requiring officials to remove or withhold certain personal information from Internet-accessible records when a qualifying request is made. The fiscal note anticipates no direct revenue impact but indeterminable costs to the judicial and correctional systems, as well as possible county and local administrative costs.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety and privacy protection bill rather than a partisan policy change. The sponsorship list suggests some level of support among House members, but there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials to show debate or opposition. The fiscal note treats the bill as one that could generate enforcement and correctional costs, indicating that any concern is likely to center on implementation rather than the bill’s stated purpose.
Contention
The main points of contention likely involve the breadth of the personal-information definition, the standard for when disclosure is criminal, and the administrative burden on state and local officials responding to removal requests. Potential critics may question whether the bill could chill legitimate public records disclosure, transparency, or official communications, while supporters would likely emphasize constituent safety and protection from harassment or violence. Another possible issue is the bill’s focus specifically on elected officials, which may raise questions about scope and equal treatment compared with other public employees or private actors.
Removing fees and charges for governmental records under the right-to-know law and reinstating potential liability for disclosure of information exempt from disclosure.
Prohibiting school district personnel from transporting students to medical or mental health appointments, visits, or procedures without parental consent.