New Hampshire House Bill HB1685

New Hampshire 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/12/25
• Refer: 12/12/25
• Report Pass: 2/25/26
• Engrossed: 3/6/26
• Refer: 3/6/26
• Report Pass: 4/10/26

Caption

(Second New Title) establishing a committee to study aiding the growth of assistive technology businesses and adoption of assistive technologies in New Hampshire.

Summary

HB 1685 establishes a temporary legislative study committee to examine how New Hampshire can encourage the growth of assistive technology businesses and increase the adoption of assistive technologies by residents who need them. The committee is tasked with identifying benchmarks for broader implementation of assistive technologies and with studying measures that could attract assistive technology companies to the state. The committee is composed of three House members appointed by the Speaker of the House, with legislative members eligible for mileage reimbursement at the legislative rate. It must hold its first meeting within 45 days of the act’s effective date, may create subcommittees and add members as needed, and must elect a chairperson from among its members. The committee is required to submit a report with findings and any proposed legislation by November 1, 2026, to legislative leaders, the governor, and the state library.

Impact

This bill does not directly change substantive state law or create a new regulatory program; instead, it creates a study committee to gather information and recommend future legislation. Its immediate legal effect is limited to establishing the committee, setting its membership and procedures, and requiring a final report. Any future impact on state law would depend on whether the committee’s recommendations are later enacted by the legislature, potentially affecting economic development, disability access, and technology adoption policy.

Sentiment

The available context suggests a generally neutral-to-supportive posture toward the bill, with no recorded votes or committee transcript opposition in the provided materials. Because the measure is a study bill rather than a direct mandate or spending program, it appears to have been framed as an exploratory effort to assess opportunities in assistive technology and related business development. The absence of recorded controversy or dissent in the supplied history indicates limited visible opposition in the available record.

Contention

The main potential points of contention are likely to be whether a study committee is the best use of legislative time and whether the state should focus on market development for assistive technology businesses versus more immediate service delivery or accessibility investments. Another possible issue is the breadth of the committee’s mandate, including its authority to form subcommittees and add members, though no specific objections are documented in the provided transcripts or votes. Because no committee discussion or roll-call vote is included, there is no evidence of a defined partisan or stakeholder split in the available record.