requesting an opinion of the justices on the scope of part II, article 4 of the New Hampshire constitution, as well as other related articles.
Summary
House Resolution 29 is a request for an advisory opinion from the New Hampshire Supreme Court justices. Rather than changing statutory law directly, the resolution asks the court to clarify the relationship between the legislature’s general lawmaking authority under part II, article 4 of the state constitution and the constitutional provisions that vest judicial power in the courts and assign administrative authority over the judiciary. The questions focus on whether the legislature may regulate court administration, structure, jurisdiction, procedures, fees, and related matters, or whether those subjects are limited by articles 72-a and 73-a.
The resolution also asks the justices to address the continuing constitutional significance of the people’s right to petition for redress of grievances under part I, article 32. In particular, it seeks guidance on whether the General Court may create temporary tribunals, commissions, or special panels to hear individual petitions for relief, and whether such bodies would be considered an exercise of judicial power. The final question asks whether the 1966 ballot language adopting article 72-a adequately described its scope and effect, or whether that history should limit how the provision is interpreted today.
Impact
HR 29 would not itself amend the constitution or change any statute, but it could have significant indirect legal impact by prompting an authoritative advisory opinion on the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. The requested opinion could affect future legislation involving court administration, judicial rulemaking, court fees and costs, lower-court jurisdiction, judge qualifications, and any legislative mechanism for individualized relief or petition-based remedies. It may also influence how existing constitutional provisions are read in relation to the legislature’s plenary authority and the judiciary’s constitutional independence.
Sentiment
The available record suggests a neutral to procedural posture rather than a partisan or policy-driven debate. Because the resolution merely seeks guidance from the justices, it appears aimed at clarifying constitutional boundaries rather than advancing a substantive policy program. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no evidence in the record of organized support or opposition beyond the fact that the measure was introduced and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
Contention
The main points of contention are constitutional and institutional. The resolution highlights possible disagreement over whether the legislature retains broad authority over court-related matters or whether articles 72-a and 73-a reserve many of those functions to the judiciary. A second area of tension is whether the legislature can still create special tribunals or grant individualized relief on petitions without impermissibly exercising judicial power. The final potential dispute concerns historical practice and ballot history: whether past legislative handling of petitions for redress remains valid, and whether the 1966 ballot question should influence or limit the modern interpretation of article 72-a.
Rescinding House Concurrent Resolution No. 40 passed by the 2012 New Hampshire General Court asking that Congress call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution.