Kim Lawrence

My name is Kim Lawrence, and I am a resident of New Hampshire. I respectfully submit this testimony in opposition to HB 1115, which would insert into RSA 21 a sweeping statutory definition of “Citizen of New Hampshire” to mean “a citizen of the United States of America who is domiciled in New Hampshire,” and apply that definition broadly throughout state statutes. While HB 1115 is brief, the consequences of creating a statewide, cross-statute “citizen of New Hampshire” definition are significant and potentially harmful — particularly in this current political landscape of uncertainty, where we should be focused on strengthening protections, not creating new pathways for exclusion. 1) HB 1115 creates a broad legal tool that can be weaponized later HB 1115 is not simply “clarifying language.” It creates a universal definition that can be referenced across many areas of law that affect access to services, eligibility standards, and civil participation. That is a major concern because once defined, this term can later be used to: restrict eligibility for programs, narrow access to protections, or justify exclusionary policy, without the public clearly understanding how the definition is being applied. New Hampshire should not be building statutory infrastructure that can become a gatekeeping mechanism. 2) It unnecessarily targets and excludes immigrant communities and lawful residents New Hampshire is home to residents who are not U.S. citizens but who: work here, pay taxes here, raise children here, attend school here, and contribute meaningfully to our communities. HB 1115 codifies language that can be used to treat these neighbors as less legitimate — not as valued members of our communities, but as permanent outsiders in the eyes of state law. This is harmful, divisive, and unnecessary. At a time when political rhetoric and policy across the country has increased fear and instability for immigrant families, we need to protect our most vulnerable communities — not create new definitions that can be used to exclude them. 3) “Domicile” is legally complex and invites disputes, not clarity HB 1115 uses the term domiciled, which is a strict legal concept and is often contested. Domicile can involve: intent, competing residences, documentation, and subjective determinations. This opens the door to inconsistent enforcement and bureaucratic confusion — especially impacting: students, domestic violence survivors temporarily relocated, military families, people with seasonal employment or housing, and individuals with complicated living arrangements. If the bill’s goal is clarity, “domicile” moves the state in the opposite direction — toward legal disputes. 4) This bill solves no demonstrated statewide problem HB 1115 does not identify: a legal crisis caused by undefined “NH citizen” language, an agency inability to implement law, or any urgent need for a sweeping definition. If specific statutes require clarification, the legislature should address those narrowly and transparently in context — rather than inserting a broad definitional tool into RSA 21 that automatically reaches across state law. Conclusion In this moment of uncertainty, New Hampshire should focus on strengthening the stability of families and communities — not passing broad definitional language that can be used later to restrict rights, benefits, or participation. HB 1115 creates an exclusionary statewide definition with far-reaching consequences, invites confusion and litigation over domicile, and increases the risk of harm to immigrant communities and other vulnerable populations. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to vote Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on HB 1115. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully submitted, Kim Lawrence New Hampshire