Shauna Adams

Constitutional amendments should be rare. They are not meant to resolve momentary political debates or advance policies that can be addressed through ordinary legislation. They exist to establish enduring principles that enjoy broad public consensus, are clearly necessary and are written with precision so they can withstand decades of legal interpretation. CACR 28 does not meet that standard, not by a long shot and is a backdoor partisan solution to a non-existent problem. There has not been a clear demonstration that a constitutional amendment is necessary to address the issues cited by proponents. When problems can be addressed through statute, regulation or existing legal frameworks, elevating them to the constitution is not only unnecessary but risky. Statutes can be refined as we learn more but constitutional language cannot. Equally concerning is the lack of precision in this proposal. Vague or broadly worded amendments invite litigation, inconsistent application and unintended consequences. Once embedded in the constitution, unclear language does not simply create confusion, it creates permanent confusion. That burden is then passed to courts, families and future legislatures who had no role in drafting it. Most importantly, constitutional amendments should reflect overwhelming and durable consensus among the people of New Hampshire. On this issue, such consensus clearly does not exist. When an amendment divides the public and relies on language that is open to interpretation, it undermines confidence in the constitution itself as a stable and unifying document. Regardless of one’s views on the underlying policy debate, this proposal fails the basic test of what a constitutional amendment should be. Our constitution should be amended only when there is clear necessity, precise language and broad agreement that the change is both essential and enduring. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to vote Inexpedient to Legislate on CACR 28.