David Preece

To: House Judiciary Committee Re: Opposition to SB 459 From: Rep. David Preece, Hillsborough District 17 Dear Chairman and Members of the Committee, I write in strong opposition to SB 459, legislation that would carve out new exemptions to New Hampshire’s Law Against Discrimination—undermining long-standing civil rights protections and exposing the state to significant legal and constitutional risk. Let us begin with what is at stake. RSA 354-A is not just another statute. It reflects a clear and deliberate commitment by this state to ensure that no person is denied equal protection under the law based on who they are. It is grounded in the principle that discrimination—of any kind—“threatens the peace, order, health, safety, and general welfare of the state.” SB 459 weakens that commitment. First, this bill creates a precedent that should concern anyone who values equal protection under the law. By carving out exceptions to anti-discrimination protections based on a newly defined category of “biological sex,” the bill invites the state to selectively determine when discrimination is permissible. Once that door is opened, it is difficult to close. Civil rights laws are strongest when they are consistent and clear. SB 459 introduces inconsistency—creating a patchwork of protections that depend not on principle, but on circumstance. Second, this bill exposes New Hampshire to significant legal risk. Federal courts have increasingly recognized protections for individuals based on gender identity under federal civil rights law. By creating state-level exemptions that may conflict with federal standards, SB 459 invites litigation that the state is unlikely to win—and will be forced to defend at taxpayer expense. That is not fiscal responsibility. That is a legal liability. Third, the bill is not as “narrow” as it appears. While framed around athletics and certain facilities, the language establishes a broader statutory foothold for classification based on biological sex. The long-term implications of that shift are uncertain—and that uncertainty should give this Committee pause. Good law is precise. This bill is not. Fourth, this legislation risks real harm to real people. At its core, this bill tells a group of individuals—many of them young people already navigating difficult circumstances—that they may be treated differently under the law. That is not a hypothetical concern. It has real consequences for mental health, safety, and access to public life. We can—and should—have thoughtful conversations about fairness in athletics and safety in certain settings. But those conversations require nuance, collaboration, and evidence-based policymaking. SB 459 does not reflect that approach. Instead, it takes a blunt statutory instrument to a complex human issue. Finally, this bill represents unnecessary government intervention in areas already governed by policy, practice, and evolving legal standards. Local institutions, athletic organizations, and professional bodies are already addressing these issues with care and specificity. This bill overrides that work with a rigid, state-imposed directive. If we believe in limited government, we should be cautious about expanding the state’s role in defining and regulating personal identity in this way. New Hampshire has long prided itself on both individual liberty and equal justice under the law. SB 459 puts those values in tension. We should not move in that direction. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committee to recommend Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on SB 459. Respectfully submitted, Rep. David Preece Hillsborough District 17