David Preece | Oppose SB464

To: House Judiciary Committee Re: Opposition to SB 464-FN From: Rep. David Preece, Hillsborough District 17 Dear Chairman and Members of the Committee, I write in strong opposition to SB 464-FN, a bill that fundamentally weakens New Hampshire’s Civil Rights Act by raising the burden of proof required to hold individuals accountable for acts of intimidation, violence, and coercion. At its core, this bill requires that unlawful conduct be “substantially motivated” by hostility toward a protected characteristic in order to trigger civil rights protections. That change may appear technical. It is not. It represents a profound shift in how—and whether—we enforce civil rights in this state. First, SB 464 makes it significantly harder to protect victims of civil rights violations. Under current law, individuals are protected from threats, violence, and intimidation that interfere with their constitutional rights. SB 464 adds a new and burdensome requirement: proving the perpetrator’s motivation to a heightened standard. That is a steep and often insurmountable hurdle. Motivation is rarely explicit. It must be inferred from words, actions, and circumstances. By requiring that hostility be not just present—but “substantial”—this bill gives perpetrators a new legal shield: plausible deniability. The result? Fewer cases brought. Fewer cases won. And fewer victims protected. Second, this bill weakens a critical deterrent against hate-based intimidation and violence. Civil rights laws are not just about punishment—they are about prevention. They send a clear message that targeting individuals because of who they are will not be tolerated. SB 464 muddies that message. By raising the evidentiary bar, it signals that unless hostility can be proven to a specific degree, enforcement may not follow. That uncertainty weakens deterrence—and puts vulnerable communities at greater risk. Third, this bill creates unnecessary legal complexity and invites costly litigation. What does “substantially motivated” mean? How is it measured? What evidence is sufficient? These are questions that will not be answered clearly in statute—but instead through litigation. And when that happens, it is the state—and ultimately taxpayers—who bear the cost. Even the fiscal note acknowledges indeterminable impacts on the judicial and correctional systems, including prosecution, incarceration, and court costs. That uncertainty alone should give this Committee pause. Fourth, this bill is a step backward in civil rights enforcement. New Hampshire has long recognized that protecting individuals from intimidation and coercion is essential to preserving constitutional freedoms. SB 464 narrows that protection at a time when clarity and consistency are needed most. We should be strengthening civil rights enforcement—not weakening it. Finally, this bill raises fundamental questions about equal protection under the law. If two individuals are subjected to the same threat or act of violence, but only one can prove the perpetrator’s motivation to a heightened legal standard, are they equally protected? SB 464 suggests they are not. That is not a direction we should take. Civil rights laws exist to ensure that all people can live, work, and participate in society without fear of intimidation or harm. SB 464 makes that promise harder to keep. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committee to recommend Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on SB 464-FN. Respectfully submitted, Rep. David Preece Hillsborough District 17