Poll: Most in N.H. oppose prosecuting over controversial school materials
A University of New Hampshire Survey Center poll done by a national political action committee for libraries and MomsRising Together found most Granite State residents opposed a pending bill to make educators subject to criminal prosecution under state obscenity laws.
The same poll found strong support (59% for, 19% opposed) for disciplining teachers who 'knowingly' provided harmful materials to students and for having a complaint process (66% for, 29% opposed) for parents to object to their children having access to specific books or materials.
John Chrastka is executive director of EveryLibrary, which partnered in the poll.
"The poll numbers are clear. New Hampshire voters do not want to see a bill that would criminalize educators, school boards, and school librarians as education policy,' Chrastka said.
'Voters don't like Concord telling local schools what students can read and how parents can parent. States like Indiana and Oklahoma have put criminalization provisions in place, and it's not building better schools there.'
The Senate Education Committee will hold likely the last public hearing for the House-approved bill (HB 324) this Thursday.
Along partisan lines, the House late last month approved the bill, 193-148, with only three Republicans joining all but one Democrat in opposition.
Rep. Glenn Cordelli, R-Tuftonboro, said he worked with Attorney General John Formella's office on how to close a loophole since education was exempt from the state's obscenity laws.
'It is our duty to protect minor children,' said Cordelli, who chairs the new House Education Policy and Administration Committee.
'This bill is about materials that are harmful to minor children in schools and the ability for parents to object to them.'
During its first public hearing last February signed up in support while 1,355 opposed it.
'Our attorney general feels that it would be only the most extreme case for a criminal case to be opened for K-12 education, but that option should be available in such a case,' Cordelli said in written testimony to the House.
Poll details
The total of 1,372 completed the survey for UNH along with 62 respondents who were recruited via text message from March 20-24.
The margin of error for the poll was plus or minus 2.6%.
On criminal prosecution, 36% said they could oppose that provision, 52% opposed it, 7% were neutral and 5% didn't have an answer.
Politically, certain circles support giving parents more of a say in what their children are exposed to in public schools.
Last December, outgoing Gov. Chris Sununu had to withdraw his pick to fill the vacant post of state librarian because the candidate, Assistant Librarian Mindy Atwood, had spoken at conferences about how library advocates should work to defeat proposed book bans.
A clear majority on the GOP-led Executive Council told Sununu his pick of Atwood was dead on arrival for this reason.
During House debate, Rep. Peggy Balboni, D-Nashua, pointed out state law already allows parents to review all instructional materials.
"But while parents can decide what materials their child can access, they do not have the right to determine which materials are available for other students; that is censorship," Balboni said.
MacKenzie Nicholson is senior director for MomsRising Together & MomsRising Education Fund.
'Parents in the Granite State aren't asking for this. HB 324 is an extreme bill that goes too far and opens the door to criminalizing teachers and school librarians for doing their jobs,' Nicholson said.
'The Senate should table this bill and come back to the issue with a more thoughtful, balanced approach that actually reflects the values of families in the Live Free or Die state.'
Asked how such a law would affect teacher recruitment, 55% told the poll this would make it harder, 9% said it would be easier, 29% said this will have little effect and 7% don't know.
The poll also found if Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed the bill, a moderate plurality (41%) said they would be less likely to vote for her in 2026 compared with those who said it would make them more likely (30%) to support her.
The third-largest group (24%) said it would make little or no difference and 5% did not know.
klandrigan@unionleader.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump is under water on some of his top issues — including immigration, poll shows
President Donald Trump is under water on some of his most favorable issues — immigration and the economy — according to a new Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday. The poll shows Trump's approval rating at 38 percent among registered voters, a three point drop from April. He's also losing support on subjects that were crucial to his November victory. On immigration — an issue that the president hammered on the campaign trail — Trump's approval rating dropped five points from April, to 43 percent. His already low approval rating on the economy did not budge, remaining at 40 percent. The results show a majority of voters, 54 percent, disapprove of Trump's handling of the issue. The poll surveyed 1,265 self-identified registered voters from June 5-9, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent. The results come as Trump's approval has been steadily picking up since it dropped significantly in April, according to RealClearPolitics' polling average. The negative polling did not stop at the president himself. A majority of the voters polled also had objections to his premier piece of legislation, the 'big, beautiful bill' making its way through Congress. Fifty-three percent of the voters polled did not support the legislation. Divided among party lines, 67 percent of Republicans supported, while 89 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of independents opposed it. On Medicaid funding, an issue that has become Democratic messaging priority, 47 percent of those surveyed thought funding should increase, while 40 percent think it should stay about the same, and just 10 percent think federal funding should decrease. The bill as passed by the House is estimated to end Medicaid coverage for millions of people. Quinnipiac also asked voters what they think of billionaire Elon Musk, and his approval rating is crashing among Republicans following his very public breakup with Trump. Among Republicans, 62 percent had a favorable view of Musk, a 16 point drop from April. But while Trump's approval languishes, it's not clear Democrats will be able to take advantage of it. A vast majority of voters — 70 percent — disapprove of the way Democrats in Congress are doing their jobs, while 20 percent approved. That's 12 points lower than how voters viewed Republicans in the survey.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' could wreck Utah's groundbreaking AI laws
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' budget package could derail the state's groundbreaking artificial intelligence laws unless it is changed. The 1,000-page bill that passed the House last month includes a 10-year prohibition on AI regulations. An updated Senate version removed the all-out ban but conditioned $500 million in AI infrastructure grants on states pausing enforcement of AI laws. Behind these provisions is a desire by some lawmakers to prevent a nationwide patchwork of AI regulations that hampers innovation amid competition with China. But Cox, and Utah's top tech policymakers, said the approach taken by Trump's bill interferes with the state's right to react to rapidly evolving technologies. 'Our hope is that the last version of this bill that passes, whatever that looks like, will allow for the smart type of regulation that we're doing in Utah, and prevent the bad kind of regulation that would stop AI from reaching its fullest potential,' Cox said Tuesday during a monthly PBS broadcast. Utah has been recognized around the world for having the 'first and smartest of the AI regulations that have been proposed,' according to Cox. These policies include bills that create a state-run AI policy lab, clarify consumer protection liability for AI and require AI disclosures in industries like finance and mental health. The governor said that multiple members of the U.S. House have told his team that they were not aware of the AI moratorium when they voted on the bill. Members of the White House and Senate have also said that they don't want the 'BBB bill' to eliminate Utah's law, Cox said. 'AI companies actually support what we're doing because they recognize that this is the right way to do AI regulation as opposed to just piecemeal,' Cox said. Cox agreed that 'a hodgepodge' of AI laws around the country would cause the U.S. to 'fall behind and we would lose this global race that is happening right now.' But he said a moratorium on AI policy shouldn't come at the expense of Utah's novel approach which doesn't actually tell AI companies how they can develop their models. Utah Rep. Doug Fiefia, R-Herriman, said the problem goes beyond counterproductive policy. It targets the foundation of states rights that has allowed Utah to lead out on so many issues, according to Fiefia, a freshman lawmaker who previously worked at Google. 'States are laboratories for innovation when it comes to policy, and I believe that the federal government should not overreach on this process and allow it to work,' Fiefia said. 'We will not give over our control because the federal government believes that it's the right thing to do to win this race.' On Tuesday, Utah House legislative leadership, and 62 state senators and representatives, sent a letter authored by Fiefia to Utah's congressional delegation arguing that the moratorium hindered 'Utah's nationally recognized efforts to strike the right balance between innovation and consumer protection.' Not only would the moratorium harm state efforts to legislate guardrails, it would also hurt businesses that are using AI responsibly by allowing their competitors to engage in unethical behavior, according to Fiefia. States have shown they are more nimble than the federal government when they need to adapt to change, Fiefia said. And this is the approach Fiefia believes Utah has demonstrated in opening up legal pathways for innovation while updating the law for the threats posed by AI. 'Just because we want to move fast in this global arms race of AI doesn't mean we can't do so with a seat belt,' Fiefia said. 'I believe that we can both win this AI race, but also doing it in a thoughtful and meaningful way.' The AI moratorium faces procedural hurdles in addition to ideological pushback. Utah Sen. Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, pointed out that reconciliation bills are meant only to amend the annual budget and not make substantive policy shifts. Some senators have alleged that the AI moratorium does not comply with the 'Byrd Rule,' a procedural requirement that prohibits 'nonbudgetary' additions during the budget 'reconciliation' process. Cullimore, who was the sponsor behind most of Utah's AI legislation, was in Washington, D.C., last week, speaking with members of the House Commerce Committee, which oversaw the inclusion of the AI moratorium provisions. The intentions behind the moratorium, Cullimore said, were to prevent states from implementing what are called 'foundational regulations' that restrict the kind of technology AI companies can develop. Utah's laws do not do this, according to Cullimore, who also signed Fiefia's letter, but they would still be sidelined by the 'big beautiful bill' even if the moratorium is replaced by the conditioned federal funding. 'I think the drafting of the moratorium was so broad that it potentially encompassed all of that stuff,' he said. 'So I hope that that we can refine the text a little bit, and then if they want to put those conditions in on foundational regulation, I think that'd be appropriate.'
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Louisville did not delay police reform order, say mayor, chief in response to criticism
Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg talks with attendees of The Louisville Forum at Vincenzo's in downtown Louisville. June 11, 2025. (Kentucky Lantern photo by Sarah Ladd) LOUISVILLE — Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg and Louisville Police Chief Paul Humphrey said the city should not be blamed for delaying a court order to correct civil rights abuses by Louisville police and to reform the department. During the monthly meeting of The Louisville Forum Wednesday, Humphrey pointed to federal 'bureaucracy' while Greenberg acknowledged that 'a lot of people … think that our administration and the LMPD was the reason' a consent decree mandating police reforms was not signed before the Republican Trump administration killed the agreement as expected. The mayor insisted that is not the case. Responding to an audience question, Greenberg told the gathering that it took more than 11 months for the Justice Department under Democratic President Joe Biden to get the city a draft agreement after then-Attorney General Merrick Garland came to Kentucky in 2023 to discuss the police department's civil rights violations. Greenberg said the city at that time offered to provide an initial draft of a consent decree. 'They insisted that they would provide us with the first draft. Notwithstanding our weekly requests (of) when that draft was coming, we got the first draft of the consent decree 11 and a half months later,' Greenberg said. 'So we waited basically a year to see a first draft of the consent decree after Attorney General Garland came to our city.' Trump Justice Department moves to end consent decree aimed at reforming policing in Louisville The agreement was announced in December 2024, the month before President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term. In May, the Trump administration's U.S. Department of Justice pulled back from the consent decree, saying such actions are 'handcuffing local leaders.' The consent decree came in response to the 2020 police killing of Breonna Taylor, an unarmed Black woman, and a subsequent federal investigation that exposed a pattern of constitutional violations by Louisville police. Taylor's mother criticized the mayor, Louisville Public Media reported in May, accusing him of 'dragging his feet' on the issue. Louisville Metro Council member J.P. Lyninger, a Democrat, also has voiced disappointment with Democrat Greenberg's administration. 'The findings were announced two years ago,' he told Louisville Public Media last month. 'If we had more speedily entered into agreement with the Department of Justice, this would already be on the books and we wouldn't be talking about this today.' A consent decree is a negotiated agreement that avoids a trial by spelling out requirements that a federal judge signs and enforces. On Wednesday, Greenberg said, 'Louisville Metro government was not the reason why this took time.' Instead, he said, the police department and city had 'worked day and night with getting this done as their primary focus.' Humphrey agreed, saying there are 'a lot of things that could be improved about that process' at the federal level to expedite the consent decree process. The federal government, Humphrey said, was 'more concerned with protecting the case than they were with improving the police department.' On the same day the Trump administration moved to let LMPD off the hook for reform, Greenberg and Humphrey announced the city would move forward with its own Community Commitment, a 214-page handbook with goals similar to those outlined in the proposed consent decree. 'If we were using delay as a negotiating tactic, we would not have voluntarily signed the community commitment within hours of the Department of Justice announcing they were dropping the case,' Greenberg said at the Louisville Forum. 'It would have been a very different response.' Under the Community Commitment, the city will issue a request for proposals (RFP) seeking candidates to fill the role of an independent monitor. The public will be able to weigh in on monitor candidates via an online survey and at community listening sessions. The independent monitor will cost Louisville around $750,000, Greenberg said, and will have a five-year contract. 'We have our community commitment that we're moving forward with, and so … looking back at what the federal government did or didn't do is a waste of time, in all honesty,' Humphrey said. 'Let's move forward and … make this community better.' The city has several listening sessions already scheduled where the public can weigh in on reforms. 'I encourage you to be a part of the solution,' Greenberg said. 'It's very easy to criticize, it's very easy to observe and talk to friends. We want (people) across the community to be a part of the solution.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
