Ayotte vetoes N.H. book ban legislation, citing concern about subjective standards around age-appropriateness
Advertisement
While proponents said
Get N.H. Morning Report
A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'Every student deserves to see themselves reflected in the pages of their books,' said Megan Tuttle, president of the NEA New Hampshire, a teachers union, in a statement applauding Ayotte's decision.
'We hope this book ban bill veto represents a changing tide at the State House and call on lawmakers to listen to Granite Staters who overwhelmingly oppose classroom censorship efforts,' she added.
This legislation would have required local school boards to adopt policies for handling complaints from parents who allege a particular piece of content is 'harmful to minors.' Those unhappy with the local board's handling of a complaint would then have been able to file an appeal with the state board of education, whose seven members are appointed by the governor.
Advertisement
Although
Under existing state law — which borrows language from the US Supreme Court's
What implications the phrase 'for minors' might carry for discussions of age-appropriateness would seem to be open to interpretation. The legislation said complaints would be decided first by the school principal, then by the local school board, and ultimately by the state board of education.
Barrett M. Christina, executive director of the New Hampshire School Boards Association, said on Tuesday that his group questioned whether HB 324 was even constitutional. In some ways, its vague standard looks like the state's so-called 'divisive concepts' law, which a federal judge
Christina said the NHSBA appreciates Ayotte's veto as an affirmation that 'local education decisions are best made my locally elected school board members, and not the New Hampshire legislature or the State Board of Education.'
Related
:
Advertisement
Under HB 324, if a school were to fail to follow the correct process, then anyone claiming to be aggrieved would have been authorized to sue for $1,000 per violation, plus costs and legal fees, according to the legislation. And educators would have faced the potential for professional discipline.
Ayotte said she was concerned the legislation had envisioned potentially extensive civil action, 'which could open the door to unnecessary litigation from out-of-state groups.'
Ayotte said an
If lawmakers conclude the current law isn't being implemented adequately, the appropriate course would be to amend that law, Ayotte said.
Republican state lawmakers — who hold a comfortable majority in the 400-seat House and a super-majority in the 24-seat Senate — had framed their support for HB 324 as an anti-smut campaign.
'We're not talking about 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' or some poetry that has some innuendos in it,' Republican Senator Victoria L. Sullivan of Manchester said during debate on the bill. 'We're talking about flat-out pornography.'
Republican Senator Daryl A. Abbas of Salem similarly said this legislation aimed to get rid of obscene materials like 'Hustler' magazine, not ban books like 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or any of William Shakespeare's works.
Advertisement
His point was rhetorical. No one claimed school libraries offer 'Hustler' to kids. But others have offered more literal examples of materials they view as inappropriate for K-12 school libraries.
Republican Representative Glenn Cordelli of Tuftonboro, the prime sponsor of HB 324, cited
New Hampshire writer Jodi L. Picoult, whose acclaimed novel '
Picoult joined with other bestselling authors who live in New Hampshire to
In a wry post
Advertisement
'Now that kids can't get porn on their phones while at school,' he said, 'at least they can still find it in the library.'
Steven Porter can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
10 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
N.H. restaurant owner who alleged conspiracy of retaliation by police reaches $75,000 settlement
Unlike Get N.H. Morning Report A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox. Enter Email Sign Up 'Even if I didn't receive the outcome I desired, it still briefly held them accountable, at least in the media and in the public, and shined the spotlight on people in positions of power behaving poorly,' she said. Advertisement The story began in July 2022, when Kovacs turned to the Franklin Police Department for help after she and her business were bombarded with anonymous phone calls, fake reviews, and antisemitic messages after she condemned a white supremacist group online. Kovacs was unsatisfied with how officers handled her complaint, so she publicly criticized the department — and Police Chief David Goldstein responded by Advertisement Goldstein also strongly implied that the officer who was dating Kovacs at the time would need to choose between his girlfriend and his job, since Kovacs was promoting 'anti-law enforcement attitudes and behaviors.' News coverage spurred public debate over how Franklin officials had responded to Kovacs and how leaders everywhere should tackle bias-related incidents. Kovacs filed her lawsuit in August 2023 against the city, its police department, and eight local officials, including Goldstein, the mayor, and certain city councilors. Her attorneys, The lawsuit accused city officials of intentionally inflicting emotional distress on Kovacs, including by commenting publicly about her mental health and saying she looked 'like a thug' when she criticized police. The lawsuit also accused local officials of violating the state's public records law and trying to interfere with Kovacs's plans to meet with the New Hampshire Department of Justice's Civil Rights Unit. Officials denied the allegations, and one by one, most of them left their posts: The mayor The defendants have perhaps moved on collectively as well. Their attorneys did not respond to a request for comment. A judge in Merrimack County Superior Court signed off Friday on the joint stipulation to dismiss Kovacs's case. The $75,000 payment is due within two weeks, according to a copy of the settlement agreement. Advertisement Miriam Kovacs, owner of the Broken Spoon in Franklin, N.H., accused the city, its police department, and eight local officials of conspiring to deprive her of her First Amendment rights. Steven Porter/Globe Staff Looking ahead, Kovacs sees an uncertain future for the Broken Spoon. After closing her dine-in business temporarily in 2023, she reopened for much of 2024, but found business was considerably slower. She shuttered the eatery again, as she explores other business models, including catering and wholesale options. As far as her storefront in Franklin is concerned, Kovacs said she expects to close that permanently by the end of the year, though she hopes to hold This story appeared in Globe NH | Morning Report, a free newsletter focused on New Hampshire, including great coverage from the Boston Globe and links to interesting articles elsewhere. To receive it via email Monday through Friday, . Steven Porter can be reached at
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
WATCH: Gabbard's Obama bombshell has GOP demanding accountability while Dems question timing as 'distraction'
After reports that top officials from the Obama administration allegedly orchestrated a coordinated attempt to sabotage President Donald Trump's 2016 election victory, GOP lawmakers are calling for transparency and accountability, while their Democratic colleagues are questioning the timing and credibility of the new claims. Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, released a trove of intelligence documents beginning last week that Gabbard has said show former President Barack Obama and some of his closest advisors promoted a "contrived narrative" that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to sabotage Trump. However, Democrats have insisted that congressional investigations already prove that Russia did help Trump in the 2016 election, while also questioning the timing of the allegations due to pressure on Trump to release more Epstein files. "It is profoundly dishonest, and it's dangerous," Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz told Fox News Digital, in reference to the allegations from Gabbard. "What I have urged the administration to do is engage in radical transparency, make it all public and expose just how much the Obama administration knew what they were doing – that they knew they were lying. I think anybody that violated the law needs to be held accountable." Dni Gabbard Claims 'Deep State Actors' Didn't Want Trump-russia Information To 'See The Light Of Day' But Democratic California Sen. Adam Schiff told Fox News Digital he thinks the allegations are moot, pointing to former FBI Director Robert Mueller's 2019 report, which he said "documented Russia's efforts to help denigrate Hillary Clinton, which gave a boost to the Trump campaign. Read On The Fox News App "I think what Gabbard and her staff are doing is dishonest," he added. However, Republican Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford argued it has "long been established" that the Steele dossier was "clearly a Clinton plant" and that the Clinton campaign was actually "cooperating with the Russians to be able to actually use the Russians to be able to interfere with President Trump's campaign." "What Tulsi Gabbard is pulling out is to say, 'How deep did this go into the White House that they knew about the Steele Dossier, they knew it was a Clinton document. When did they start pushing this out, and what official resources were they using to try to add validity to this to be able to undercut the election?'" Lankford said. "We got a long way to go still, but it's good to be able to get all information out, to be able to pull it out there and to say, 'Let's let everybody look at it and let the chips fall where they may.'" Obama-era Officials Mum On Allegations Of 'Manufactured' Intelligence Launching Trump-russia Probe Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said he believed Gabbard was doing the right thing, also expressing hope for extreme transparency amid the alarming allegations. "Part of what this election was about, it was about transparency and government accountability. And that's exactly what [Gabbard] is trying to do, and that's exactly what the Trump administration is trying to do," Scott said. "Let's get the people the facts. Let's follow where the facts are. If somebody's done anything, we'll hold them accountable. So, i think the right process is what's happening." Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., a former CIA analyst, questioned the timing of Gabbard's release of the information, saying even her 10-year-old nephew understood the move as "a dodge and a distraction" to get eyes off the ongoing Epstein controversy. Amid Gabbard's document release at the beginning of last week, Trump has been facing calls from within the GOP for the release of more documents and information pertaining to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. "President Trump had four years in his first term, and all the time since then, to go after this issue, and he picks the same day that his name appears in the Epstein files to talk about Barack Obama," Slotkin told Fox News Digital. "American people are not dumb. Like, we get it. Trump wanted to talk about something different. I have to see these reports, and see how they're sourced. … I like to read and make my own assessment. But the timing can't be missed. The president is trying to dodge and distract you." While partisan affiliation may play a part in how lawmakers and the broader public view the Obama allegations released by Gabbard, Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., said he thinks the issue "transcends" party affiliation. "Republican, Democrat, I mean, you know, this is something that transcends all that. This is really important," Boozman told Fox News Digital. "Hopefully we'll have open transparency so people will understand what's going on. And whatever it is, I'm sure Congress will be involved, and certainly the Justice Department is involved. So, I think these are all good things."Original article source: WATCH: Gabbard's Obama bombshell has GOP demanding accountability while Dems question timing as 'distraction'
Politico
38 minutes ago
- Politico
Capitol agenda: John Thune's pre-recess game plan
Senators are racing the clock to make a dent in both the government funding process and President Donald Trump's backlog of nominees before heading home for August recess. Senate Majority Leader John Thune is hoping to get the first appropriations package through the chamber by the end of this week, with lawmakers on the hook for landing a deal to avoid a shutdown come Sept. 30. To that end, GOP leaders are negotiating with members of their conference over a 'minibus' of three bills that would, collectively, fund the departments of Commerce, Justice, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs, as well as key military construction projects and the FDA. Sen. John Kennedy's (R-La.) opposition to including legislation that would fund congressional operations will likely force leadership to postpone debating a fourth bill at this time. The pending package will require senators to run out two, 30-hour debate clocks; the ability to move faster will require buy-in from all 100 senators. It will also take time for lawmakers of both parties to agree on amendments and then hold votes, and Democrats are still deliberating their strategy, according to a person granted anonymity to share private negotiations. Republican leadership still believes it can pass the mini-bus before leaving town, according to a second person granted anonymity. But one potential fallback option, according to two people granted anonymity, could be for the Senate to schedule a final passage vote before they leave town for the first week back in September. Senate Republicans are also under pressure from Trump to confirm more of his nominees before heading home for recess. Thune has warned his members to prepare to vote at least through this weekend after the president urged senators to stay in Washington through August to wrap up the work, though many lawmakers aren't pleased with that idea. They're eager, instead, to get back to their home states, especially as they look to counter Democratic messaging against the freshly-passed GOP megabill. Other Senate Republicans say they're ready to give Trump what he's after. Over the weekend, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) repeatedly urged his colleagues to either work through August to advance nominations or cancel all pro-forma sessions over the next month to allow Trump to make recess appointments. 'The Senate can't have it both ways,' Lee said in a post on X. Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley also said he's on board with the president's call for the Senate to stick around to vote on nominations through August, writing on X, 'Trump needs his administration in place.' Republicans have typically been unenthused by the idea of recess appointments, though, and it's unlikely they'd go along with that plan. And while Thune is threatening to keep the Senate in session deeper into August, many lawmakers view it as just that: a threat to get Democrats to cut a deals on nominations to get out of town. 'I think it's fair to say that we're going keep the pressure on the Democrats to, you know, stay here until either they cooperate or we're just going to grind it out and do it the old fashioned way,' Thune told POLITICO. What else we're watching: — What lawmakers do about Gaza: As the U.S. pulls out of ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza deepens, GOP leaders say Hamas' inability to cooperate is damaging any hopes of progress in the region. Democratic leaders, meanwhile, are sending dire warnings to Israel — and telling Trump his administration needs to take urgent action. — Johnson's Epstein headache persists: Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) are determined to finish collecting the 218 necessary signatures to force a floor vote compelling the release of more Jeffrey Epstein files. Their bill will be eligible for a floor vote upon the House's return in September.
