New Hampshire Bill Aims to Limit Right-to-Know Requests to State Residents

The proposed legislation would restrict public record access to only those domiciled or owning property in the state.

Published on Feb. 4, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The New Hampshire Senate Judiciary Committee discussed a bill, SB 626, that would limit public record requests under the state's Right-to-Know law to only those individuals who are domiciled or maintain a permanent residence in New Hampshire. The bill's sponsor, state Sen. Bill Gannon, says the goal is to reduce the "voluminous stuff" requested from out-of-state parties that costs municipalities time and money to process.

Why it matters

The proposed legislation raises concerns about transparency and access to public information. While supporters argue it will protect the original intent of the Right-to-Know law to empower state residents, critics contend it could limit legitimate oversight and requests, such as from media outlets or individuals with property interests in the state.

The details

SB 626 would require individuals to provide proof of New Hampshire domicile or residency in order to file a Right-to-Know request. Businesses located in the state, lawyers representing residents, and those who own property in New Hampshire would still be able to access records. An amendment to the bill also allows people domiciled in the state, as well as property owners, to request records as a "citizen." Supporters say the law aims to target "misuse" of the public records law, while critics argue it could prevent out-of-state individuals from obtaining information about issues that affect them, such as a traffic stop or real estate transaction.

  • The Senate Judiciary Committee discussed SB 626 on Tuesday, February 4, 2026.

The players

Bill Gannon

A Republican state senator from Sandown, New Hampshire who sponsored SB 626.

Sarah Burke Cohen

A legislative assistant for the New Hampshire Municipal Association, which supports the bill.

Mark Hayward

A representative of the New England First Amendment Coalition, who spoke in opposition to the bill.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We're here today because the voluminous stuff is requested from out of state, and it's costing (and) taking a lot of time for municipal associations,”

— Bill Gannon, State Senator (InDepthNH.org)

“Defining 'citizen' doesn't limit legitimate access to governmental records. It's there to target misuse, not legitimate oversight. The definition will simply protect the intent of the law by saying, 'If you live here or own property here, you have every right to know what your government is doing.' If you don't live in New Hampshire, the same level of access doesn't automatically apply to you.”

— Sarah Burke Cohen, Legislative Assistant, New Hampshire Municipal Association (InDepthNH.org)

“Let's say someone from Massachusetts gets pulled over when he might believe he shouldn't have been. Maybe there wasn't probable cause. He should be able to file a right-to-know request and see if his assumption was correct.”

— Mark Hayward, New England First Amendment Coalition (InDepthNH.org)

What’s next

The Senate Judiciary Committee did not take any immediate action on the bill after the hearing.

The takeaway

The proposed legislation highlights the tension between transparency and efficiency, as New Hampshire seeks to balance residents' access to public records with the administrative burden on municipalities. The debate over SB 626 reflects broader questions about the scope of public records laws and who should be empowered to hold their government accountable.