The New Hampshire General Court operates under a bicameral system. Bills introduced in either chamber must follow a specific path to become law. This path involves committee review, floor debate, and voting in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. If a bill passes one chamber, it is then sent to the other chamber for a similar process. Disagreements between the chambers on the content of a bill are typically resolved through a conference committee, comprised of members from both the House and Senate, who attempt to reconcile the differences. Once a compromise is reached and approved by both chambers, the bill is then sent to the Governor for signature. If the Governor signs the bill, it becomes law. If the Governor vetoes the bill, the legislature can override the veto with a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. The question asks about the initial stage of a bill’s journey through the New Hampshire legislature, specifically after it has been introduced and assigned to a committee. The subsequent steps involve committee action, which can include hearings, amendments, and a recommendation to the full chamber. Following committee action, the bill proceeds to the floor of the originating chamber for debate and a vote. Therefore, the logical next step after committee assignment and action is floor consideration in the chamber where it was initially filed.

The New Hampshire legislature operates under a bicameral system, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. When drafting legislation, particularly bills that propose amendments to existing statutes, understanding the procedural pathways for these amendments is crucial. A bill originating in the House that proposes to amend a statute within the jurisdiction of a New Hampshire state agency, such as the Department of Environmental Services, must navigate a specific legislative process. If the House passes a bill that amends a statute, and that bill is then sent to the Senate for concurrence, the Senate’s actions are governed by its own rules and precedents. If the Senate amends the House bill, it then returns to the House for reconsideration. The House can either concur with the Senate’s amendments or non-concur. If the House non-concurs, a conference committee can be formed to resolve the differences. However, if the Senate amends a House bill to change its fundamental purpose or scope, the House may reject the amended bill entirely. The question asks about the most appropriate action by the House when the Senate significantly alters the original intent of a House-originated bill through amendments. In such a scenario, the House has the prerogative to reject the amended bill and potentially pursue a new legislative vehicle if it wishes to advance the altered policy. This ensures that the originating chamber maintains a degree of control over the substance of legislation that began in its chamber and was subsequently modified.

New Hampshire RSA 15:13 outlines the procedures for amending the state constitution. An amendment proposal can originate in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. If a bill proposing an amendment passes both houses by a three-fifths vote of all members elected to each house, it is then submitted to the people for ratification at the next general election. For the amendment to be adopted, it must receive a majority of the votes cast on the question. The process requires a supermajority vote in the legislature for proposal and a simple majority for ratification by the electorate. Therefore, a bill proposing a constitutional amendment requires a three-fifths vote in both the New Hampshire House of Representatives and the New Hampshire Senate to be sent to the voters for approval.

The core principle tested here is the legislative intent behind New Hampshire’s statutory framework, specifically concerning the delegation of authority and the limitations on such delegation. New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) Chapter 541-A, concerning Administrative Procedure, outlines the process for rule-making. When a statute grants an agency the power to adopt rules, it must do so with sufficient specificity to guide the agency and to allow for judicial review. The legislature cannot delegate its core law-making power without providing clear standards. In this scenario, the statute directing the Department of Environmental Services (DES) to adopt rules to “protect the public health and welfare from the adverse effects of unregulated industrial discharge” is broad. However, the directive to consider “best available science and economic feasibility” provides a standard, albeit a general one, for the agency to follow. The crucial element is whether this standard is sufficiently defined to prevent arbitrary or unbridled discretion. RSA 541-A:2, I, generally requires that rules be necessary to implement the provisions of a statute. The legislative intent is to grant authority but also to ensure that the agency’s actions are tethered to the statutory purpose and are not based on purely subjective criteria. The phrase “best available science and economic feasibility” acts as a guiding principle, directing the agency to base its rules on evidence and practical considerations, thereby providing a framework for its discretion. This approach allows for flexibility in rule-making to adapt to evolving scientific understanding and economic conditions while still grounding the agency’s actions in legislative intent. Therefore, the statute, as drafted, provides a sufficient, albeit general, standard for the DES to adopt rules.

The scenario involves a legislative proposal in New Hampshire to amend RSA 151-E, which governs the regulation of health care facilities. The proposed amendment aims to introduce a new licensing requirement for certain types of assisted living facilities that provide specialized memory care services. When drafting legislation, particularly amendments, drafters must adhere to established principles of statutory construction and legislative procedure to ensure clarity, consistency, and legal efficacy. The core task here is to identify the most appropriate legislative mechanism to integrate this new requirement. A bill is the standard vehicle for proposing new laws or amendments to existing laws in the New Hampshire legislature. Specifically, an amendment to an existing statute, like RSA 151-E, would be accomplished through a bill that explicitly states the sections to be amended and the proposed changes. This bill would then go through the legislative process of introduction, committee review, hearings, floor debate, and potential votes in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Other options are less suitable for enacting a substantive change to existing law. A joint resolution, while used for certain legislative actions like proposing constitutional amendments or expressing legislative sentiment, is not the typical method for amending statutory law. An administrative rule, promulgated by an executive branch agency, can provide detail and implementation for statutes, but it cannot create new licensing requirements or fundamentally alter existing statutory mandates without explicit statutory authority. A legislative study committee’s report might recommend changes, but it does not enact law itself; a bill would still be needed to implement its recommendations. Therefore, a bill is the correct legislative instrument to propose and enact an amendment to RSA 151-E.

The core principle being tested is the legislative process for amending the New Hampshire Constitution. Article IV of the New Hampshire Constitution outlines the amendment process, which requires a proposal by the General Court, followed by a vote of the people. Specifically, an amendment must be agreed to by two separate legislative sessions and then approved by a majority of the voters at a statewide election. The question presents a scenario where a proposed amendment to RSA 12-A, concerning environmental regulations, has passed the House of Representatives in one legislative session. For this amendment to proceed towards potential adoption, it must first be passed by the Senate in the same legislative session, and then subsequently be passed by both the House and Senate in the *next* legislative session before it can be sent to the voters. Therefore, the immediate next step required for the amendment to advance through the constitutional amendment process is for the Senate to concur with the House’s passage.

In New Hampshire, the process of amending the state constitution involves specific procedural requirements that ensure deliberation and public input. Article VI of the New Hampshire Constitution outlines the amendment process. An amendment proposal can originate from either the House of Representatives or the Senate. If passed by a three-fifths majority of the members of the House and a two-thirds majority of the members of the Senate, the proposed amendment is then submitted to the people for a vote at the next general election. For an amendment to be adopted, it must receive the approval of a majority of the voters who cast ballots on the question. This multi-stage process, involving legislative supermajorities and popular ratification, is designed to prevent hasty or ill-considered changes to the fundamental law of the state. Therefore, a proposed amendment that receives a simple majority in both legislative chambers but does not meet the supermajority thresholds would not proceed to a statewide vote.

The scenario describes a bill introduced in the New Hampshire House of Representatives concerning the regulation of artisanal cheese production. The bill, H.B. 112, proposes specific labeling requirements for cheeses aged in New Hampshire for at least 90 days, mandating the inclusion of the producer’s name, the county of origin within New Hampshire, and a unique batch identification number. The bill also outlines a penalty of a fine not exceeding \$250 for each violation. When drafting legislation, clarity and precision are paramount. The phrase “county of origin within New Hampshire” is specific and unambiguous. The requirement for a “unique batch identification number” ensures traceability. The penalty structure, a fine not exceeding \$250, sets a clear limit on financial repercussions. The concept of legislative intent is crucial here; the drafter must ensure the language accurately reflects the purpose of the bill, which is to promote and regulate local artisanal cheese production through clear labeling standards and enforcement mechanisms. This involves considering how the language will be interpreted by regulatory bodies and the courts. The process of legislative drafting in New Hampshire, governed by RSA 14, Chapter 14, involves adherence to specific rules for bill format, introduction, and amendment, ensuring that the final enacted law is coherent and legally sound. The drafting process requires a deep understanding of existing statutes and constitutional provisions to avoid conflicts and ensure the bill is constitutional.

The core principle here is the doctrine of legislative intent and how it is ascertained when drafting. When a legislative body in New Hampshire, or any jurisdiction, considers amending existing statutes or creating new ones, the drafter must understand the purpose behind the proposed changes. This involves more than just reading the plain text of the bill. It requires an understanding of the problem the legislation aims to solve, the context in which it is being introduced, and the specific policy goals of the sponsors and the legislative body. New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 21:31, for instance, outlines the rules for statutory construction, emphasizing that the object of the legislature shall be considered in the interpretation of statutes. When drafting, a legislative counsel would analyze committee reports, floor debates, sponsor statements, and even prior legislative attempts to gauge the intended meaning and effect of the proposed language. The goal is to ensure the drafted language accurately reflects the collective will and the intended outcome, avoiding ambiguity that could lead to misinterpretation or unintended consequences in future application. This process is crucial for maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the statutory code.

In New Hampshire, the process of amending the state constitution requires a specific, multi-step procedure to ensure deliberate consideration and broad public input. An amendment proposal can originate from either the House of Representatives or the Senate. Once a chamber approves a proposed amendment by a three-fifths vote of all the members elected thereto, it is then sent to the other chamber. If the second chamber also approves the proposal by a three-fifths vote of all the members elected thereto, the proposed amendment is then published. Following this publication, the proposed amendment must be submitted to the people at the next regular state election. For the amendment to be adopted, it must receive the affirmative vote of a majority of the voters voting on the question. This process, outlined in Article VI of the New Hampshire Constitution, emphasizes a high threshold for passage at each legislative stage and a direct vote by the electorate, reflecting a commitment to stability in fundamental law.

The question tests the understanding of the legislative process in New Hampshire, specifically concerning the amendment process and the role of committees in reconciling differences between House and Senate versions of a bill. When a bill passes both the New Hampshire House of Representatives and the New Hampshire Senate with differing versions, the typical procedure to resolve these discrepancies involves a conference committee. This committee is composed of members from both chambers, tasked with negotiating and proposing a compromise version of the bill. If the conference committee reaches an agreement, their report, containing the compromised text, is then presented to both the House and the Senate for a vote. For the bill to proceed, this conference committee report must be approved by a majority vote in both legislative bodies. If either chamber rejects the report, the bill may fail or be sent back to the conference committee for further negotiation, or one chamber might agree to the other’s version. The key principle is that a final version must be agreed upon by both chambers in identical form before it can be sent to the Governor for signature. Therefore, the most direct and common method to resolve these differences and move the bill forward is through the formation and approval of a conference committee report.

New Hampshire’s legislative drafting process is governed by specific rules and conventions to ensure clarity, consistency, and adherence to constitutional principles. When drafting legislation, particularly amendments to existing statutes, drafters must consider the structure and numbering of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA). The RSA is organized into titles, chapters, and sections, each with a unique numerical identifier. Amendments typically target specific sections of the RSA. For instance, if a bill proposes to modify a provision concerning the regulation of dairy farms, the drafter would identify the exact RSA section number that currently addresses this topic. Let’s assume the existing regulation is found in RSA 426:12. If the amendment is intended to alter the penalty for a violation, the drafter would explicitly state the section being amended and then provide the new language or the revised penalty. For example, an amendment might read: “Amend RSA 426:12 to read as follows: Section 1. RSA 426:12 is amended to read as follows: 426:12 Penalties. Any person who violates the provisions of this chapter shall be fined not less than $100 nor more than $500 for each offense.” This precise referencing is crucial for legal accuracy and to avoid unintended consequences or ambiguity in the law. The process emphasizes precision in identifying the statute being modified and clearly articulating the changes.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) Chapter 21-M governs the state’s legislative branch and its administrative procedures. Specifically, RSA 21-M:13 outlines the process for the preparation and introduction of bills. When a legislator proposes a bill, it must first be formally introduced in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. Following introduction, the bill is typically referred to a standing committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the proposed legislation. This committee then conducts hearings, deliberates on the bill, and may propose amendments. After committee review, the bill is reported back to the chamber of origin for debate and a vote. If passed by one chamber, it is then sent to the other chamber for a similar process of committee review, debate, and voting. For a bill to become law in New Hampshire, it must be passed in identical form by both the House and the Senate and then be signed by the Governor, or the Governor’s veto must be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both chambers. The process ensures thorough consideration and public input before legislation is enacted.

The core principle being tested here is the constitutional authority of the New Hampshire legislature to enact laws that are consistent with the state’s constitution and the U.S. Constitution, particularly concerning the separation of powers and the prohibition against bills of attainder. When drafting legislation, a key responsibility of a legislative drafter is to ensure that proposed laws do not infringe upon fundamental rights or established constitutional principles. A bill that purports to impose criminal penalties or forfeitures upon a specific individual or group without a prior judicial trial would directly violate the due process clauses of both the New Hampshire and U.S. Constitutions and would likely be considered an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Such a measure bypasses the judicial branch’s role in determining guilt and imposing punishment, thereby encroaching upon the judicial power and violating the separation of powers doctrine. Therefore, a drafter must identify and eliminate any provisions that attempt to legislatively condemn an individual or group, ensuring that any penalties are applied through a fair and impartial legal process. The legislative drafter’s role is to create legally sound and constitutionally permissible statutes, preventing the enactment of laws that would be subject to immediate judicial challenge and invalidation on these grounds.

The New Hampshire Constitution, specifically Part I, Article 33, addresses the right of the people to assemble and petition the government. When drafting legislation that impacts public gatherings or the right to petition, a drafter must be mindful of constitutional limitations. Article 33 states that “The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble themselves together for the common good, and to consult and determine thereon; and every one is entitled to a reasonable and full representation of his grievances, according to the laws.” This implies that while the right to assemble and petition is protected, it is subject to reasonable regulation to ensure public order and prevent infringement on the rights of others. Legislation that imposes an overly burdensome prior restraint on assembly, such as requiring a permit for even small, spontaneous gatherings without a clear justification for public safety, or that broadly prohibits any form of protest that might cause minor inconvenience, would likely be challenged as unconstitutional. The key is the balance between the protected right and the government’s legitimate interest in maintaining public order and safety. A drafter must ensure that any restrictions are narrowly tailored, content-neutral, and serve a significant government interest. For instance, requiring a permit for a large parade on a public highway with associated traffic control needs is generally permissible, whereas requiring a permit for a few individuals to stand on a sidewalk holding signs would likely not be. The concept of “reasonable and full representation” also suggests that the means of petitioning should not be unduly obstructed. Therefore, a bill that mandates a lengthy waiting period for permit applications for any public demonstration, regardless of size or location, could be seen as an unreasonable impediment to the right to petition and assemble.

In New Hampshire, the process of amending the state constitution is a rigorous one, designed to ensure broad consensus and prevent hasty changes. Article VI of the New Hampshire Constitution outlines this process. It requires a proposal for amendment to be approved by two successive sessions of the General Court. For the first session, the proposal must receive the affirmative vote of at least two-fifths of the members of the House of Representatives and at least two-fifths of the members of the Senate. If passed, the proposal is then submitted to the next regular session of the General Court. In this subsequent session, the proposal must receive the affirmative vote of at least three-fifths of the members of the House of Representatives and at least three-fifths of the members of the Senate. If both sessions approve the amendment with the requisite majorities, it is then submitted to the people for ratification at a general election. The amendment is adopted if it receives a majority of the votes cast. Therefore, a proposal that fails to achieve the three-fifths majority in the second session, even if it passed the first session with the required two-fifths majorities, cannot proceed to a popular vote.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) Chapter 21-M, Section 11, outlines the powers and duties of the Adjutant General. Specifically, it details the authority to appoint and remove personnel within the state military forces. When drafting legislation concerning the state militia, understanding the existing statutory framework is paramount. The question probes the drafter’s knowledge of the specific statutory authority granted to the Adjutant General regarding personnel actions, which directly impacts the structure and command of the New Hampshire National Guard. The correct answer reflects the explicit statutory grant of power for removal, which is a fundamental aspect of military command and discipline, as established by state law. This understanding is crucial for drafting legislation that either amends, clarifies, or creates new provisions related to military personnel management without creating conflicts with existing statutory authority. The Adjutant General’s power to remove personnel is a critical component of maintaining an effective and disciplined military force, and any legislative action must acknowledge and respect this established authority.

The core principle tested here is the concept of legislative intent and how it is determined when drafting statutes, particularly in New Hampshire. When a legislative proposal is being considered, the drafting process involves not only the precise wording of the bill but also an understanding of the underlying purpose and the problem it aims to solve. This understanding is crucial for ensuring the statute will function as intended and be interpreted correctly by the courts. The legislative history, which includes committee reports, floor debates, and amendments, serves as a primary source for discerning this intent. Specifically, New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) often refers to the purpose stated in the enacting clause or introductory sections of legislation as a guide. Furthermore, the principle of statutory construction emphasizes that the plain meaning of the text is paramount, but when ambiguity arises, courts look to extrinsic aids to clarify the legislature’s objective. This includes examining the context of the statute within the broader legal framework of New Hampshire and considering the practical effects of different interpretations. The goal of a legislative drafter is to create language that is clear, unambiguous, and accurately reflects the legislative will, thereby minimizing the need for judicial interpretation.

The New Hampshire Constitution, specifically Part I, Article 33, addresses the prohibition of certain punishments. This article states, “No magistrate, in any case, shall read or explain any part of the law to any person, or in any case, or at any time, in any manner, without the presence of the attorney of record, or of the party accused.” This provision is foundational to ensuring due process and fair legal proceedings, preventing potential coercion or undue influence during legal interactions. The question probes the understanding of this constitutional safeguard as it relates to legislative drafting, particularly concerning the clarity and accessibility of laws. When drafting legislation, drafters must consider how the enacted laws will be understood and applied, ensuring that their meaning is not obscured or manipulated. The principle enshrined in Article 33 indirectly influences drafting by emphasizing the need for laws to be comprehensible and applied impartially, without the need for magistrates to interpret or explain them in a manner that could prejudice a party. Therefore, a legislative drafter’s primary concern regarding this article would be to ensure the clarity and unambiguous nature of the statutes themselves, so that they can be understood and followed without requiring ex parte explanations from judicial officers. The absence of ambiguity in the text of a law is the most direct way a drafter can uphold the spirit of this constitutional protection.

The New Hampshire General Court, specifically the House of Representatives, has a specific procedure for amending bills originating from the Senate. When a Senate bill is received by the House, it is typically referred to a committee. If the committee recommends amendments, these amendments are then considered by the full House. The House may adopt, reject, or further amend these proposed Senate amendments. If the House adopts amendments to a Senate bill, the bill, as amended, is then sent back to the Senate for concurrence. The Senate has the option to concur with the House amendments or to refuse to concur. If the Senate refuses to concur, a conference committee can be appointed to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The question focuses on the initial stage where the House considers amendments proposed by the Senate, and the potential for the House to modify those Senate-proposed amendments before sending the bill back. Therefore, the House’s ability to amend Senate amendments is a key procedural step in the legislative process in New Hampshire.

The New Hampshire General Court’s legislative drafting process is governed by specific rules and practices designed to ensure clarity, consistency, and legal efficacy. When drafting legislation, particularly amendments, understanding the hierarchy and interaction of existing statutory language is paramount. New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) chapter 21, section 21:31, outlines the requirements for amending existing statutes. This statute mandates that an amendment must clearly identify the statute to be amended and specify the exact language to be added, deleted, or changed. The process of inserting new language requires careful consideration of its placement within the existing text to maintain grammatical coherence and logical flow. If a section of an existing statute is being repealed and replaced with entirely new text, the amendment must explicitly state this. The principle of “strikeout” for deleted language and underlining for new language is a standard drafting convention in many jurisdictions, including New Hampshire, to visually distinguish changes. When a bill proposes to amend a specific subsection of a statute, such as RSA 151:1, II, the amendment must precisely target that subsection. If the amendment involves adding new text to the end of that subsection, it must be clearly indicated as an addition to the existing text of RSA 151:1, II, without implying a replacement of the entire subsection unless explicitly stated. The core concept is to make the intended changes unambiguous to other legislators, the public, and the judiciary. Therefore, an amendment that proposes to add language to the end of RSA 151:1, II, would be properly drafted by specifying the addition to that particular subsection.

The core of this question lies in understanding the distinction between an enrolled bill and a bill that has passed both houses of the New Hampshire legislature but has not yet been signed by the governor or otherwise become law. An enrolled bill is the final, official version of a bill that has successfully navigated the legislative process, including passage by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and has been prepared for the governor’s action. It represents the text as it will be presented for signature or veto. In New Hampshire, RSA 14:11 outlines the process for enrollment and presentation of bills to the governor. A bill that has passed both chambers but is awaiting enrollment or gubernatorial action is still technically a bill, not an enrolled bill. Therefore, a bill that has passed the New Hampshire House and Senate but is awaiting the Governor’s signature is in the process of becoming law but has not yet reached the status of an enrolled bill. The distinction is crucial in legislative drafting and procedure as it marks a specific stage in the bill’s journey to becoming an act. The process involves the engrossment of the bill, which is the incorporation of amendments and its final form for legislative approval, followed by enrollment, which is the preparation of the final text for executive action.

The scenario describes a situation where a bill, HB 123, has passed both the New Hampshire House of Representatives and the New Hampshire Senate. The bill has been presented to the Governor, who has ten days (excluding Sundays) to act on it. Assuming the bill was presented on a Monday, we need to determine the latest date the Governor can sign it into law without it becoming law by default. Let’s assume the bill was presented on Monday, October 16th. The ten-day period begins the day after presentation. Day 1: Tuesday, October 17th Day 2: Wednesday, October 18th Day 3: Thursday, October 19th Day 4: Friday, October 20th Day 5: Saturday, October 21st Sunday, October 22nd is excluded. Day 6: Monday, October 23rd Day 7: Tuesday, October 24th Day 8: Wednesday, October 25th Day 9: Thursday, October 26th Day 10: Friday, October 27th Therefore, the Governor must sign the bill by Friday, October 27th. If the Governor does not sign it by this date, and it is not returned with objections within this ten-day period, the bill becomes law without the Governor’s signature. This mechanism is outlined in Article 5, Section 5 of the New Hampshire Constitution, which governs the Governor’s veto power and the process by which a bill becomes law without signature. The drafting of legislation must account for these constitutional timelines to ensure proper enactment.

In New Hampshire, the process of amending the state constitution involves distinct steps that require legislative action and voter approval. Article VI of the New Hampshire Constitution outlines the amendment process. An amendment can be proposed by either the House of Representatives or the Senate. If a proposed amendment receives the support of two-thirds of the members of the house in which it originated, it is then transmitted to the other house. The second house must then also approve the amendment by a two-thirds vote. Following this legislative approval, the proposed amendment must be published in at least one newspaper in each county of the state, and it must be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection at the next biennial state election. For the amendment to be adopted, it must receive the affirmative vote of a majority of the voters who vote on the question. Therefore, the final adoption hinges on a majority vote of the electorate, not a supermajority of the legislature at the final stage. The legislative approval requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers, but the ratification by the people requires a simple majority of those voting on the specific question.

The New Hampshire General Court operates under a bicameral system. The House of Representatives, with its larger membership, often initiates revenue-raising bills. However, the New Hampshire Constitution, specifically Article 5, grants the Senate the power to originate any bill. When a bill is passed by one chamber and sent to the other, the receiving chamber has several options: concur with the amendments, reject the bill, or propose its own amendments. If the second chamber amends the bill, it must then be returned to the originating chamber for concurrence. If the originating chamber does not concur with the amendments made by the second chamber, a conference committee can be formed, comprised of members from both chambers, to attempt to reconcile the differences. If the conference committee reaches an agreement, their report is submitted to both chambers for a final vote. If either chamber rejects the conference committee report, or if the committee cannot reach an agreement, the bill typically fails. Therefore, a bill originating in the House that is amended by the Senate and then not concurred with by the House will not become law unless a conference committee successfully resolves the differences and both chambers approve the conference report.

In New Hampshire, when a bill is passed by both houses of the legislature and presented to the governor, the governor has a specific period to act. If the governor neither approves nor vetoes the bill within five days of its presentation, excluding Sundays, the bill becomes law without the governor’s signature. This is outlined in Article 44 of the New Hampshire Constitution. The legislative drafting process must account for these constitutional provisions regarding the bill’s journey after passage. Understanding this timeline is crucial for ensuring that legislative intent is properly enacted and that procedural requirements are met, preventing potential legal challenges or ambiguities in the final statute. The drafter must be aware of how the governor’s inaction can lead to a bill becoming law, a process distinct from direct gubernatorial approval or veto.

The scenario involves a proposed amendment to New Hampshire RSA 21-J:31, which governs the taxation of business profits. The amendment seeks to clarify the definition of “gross business profits” by specifically excluding gains from the sale of intangible personal property where the seller’s primary business operations are not demonstrably linked to the creation or management of that property. For instance, if a New Hampshire-based software development company, whose core business is creating and marketing software, sells its patent for a new algorithm, this gain would likely be considered part of its business profits under the existing statute. However, if a manufacturing firm, whose primary operations involve producing physical goods, sells a minority stake in a publicly traded technology company that it acquired as a passive investment years ago, the amendment aims to exclude this gain from taxation under RSA 21-J:31. This exclusion is based on the principle that such gains do not arise from the direct conduct of the manufacturing business itself. The drafting challenge is to ensure the language clearly distinguishes between gains derived from active business operations and those from passive investment or unrelated asset disposition, without creating loopholes or undue complexity. The proposed language focuses on the nexus between the property sold and the taxpayer’s principal business activities, requiring a demonstrable link to the creation, development, or active management of the intangible asset. This approach aligns with the legislative intent to tax profits directly attributable to the conduct of business within New Hampshire.

The core principle being tested here is the proper application of legislative intent and statutory construction, specifically concerning the amendment process in New Hampshire. When a bill proposes to amend an existing statute, the drafting must clearly indicate which sections are being altered, added, or repealed. The New Hampshire Manual for Legislators and the Rules of the General Court provide detailed guidance on this. Specifically, proposed amendments should use underlining for new material and strikethrough for deleted material to ensure clarity for both legislators and the public. This method visually distinguishes changes from the existing text, facilitating an accurate understanding of the bill’s impact. Failure to use these conventions can lead to ambiguity, misinterpretation, and potential legal challenges regarding the enacted law’s intent and application. Therefore, a bill that omits these visual cues when amending existing statutory language fails to adhere to established drafting standards for clarity and precision, which is crucial for the legislative process in New Hampshire.

The legislative process in New Hampshire, like in other states, involves several stages before a bill becomes law. The question probes the understanding of the procedural steps a bill must undergo after its initial introduction and referral to a committee in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. Specifically, it focuses on the actions a committee can take and the subsequent procedural pathway if the committee recommends passage. When a bill is reported favorably by a committee in the New Hampshire House, it is typically engrossed, meaning it is printed in its final form as amended by the committee. Following engrossment, the bill is then read a second time and placed on the calendar for a third reading and final passage vote. This sequence of engrossment, second reading, and then third reading is a fundamental procedural requirement designed to ensure thorough review and allow for further debate and amendment before a final vote on passage. Other options describe steps that occur earlier or later in the process, or are not standard procedural outcomes of a committee’s favorable report. For instance, a bill might be referred to another committee, but that is not the immediate next step after a favorable report from the first committee. A bill being sent directly to the Governor for signature would bypass the legislative floor process, which is not the standard procedure. Similarly, a bill being sent to the Senate for concurrence is a step that happens after passage in one chamber, not immediately after a committee report in the originating chamber. Therefore, the correct procedural sequence after a committee’s favorable report in the New Hampshire House is engrossment, followed by second reading, and then placement on the calendar for third reading.

The scenario describes a legislative proposal in New Hampshire concerning the regulation of drone usage for commercial purposes. The core issue is the potential conflict between the state’s authority to regulate activities within its borders and the federal government’s exclusive authority over airspace management, as established by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) Chapter 422, “Aeronautics,” grants the state broad powers to regulate aviation within the state, including the licensing of airports and the registration of aircraft. However, federal law, specifically 49 U.S. Code § 40102(a)(2), defines navigable airspace as extending from the ground up to a specified altitude, placing its management under federal purview. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 further clarified federal authority over drone operations, including beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) and operations over people. Therefore, any state legislation attempting to dictate operational parameters for drones that directly conflict with or attempt to usurp federal regulatory authority over airspace would likely be preempted. While New Hampshire can regulate aspects of drone operation that primarily affect state interests, such as privacy or land use, it cannot establish its own air traffic control system or impose requirements that contradict federal airspace regulations. The proposed bill’s attempt to mandate specific flight altitudes and operational zones for commercial drones, without explicit federal delegation or alignment with FAA rules, encroaches upon federal authority. The correct approach for New Hampshire would be to focus on areas not preempted by federal law, such as data privacy, trespass, or local zoning impacts, rather than attempting to regulate the fundamental aspects of airspace use already under federal control.