Committee votes 11-9 to send CACR12 — a ban on a personal income tax — to voters after contested debate

The Ways and Means work session on CACR12 concluded with the committee recommending the constitutional amendment to voters by an 11-9 vote. The amendment, advanced as 2026-1134H in executive session, would prohibit the House from adopting a tax on personal or earned income.

Representative Shamberg opened substantive debate, calling the proposal "a bad idea," saying the amendment is ‘‘dangerously vague’’ and warning it would "severely restrict future legislatures" and could "undermine or invalidate existing tax structures." Shamberg said the New Hampshire Constitution "explicitly gives the legislature the full power and authority to raise and spend taxes" (part two, Article 5, as cited in the hearing) and that placing detailed fiscal rules in the constitution would limit government’s ability to respond to changing circumstances.

Proponents framed the measure as a voter-protecting ‘‘guardrail.’’ Representative Smith said the critical issue is procedure: "Should we put the question to the voters?" and urged letting citizens decide. Representative Sod described the constitution as a guardrail against unchecked spending, urging the public vote. Several members emphasized that a change of this kind should require direct voter consent rather than being set by legislators alone.

Opponents warned of unintended fiscal consequences. Representatives Elberger, Elme and others argued the amendment could worsen property-tax burdens and reduce state support for local services. Elme raised concerns the proposal's language — which bars taxes on "wages" and "personal income" while explicitly preserving business taxation — could shift revenue needs onto property taxes or sales taxes. Members cited a state treasurer chart and the example of Claremont’s $5 million school deficit and a newly negotiated superintendent package (cited in committee remarks at roughly $218,500 first-year compensation including stipend) as evidence local budgets already strain property taxpayers.

Legal clarity was a recurring point of contention. Multiple speakers questioned the phrase "earned personal income" and whether ambiguity could invite litigation or unexpected interpretations (members referenced Citizens United in a broader discussion about corporate personhood and legal definitions), while others noted the amendment’s text attempts to exempt business or corporate taxes.

After extended debate the chair closed the work session and opened executive session. Representative Ellery moved adoption of amendment 2026-1134H; Representative Murphy seconded. The committee proceeded to roll-call voting. The clerk recorded 11 votes in favor and 9 opposed; the chair announced the amendment and the committee OTPA recommendation passed 11-9.

The committee directed staff to prepare majority and minority reports and moved on to scheduling. The chair scheduled public hearings and an executive session for Monday the 4th on two Senate bills, and adjourned the meeting.

What happens next: With the committee’s OTPA recommendation, CACR12 will be reported out of committee and, if the legislative process continues as typical for constitutional amendment proposals, the amendment would be placed on a ballot for voters to approve or reject at a subsequent election.