New Hampshire · individual fact

New Hampshire budget, debt, and interest

New Hampshire state-government finances, comparable debt and interest figures, and the enacted budget.

The national companion measures federal finances. Here the unit is New Hampshire state government. Federal debt is not allocated to New Hampshire; a state budget is not the federal budget.

State debt outstanding$7.58BFY2024 · #34 of 50 · highest first
Interest expenditure$298.41MFY2024 · #28 of 50 · highest first
Total state tax collections$3.5BFY2024 · #47 of 50 · highest first

New Hampshire over time

Explore New Hampshire readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. New Hampshire officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a New Hampshire effect.

Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a New Hampshire change.

Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear

Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.

No comparable time series is retained for this topic. The chart shows events and reviewed actions; current state comparisons appear below.

New Hampshire government actions New Hampshire · source units

Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.

Events and reviewed actionsNo saved observations in this range.Sep 1, 2005Jul 31, 2026
✦ Major events & context · 50National context · Hurricane Katrina emergency appropriations · 2005-09-08Katrina relief fundingNational context · Medicare prescription drug benefit begins · 2006-01-01Medicare Part D beginsNational context · Iraq and Afghanistan war funding assessment · 2007-07-31War funding assessmentNational context · Economic Stimulus Act tax rebates · 2008-02-132008 tax rebatesNational context · Treasury support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac · 2008-09-07Fannie / Freddie supportNational context · Great Financial Crisis and Great Recession · 2008-09-15Great Financial CrisisNational context · Emergency stabilization law creates TARP · 2008-10-03TARP stabilizationNational context · Federal Reserve cuts rates close to zero · 2008-12-16Fed near-zero ratesNational context · American Recovery and Reinvestment Act · 2009-02-17Recovery ActNational context · Affordable Care Act changes health financing · 2010-03-23Health-care financing lawNational context · Tax extensions and payroll-tax relief · 2010-12-172010 tax / benefit dealNational context · Budget Control Act and debt-limit agreement · 2011-08-022011 budget agreementNational context · S&P lowers the U.S. sovereign credit rating · 2011-08-05S&P rating downgradeNational context · Fiscal-cliff tax agreement · 2013-01-02Fiscal-cliff agreementNational context · Automatic federal spending cuts begin · 2013-03-01Federal spending cutsNational context · Shutdown ends and debt limit is suspended · 2013-10-172013 funding / debt dealNational context · Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 · 2013-12-262013 budget caps dealNational context · Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 · 2015-11-022015 budget / debt dealNational context · Fed begins lifting rates after the crisis · 2015-12-16Fed rate normalizationNational context · 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act · 2017-12-222017 tax lawNational context · Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 · 2018-02-092018 budget / debt dealNational context · 2018–19 partial government shutdown · 2018-12-222018–19 funding lapseNational context · Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 · 2019-08-022019 budget / debt dealNational context · COVID-19 pandemic · 2020-03-11COVID-19 pandemicNational context · Emergency rate cuts and Treasury purchases · 2020-03-15Fed pandemic responseNational context · CARES Act pandemic relief · 2020-03-27CARES Act reliefNational context · Further pandemic relief and annual funding · 2020-12-27December pandemic reliefNational context · American Rescue Plan · 2021-03-11American Rescue PlanNational context · Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act · 2021-11-15Infrastructure fundingNational context · Congress raises the debt limit after two impasses · 2021-12-162021 debt-limit increaseNational context · Federal Reserve begins 2022 rate increases · 2022-03-16Fed rate increasesNational context · Semiconductor funding and investment credits · 2022-08-09CHIPS fundingNational context · PACT Act expands veterans’ benefits · 2022-08-10Veterans’ benefits expansionNational context · Inflation Reduction Act changes taxes and spending · 2022-08-16Energy / health / tax lawNational context · Student-loan cancellation cost recorded · 2022-09-30Loan-cost accountingNational context · Inflation and rates raise interest costs above forecasts · 2023-01-09Inflation / interest costsNational context · Fed reports suspension of Treasury payments · 2023-01-13Fed payments suspendedNational context · Disaster tax deadlines move into the next fiscal year · 2023-02-24Disaster tax deferralsNational context · Fiscal Responsibility Act · 2023-06-032023 debt-limit agreementNational context · Fitch lowers the U.S. sovereign credit rating · 2023-08-01Fitch rating downgradeNational context · Student-loan cost reversal lowers recorded outlays · 2023-08-31Loan-cost reversalNational context · National security supplemental funding · 2024-04-24Security supplementalNational context · Federal Reserve begins 2024 rate cuts · 2024-09-182024 Fed rate cutsNational context · Social Security Fairness Act becomes law · 2025-01-05Social Security benefitsNational context · Treasury begins extraordinary measures · 2025-01-21Debt-limit measuresNational context · Broad U.S. tariff announcement · 2025-04-02Tariffs / customs receiptsNational context · Moody’s lowers the U.S. sovereign credit rating · 2025-05-16Moody’s rating downgradeNational context · 2025 tax and spending reconciliation law · 2025-07-042025 tax / spending lawNational context · 2025 federal government shutdown · 2025-10-012025 funding lapseNational context · Supreme Court rejects IEEPA tariff authority · 2026-02-20Tariff authority ruling● New Hampshire Legislature · 2● U.S. Congress · New Hampshire delegation · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.◆ Governor · 2■ New Hampshire agencies · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.2005-09-012026-07-31

4 of 4 reviewed New Hampshire actions match · 4 date markers shown. 50 major events shown separately.

How major events are selected

The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.

Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.

New Hampshire · state comparison

State debt and interest

Compare state-government balances and interest expenditure from the same Census fiscal-year survey.

New Hampshire · FY2024$7.58B
New Hampshire rank#34among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$1.1TSame measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

State debt outstanding

Long-term debt outstanding plus short-term debt outstanding at fiscal year end.

State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. Excludes local-government debt. Dollar ranks describe scale, not credit quality.

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. New Hampshire stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. New Hampshire has a dark outline.

Lower value · $728.59MHigher value · $166.39BStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

New Hampshire · $7.58BFY2024 · Rank #34 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare New Hampshire with every state · 50 ranked
State debt outstanding · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1California$166.39B—
#2New York$120.59B—
#3Texas$70.05B—
#4Massachusetts$65.87B—
#5New Jersey$57.23B—
#6Pennsylvania$48.67B—
#7Illinois$43.38B—
#8Virginia$33.73B—
#9Connecticut$33.27B—
#10Ohio$32.29B—
#11Washington$30.62B—
#12Maryland$25.9B—
#13Michigan$25.02B—
#14Colorado$23.57B—
#15Wisconsin$22.79B—
#16Florida$20.14B—
#17Minnesota$17.03B—
#18Oregon$16.91B—
#19Louisiana$16.09B—
#20South Carolina$15.36B—
#21West Virginia$15.08B—
#22Georgia$14.05B—
#23North Carolina$13.13B—
#24Hawaii$11.72B—
#25Rhode Island$11.41B—
#26Alabama$10.99B—
#27Oklahoma$10.15B—
#28Kentucky$10.08B—
#29Tennessee$9.03B—
#30Indiana$8.52B—
#31Iowa$8.06B—
#32Arkansas$8.05B—
#33Mississippi$7.72B—
#34New Hampshire · your comparison$7.58B—
#35Kansas$7.16B—
#36New Mexico$7.12B—
#37Missouri$6.99B—
#38Arizona$6.88B—
#39Alaska$5.72B—
#40Utah$5.55B—
#41Maine$5.3B—
#42North Dakota$4.89B—
#43South Dakota$4.67B—
#44Delaware$3.69B—
#45Nebraska$3.39B—
#46Nevada$2.89B—
#47Montana$2.76B—
#48Vermont$2.67B—
#49Wyoming$1.26B—
#50Idaho$728.59M—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

New Hampshire · state comparison

Where state revenue comes from

All measures use Census state-government records for FY2024. Categories describe collections; they do not rank statutory tax rates.

New Hampshire · FY2024$0
New Hampshire rank#47among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$465.4BSame measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

General sales-tax collections

Census category T09.

State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. New Hampshire stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. New Hampshire has a dark outline.

Lower value · $0Higher value · $54.35BStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

New Hampshire · $0FY2024 · Rank #47 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare New Hampshire with every state · 50 ranked
General sales-tax collections · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Texas$54.35B—
#2California$53.33B—
#3Florida$40.09B—
#4Washington$22.81B—
#5New York$19.99B—
#6Ohio$16.33B—
#7Illinois$16.05B—
#8Pennsylvania$15.6B—
#9New Jersey$14.31B—
#10Tennessee$14.08B—
#11Arizona$13.16B—
#12Michigan$12.7B—
#13North Carolina$12.16B—
#14Indiana$10.96B—
#15Massachusetts$9.4B—
#16Georgia$9.01B—
#17Minnesota$8.49B—
#18Nevada$8.4B—
#19Wisconsin$7.59B—
#20Virginia$7.4B—
#21Maryland$6.85B—
#22South Carolina$6.44B—
#23Connecticut$6.23B—
#24Kentucky$5.8B—
#25Missouri$5.26B—
#26Mississippi$5.07B—
#27Arkansas$5.07B—
#28Louisiana$4.87B—
#29Hawaii$4.79B—
#30Colorado$4.67B—
#31Iowa$4.64B—
#32Utah$4.63B—
#33Alabama$4.59B—
#34Kansas$4.33B—
#35New Mexico$4.33B—
#36Oklahoma$3.81B—
#37Idaho$3.09B—
#38Nebraska$2.97B—
#39Maine$2.35B—
#40West Virginia$1.82B—
#41South Dakota$1.68B—
#42Rhode Island$1.63B—
#43Oregon$1.34B—
#44North Dakota$1.32B—
#45Wyoming$1.01B—
#46Vermont$597.33M—
#47Alaska$0—
#47Delaware$0—
#47Montana$0—
#47New Hampshire · your comparison$0—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

New Hampshire · state comparison

Where state operating spending goes

Census categories allow consistent comparisons. These selected categories are not a breakdown of the current New Hampshire appropriations act.

New Hampshire · FY2024$2.72B
New Hampshire rank#46among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$1.02TSame measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Public welfare current operations

Current operations for public welfare institutions and other public welfare, excluding capital and transfers.

State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. New Hampshire stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. New Hampshire has a dark outline.

Lower value · $1.09BHigher value · $156.71BStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

New Hampshire · $2.72BFY2024 · Rank #46 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare New Hampshire with every state · 50 ranked
Public welfare current operations · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1California$156.71B—
#2New York$97.35B—
#3Texas$57.32B—
#4Illinois$41.13B—
#5Florida$40.11B—
#6Ohio$39.77B—
#7Pennsylvania$39.34B—
#8Massachusetts$34.12B—
#9North Carolina$30.64B—
#10New Jersey$28.06B—
#11Arizona$26.02B—
#12Michigan$24.37B—
#13Virginia$23.68B—
#14Minnesota$23.37B—
#15Indiana$22.93B—
#16Maryland$21.61B—
#17Kentucky$20.54B—
#18Oregon$20.47B—
#19Washington$19.6B—
#20Georgia$18.99B—
#21Louisiana$18.69B—
#22Tennessee$16.42B—
#23Wisconsin$16.26B—
#24Missouri$15.65B—
#25Oklahoma$14.57B—
#26Colorado$13.6B—
#27South Carolina$12.84B—
#28New Mexico$10.72B—
#29Iowa$10.26B—
#30Alabama$9.73B—
#31Arkansas$8.67B—
#32Mississippi$8.08B—
#33Utah$6.91B—
#34Kansas$6.84B—
#35Nevada$6.62B—
#36West Virginia$6.24B—
#37Maine$5.7B—
#38Nebraska$4.97B—
#39Connecticut$4.88B—
#40Rhode Island$4.54B—
#41Hawaii$4.14B—
#42Delaware$3.97B—
#43Idaho$3.73B—
#44Alaska$3.27B—
#45Montana$2.89B—
#46New Hampshire · your comparison$2.72B—
#47Vermont$2.69B—
#48North Dakota$2.09B—
#49South Dakota$1.95B—
#50Wyoming$1.09B—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

New Hampshire · state comparison

State operating costs and the enacted budget

The enacted plan, spending categories and audited activity use different periods and accounting scopes; they are kept separate.

New Hampshire · FY2024$7.12B
New Hampshire rank#45among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$2.04TSame measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Current operation expenditure

Sum of Census current-operation expenditure categories, excluding capital outlay, interest, and assistance/subsidy expenditure.

State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. This FY2024 comparison differs in scope and period from New Hampshire’s FY2027 appropriations and Fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 audit shown below.

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. New Hampshire stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. New Hampshire has a dark outline.

Lower value · $4.01BHigher value · $287.03BStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

New Hampshire · $7.12BFY2024 · Rank #45 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare New Hampshire with every state · 50 ranked
Current operation expenditure · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1California$287.03B—
#2New York$161.37B—
#3Texas$136.18B—
#4Florida$86.61B—
#5Pennsylvania$77.15B—
#6Illinois$75.67B—
#7Ohio$66.77B—
#8New Jersey$64.53B—
#9Massachusetts$61.38B—
#10North Carolina$59.01B—
#11Michigan$57.27B—
#12Virginia$53.45B—
#13Washington$49.82B—
#14Georgia$45.19B—
#15Maryland$45.06B—
#16Oregon$41.41B—
#17Arizona$38.71B—
#18Minnesota$38.1B—
#19Indiana$37.4B—
#20Kentucky$36.94B—
#21Wisconsin$34.5B—
#22Missouri$34.43B—
#23South Carolina$32.85B—
#24Colorado$32.73B—
#25Louisiana$31.67B—
#26Tennessee$31.12B—
#27Alabama$26.99B—
#28Oklahoma$24.28B—
#29Utah$22.7B—
#30New Mexico$21.94B—
#31Connecticut$21.22B—
#32Iowa$19.89B—
#33Kansas$18.39B—
#34Hawaii$16.62B—
#35Mississippi$16.46B—
#36Arkansas$16.28B—
#37West Virginia$13.19B—
#38Nevada$12.43B—
#39Nebraska$10.41B—
#40Maine$10.12B—
#41Delaware$9.24B—
#42Rhode Island$8.93B—
#43Alaska$8.4B—
#44Idaho$8.21B—
#45New Hampshire · your comparison$7.12B—
#46Montana$6.44B—
#47Vermont$6.28B—
#48North Dakota$5.63B—
#49South Dakota$4.55B—
#50Wyoming$4.01B—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

FY2027 · Enacted as Chapter 140

Enacted appropriations

$8.3B

Gross FY2027 operating appropriations in the chaptered HB 1 across the General, Education Trust, federal, Highway, Turnpike, Liquor, Fish and Game, Sweepstakes, and other funds. The Legislature's category tables separately subtract $313,884,010 of budgeted revenue transfers to report a $7,957,596,015 net total; capital-budget authorizations and appropriations enacted outside HB 1 are excluded.

Where State tax revenue comes from

FY2025 ACFR actual

Shares of the $2.834 billion in six tax categories reported as general revenue for New Hampshire's governmental activities. Charges for services, grants, interest, miscellaneous revenue, and business-type activity are excluded from this tax-only chart.

Business income taxes
$1.1B · 37.3%
Special taxes
$729.5M · 25.7%
General property taxes
$417.4M · 14.7%
Meals and rentals tax
$257.6M · 9.1%
Business license taxes
$188.2M · 6.6%
Personal taxes
$184.1M · 6.5%

FY2027 operating budget by category of government

FY2027 enacted all-funds operating budget

The six official category totals in the chaptered HB 1. These are gross appropriations before the separate deduction for budgeted revenue transfers, and they reconcile exactly to the $8.271 billion headline.

Health and social services
$3.6B · 43.8%
Education
$1.8B · 21.3%
Administration of justice and public protection
$958.5M · 11.6%
Transportation
$793.3M · 9.6%
General government
$658.3M · 8%
Resource protection and development
$473.3M · 5.7%

What candidates are saying

Explore statements about budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt from FactVote’s New Hampshire candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.

7 statements from 3 candidates

2026 New Hampshire Governor General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

2026 New Hampshire U.S. House - District 2 General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 5 statements

Lily Tang Williams

5 statements

Republican · U.S. House District 2 · NH

Budgets, spending & debt

Fight for a Balanced Budget Amendment so Washington finally lives within its means.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Economy, taxes, spending, and affordability

Candidate campaign source

Fight for a Balanced Budget Amendment so Washington finally lives within its means.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Lily Tang Williams — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
View 4 more statements from Lily Tang Williams
Budgets, spending & debt

Cut wasteful spending, eliminate corporate welfare and pork-barrel projects, and stop the deficits that devalue our dollars.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Economy, taxes, spending, and affordability

Candidate campaign source

Cut wasteful spending, eliminate corporate welfare and pork-barrel projects, and stop the deficits that devalue our dollars.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Lily Tang Williams — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
Budgets, spending & debt

Implement Senator Paul’s “Six Penny Plan: Cut 6 cents off every dollar the federal government spends each year until the budget is balanced after 5 years. This simple, straightforward approach forces real spending discipline across the board without Washington picking winners and losers.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Economy, taxes, spending, and affordability

Candidate campaign source

Implement Senator Paul’s “Six Penny Plan: Cut 6 cents off every dollar the federal government spends each year until the budget is balanced after 5 years. This simple, straightforward approach forces real spending discipline across the board without Washington picking winners and losers.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Lily Tang Williams — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
Budgets, spending & debt

End Funding by Continuing Resolutions (CRs) — Mandate on-time, full-year budgets to eliminate the annual cycle of government dysfunction, last-minute crises, and shutdown threats that hurt families and small businesses.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Democracy, ethics, and government accountability

Candidate campaign source

End Funding by Continuing Resolutions (CRs) — Mandate on-time, full-year budgets to eliminate the annual cycle of government dysfunction, last-minute crises, and shutdown threats that hurt families and small businesses.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Lily Tang Williams — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Budgets, spending & debt

For Granite Staters across the 2nd District, affording basics needs like groceries and fuel are at the top-of-mind this year. Life is getting way too expensive, way too quickly. While inflation has subsided greatly from the sustained levels during the last presidential administration, there is more …

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Economy, taxes, spending, and affordability

Candidate campaign source

For Granite Staters across the 2nd District, affording basics needs like groceries and fuel are at the top-of-mind this year. Life is getting way too expensive, way too quickly. While inflation has subsided greatly from the sustained levels during the last presidential administration, there is more work to be done amid positive geopolitical pressures.Let me be clear: my #1 priority when getting to Washington, DC to serve as your congresswoman is to work tirelessly every single day to drive down costs for ordinary New Hampshire folks.To that end, I will put more pressure to get special interests, corporations, and the Federal government out of managing the economy. Instead of pushing for public-private partnerships and regulations that seem only to end up helping politically-connected big players, I will endeavor to remove subsidies and red tape for all businesses, large and small, unleashing true market competition. We must allow the free market to thrive. Only then, do costs come down and real job growth and real prosperity naturally follow.Also, the cost of energy has a huge impact on the prices we pay for so many things. We must declare energy freedom and allow access, with appropriate mechanisms to control pollution, to all of our available resources: nuclear, oil, solar, coal, and wind. We should not be in an either/or political fight amongst ourselves on which energy sources to promote. Artificial energy restrictions not only do not make sense for national security (dependence on other countries), but it further divides and impoverishes the country.Lastly, plain and simple, the government must reduce its spending; we must grow the economy and start paying down the national debt. Our children and grandchildren will thank us.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Lily Tang Williams — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗

2026 New Hampshire U.S. Senate General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

How statements are selected

This section matches specific budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt terms in retained, attributed source text from published New Hampshire candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.

Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.

New Hampshire incumbents

What incumbents are proposing

Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current New Hampshire legislators and New Hampshire’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from New Hampshire’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.

3 matching sponsorships or proposals · 3 New Hampshire incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.

Rep. Bob J. Lynn

New Hampshire House of Representatives, Rockingham 17 · R–NH

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Bob J. Lynn
New Hampshire Legislature · HB 365

relative to proof of United States citizenship for indigent voters.

May 18, 2026 · Enacted · Chapter 68

Rep. Bob J. Lynn · Sponsored / Sen. James P. Gray · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 365 directs officials, on request, to attempt database verification for people claiming voting qualifications who lack citizenship documents, with an election-day workload exception. Successful verification satisfies the citizenship criterion and must be recorded on the registration application. If verification fails, an applicant asserting indigency may be asked for a financial affidavit and may receive a voucher under the secretary of state’s indigency criteria. The applicant remains responsible for obtaining a birth certificate or equivalent proof and providing it to local election officials on or before election day. The law appropriates $50,000 for municipal voucher reimbursement for the biennium ending June 30, 2027 and took effect July 17, 2026. It does not waive citizenship or other voting qualifications or establish increased turnout.

Chapter 68, approved 2026-05-18. Approval, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.

Why this record is included

Registered-voter turnout divides ballots cast by registered voters. Registration-document procedures concern access to registration and the denominator, without establishing that participation increased or that the earlier turnout changed. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained New Hampshire evidence context: Registered-voter turnout. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

68:1 New Paragraph; Voter Identification; Proof of Citizenship. Amend RSA 654:12 by inserting after paragraph II the following new paragraph: II-a.(a) If a person claiming to be qualified to vote is unable to provide reasonable documentation establishing that the person is a citizen of the United States, at the request of such person, the supervisors of the checklist, the city or town clerk, or other authorized election official shall attempt to confirm the person’s citizenship through the office of the secretary of state. The secretary of state shall make reasonable efforts to determine whether the person is a United States citizen by accessing relevant and available in-state, out-of-state, and federal databases that contain such information. However, if the request to verify citizenship status is made on election day, neither local election officials nor the secretary of state shall be required to expend such time or effort on citizenship verification as would unreasonably interfere with their other election day duties. If the person’s United States citizenship is verified, the secretary of state shall notify the local election official, and the citizenship criteria for voting shall be deemed satisfied. The local official shall then note on the person’s voter registration application form “U.S. citizenship verified” and shall indicate on the form the date and the basis upon which such verification was made. (b) If a person claiming to be qualified to vote asserts that he or she is unable due to indigency to provide documentation to establish that he or she is a United States citizen, and if efforts to verify the person’s citizenship pursuant to subparagraph (a) are not successful, the city or town clerk or the secretary of state may request such person to complete a financial affidavit on a form developed for this purpose by the secretary of state. If, based upon criteria established by the secretary of state, it appears that the person qualifies as indigent, the clerk or the secretary may provide the person with a voucher sufficient to cover the cost for the person to obtain a certified copy of the person’s birth certificate or other equivalent documentation to establish the person’s status as a United States citizen. The person shall be specifically informed that it is the person’s responsibility to communicate with the appropriate vital records agency in the state of the person’s birth and to use the funds provided through the voucher to pay any required fee to obtain the person’s birth certificate or equivalent proof of citizenship, and that such documentation shall be provided to the local election officials on or before the day of the election in order for the person to satisfy the citizenship criteria for voting. The secretary of state shall reimburse local municipalities for the costs of all vouchers issued by city or town clerks pursuant to this subparagraph. 68:2 Appropriation; Secretary of State. There is hereby appropriated to the secretary of state the sum of $50,000 for the biennium ending June 30, 2027, for the purpose of reimbursing local municipalities for the costs of vouchers to pay any required fee to obtain a potential voter's birth certificate or equivalent proof of citizenship under RSA 654:12, II-a(b). The governor is authorized to draw a warrant for said sums out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated. 68:3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Joe Sweeney

New Hampshire House of Representatives, Rockingham 25 · R–NH

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Joe Sweeney
New Hampshire Legislature · HB 1588

(Second New Title) relative to the regulation of accessory parking for vehicles by local legislative bodies and multifamily housing within commercial districts by municipalities; establishing special assessment districts; and relative to expanding the housing infrastructure municipal grant program and making an appropriation therefor.

Jul 15, 2026 · Enacted · Chapter 329

Rep. Joe Sweeney · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 1588 bars municipalities from requiring more than one residential parking space per unit or requiring that space to be garaged. Its multifamily provisions preserve site-plan review and state safety requirements, limit frontage, setback and height rules to those allowed for commercial development, permit qualifying conversions of nonconforming structures, and provide reasonable attorney-fee reimbursement for the specified improper denials or extra requirements. Infrastructure assessment districts require agreements with 60% of properties’ owners; assessments apply only to directly benefited properties and cannot exceed the special benefit received, with installments limited to 20 years. It expands housing-infrastructure grants to sewer, water and road upgrades but appropriates only $1 for fiscal 2027. Contingencies govern alternative section numbering and multifamily provisions. Most provisions take effect September 13, 2026; the law does not establish completed housing or lower rents.

Chapter 329, approved 2026-07-15. Approval, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.

Why this record is included

Median gross rent includes contract rent and estimated tenant-paid utilities. Multifamily development and infrastructure rules concern rental supply and costs, without demonstrating new rental units or a change in median rent. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained New Hampshire evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

329:1 Zoning; Grant of Power; Parking Ordinances. Amend RSA 674:16, VII to read as follows: VII. In its exercise of the powers granted under this subdivision, the local legislative body of a city, town, or county in which there are located unincorporated towns or unorganized places may regulate accessory parking for vehicles, but shall not require more than one residential parking space per unit or require that the parking space per unit be garaged. 329:2 Multi-Family Residential Development on Commercially Zoned Land; Amendment to Zoning Regulations; Conversion of Multi-Family Dwelling Units Permitted. Amend RSA 674:80, IV to read as follows: IV. [] Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter municipal authority under RSA 674:43, I to require site plan review for multi-family dwelling units. Consistent with the purpose of this section, for multi-family dwelling units proposed in commercial districts existing, created, or expanded after July 1, 2026, municipalities may impose frontage, setbacks, and height requirements; provided that such requirements shall not differ from what is allowed for commercial development. Multi-family dwelling units shall be allowed as a matter of right, and municipalities shall not enforce additional requirements unless expressly authorized by this section. Nothing in this section shall prohibit enforcement of applicable state fire, building, and other requirements under RSA 153, RSA 155-A, and RSA 485-A. V. A municipality shall allow pre-existing nonconforming structures to be converted to multi-family dwelling units or mixed use provided that the structure’s envelope is not altered to further violate zoning district dimensional requirements. VI. Any owner of commercially-zoned property improperly denied an application for multi-family housing, or who is subjected to requirements beyond those allowed in this section, and who is thereby required to file suit against the municipality in order to exercise the property rights thus recognized, shall be entitled to be reimbursed reasonable attorney's fees incurred as a direct result. 329:3 New Chapter; Special Assessment Districts. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 162-U the following new chapter:CHAPTER 162-VSPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS 162-V:1 Authority. The governing body of any city or town may enter into special assessment memorandums of understanding with 60 percent of properties' owners to establish special assessment districts and spending programs for the purpose of financing public infrastructure improvements necessary to serve new development. 162-V:2 Improvements Authorized. I. Infrastructure improvements eligible for financing under this chapter shall include: (a) Roads, sidewalks, street lighting, and traffic control devices; (b) Water mains, sewer lines, stormwater management facilities, and related appurtenances; (c) Utility extensions directly serving the district; and (d) Streetscape or parking improvements incidental to development. II. General government buildings, schools, or facilities that do not directly and specially benefit parcels within the district shall not be financed under this chapter. 162-V:3 Apportionment of Costs. I. Assessments shall be levied only against properties that receive a direct and ascertainable benefit from the improvements. II. The governing body shall determine the method of apportionment, which may include frontage, lot size, number of units, assessed value, or other reasonable metric. III. No parcel shall be assessed in an amount greater than the special benefit conferred upon it. 162-V:4 Financing. I. Municipalities may issue bonds to finance improvements within the district, to be repaid solely from assessments levied under this chapter. II. Assessments may be collected in annual installments over a period not to exceed 20 years. III. Assessments shall constitute a lien on the property with the same priority and enforcement as property taxes. 162-V:5 Procedure. I. Establishment of a district shall require the governing body of any city or town to enter into special assessment memorandums of understanding with 60 percent of properties' owners. II. Notice of the proposed district shall be mailed to each affected property owner and published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 14 days prior to the hearing. 162-V:6 Appeals. Any property owner subject to an assessment may appeal the apportionment of costs to the governing body within 30 days of notice, and thereafter to the superior court pursuant to RSA 677. 162-V:7 Dissolution. A district shall dissolve upon repayment of all obligations or earlier by vote of the governing body, provided all costs have been satisfied. 329:4 Department of Business and Economic Affairs; Expansion of Housing Infrastructure Municipal Grant Program. The department of business and economic affairs shall expand its housing infrastructure municipal grant program to allow for sewer, water, and road upgrades for new housing units. 329:5 Department of Business and Economic Affairs, Appropriation. The sum of $1 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2027 is hereby appropriated to the department of business and economic affairs for the purpose of providing grants for sewer, water, and road upgrades for new housing units under its housing infrastructure municipal grant program. The governor is authorized to draw a warrant for said sums out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated. 329:6 Multi-Family Residential Development on Commercially Zoned Land; Amendment to Zoning Regulations; Conversion of Multi-Family Dwelling Units Permitted. Amend RSA 674:80, V to read as follows: V. [] Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter municipal authority under RSA 674:43, I to require site plan review for multi-family dwelling units. Consistent with the purpose of this section, for multi-family dwelling units proposed in commercial districts existing, created, or expanded after July 1, 2026, municipalities may impose frontage, setbacks, and height requirements; provided that such requirements shall not differ from what is allowed for commercial development. Multi-family dwelling units shall be allowed as a matter of right, and municipalities shall not enforce additional requirements unless expressly authorized by this section. Nothing in this section shall prohibit enforcement of applicable state fire, building, and other requirements under RSA 153, RSA 155-A, and RSA 485-A. VI. A municipality shall allow pre-existing nonconforming structures to be converted to multi-family dwelling units or mixed use provided that the structure’s envelope is not altered to further violate zoning district dimensional requirements. VII. Any owner of commercially-zoned property improperly denied an application for multi-family housing, or who is subjected to requirements beyond those allowed in this section, and who is thereby required to file suit against the municipality in order to exercise the property rights thus recognized, shall be entitled to be reimbursed reasonable attorney's fees incurred as a direct result. 329:7 Contingency. If HB 1010 of the 2026 regular legislative session becomes law, section 2 of this act shall not take effect and section 6 of this act shall take effect 60 days after its passage. If HB 1010 of the 2026 regular legislative session does not become law, section 2 of this act shall take effect 60 days after its passage and section 6 of this act shall not take effect. 329:8 Contingent Renumbering. If HB 1433 of the 2026 regular legislative session becomes law: RSA 162-V as inserted by section 3 of this act shall be renumbered as RSA 162-X. If HB 1433 of the 2026 regular legislative session does not become law: RSA 162-V as inserted by section 3 of this act shall be renumbered as RSA 162-W. 329:9 Effective Date. I. Sections 2 and 6 of this act shall take effect as provided in section 7 of this act. II. The remainder of this act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Sen. James P. Gray

New Hampshire Senate, District 6 · R–NH

1 proposal
View proposals from Sen. James P. Gray
New Hampshire Legislature · HB 365

relative to proof of United States citizenship for indigent voters.

May 18, 2026 · Enacted · Chapter 68

Rep. Bob J. Lynn · Sponsored / Sen. James P. Gray · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 365 directs officials, on request, to attempt database verification for people claiming voting qualifications who lack citizenship documents, with an election-day workload exception. Successful verification satisfies the citizenship criterion and must be recorded on the registration application. If verification fails, an applicant asserting indigency may be asked for a financial affidavit and may receive a voucher under the secretary of state’s indigency criteria. The applicant remains responsible for obtaining a birth certificate or equivalent proof and providing it to local election officials on or before election day. The law appropriates $50,000 for municipal voucher reimbursement for the biennium ending June 30, 2027 and took effect July 17, 2026. It does not waive citizenship or other voting qualifications or establish increased turnout.

Chapter 68, approved 2026-05-18. Approval, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.

Why this record is included

Registered-voter turnout divides ballots cast by registered voters. Registration-document procedures concern access to registration and the denominator, without establishing that participation increased or that the earlier turnout changed. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained New Hampshire evidence context: Registered-voter turnout. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

68:1 New Paragraph; Voter Identification; Proof of Citizenship. Amend RSA 654:12 by inserting after paragraph II the following new paragraph: II-a.(a) If a person claiming to be qualified to vote is unable to provide reasonable documentation establishing that the person is a citizen of the United States, at the request of such person, the supervisors of the checklist, the city or town clerk, or other authorized election official shall attempt to confirm the person’s citizenship through the office of the secretary of state. The secretary of state shall make reasonable efforts to determine whether the person is a United States citizen by accessing relevant and available in-state, out-of-state, and federal databases that contain such information. However, if the request to verify citizenship status is made on election day, neither local election officials nor the secretary of state shall be required to expend such time or effort on citizenship verification as would unreasonably interfere with their other election day duties. If the person’s United States citizenship is verified, the secretary of state shall notify the local election official, and the citizenship criteria for voting shall be deemed satisfied. The local official shall then note on the person’s voter registration application form “U.S. citizenship verified” and shall indicate on the form the date and the basis upon which such verification was made. (b) If a person claiming to be qualified to vote asserts that he or she is unable due to indigency to provide documentation to establish that he or she is a United States citizen, and if efforts to verify the person’s citizenship pursuant to subparagraph (a) are not successful, the city or town clerk or the secretary of state may request such person to complete a financial affidavit on a form developed for this purpose by the secretary of state. If, based upon criteria established by the secretary of state, it appears that the person qualifies as indigent, the clerk or the secretary may provide the person with a voucher sufficient to cover the cost for the person to obtain a certified copy of the person’s birth certificate or other equivalent documentation to establish the person’s status as a United States citizen. The person shall be specifically informed that it is the person’s responsibility to communicate with the appropriate vital records agency in the state of the person’s birth and to use the funds provided through the voucher to pay any required fee to obtain the person’s birth certificate or equivalent proof of citizenship, and that such documentation shall be provided to the local election officials on or before the day of the election in order for the person to satisfy the citizenship criteria for voting. The secretary of state shall reimburse local municipalities for the costs of all vouchers issued by city or town clerks pursuant to this subparagraph. 68:2 Appropriation; Secretary of State. There is hereby appropriated to the secretary of state the sum of $50,000 for the biennium ending June 30, 2027, for the purpose of reimbursing local municipalities for the costs of vouchers to pay any required fee to obtain a potential voter's birth certificate or equivalent proof of citizenship under RSA 654:12, II-a(b). The governor is authorized to draw a warrant for said sums out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated. 68:3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

Only current New Hampshire officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.

Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a New Hampshire statistic. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.