At the New Boston town meeting deliberative session held on February 3, 2025 the voters had before them a petitioned warrant article, PWA 31, that sought the adoption of a municipal tax cap under the provisions of RSA 32:5-b. Since New Boston has adopted the Official Ballot Referenda form of meeting, SB 2, at the deliberative session the voters could only discuss, debate and possibly amend warrant articles. However, as provided in RSA 40:13, IV (a) “Warrant articles whose wording is prescribed by law shall not be amended.” The statute governing the adoption of a tax cap, RSA 32:5-c, IV states that:
IV. The wording of the question shall be: "Shall we adopt the provisions of RSA 32:5-b, and implement a tax cap whereby the governing body (or budget committee) shall not submit a recommended budget that increases the amount to be raised by local taxes, based on the prior fiscal year's actual amount of local taxes raised, by more than _______ (insert either a fixed dollar amount or a fixed percentage)?"
The moderator announced at the meeting that since PWA 31 was an article whose language was prescribed by law that it could not be amended at the deliberative session. As a result, voters participating in the first session did not attempt to amend PWA 31, and the article moved to the ballot as written, proposing to adopt a 2% tax cap.
Voters who were aggrieved by the action of the moderator barring amendments to PWA 31 filed a lawsuit seeking a Writ of Mandamus, Injunctive Relief, and a Declaratory
Judgment. The Superior Court limited its analysis to Plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory judgment relating to the procedural defects at the deliberative session.
Looking at the language prescribed in RSA 32:5-c, IV, the Court found that the plain meaning of RSA 40:13, IV (a) only prohibits changes or replacements to the words in a warrant article that have been provided by the legislature. That indeed RSA 32:5-c, IV clearly indicated that the language of the proposed warrant article was not completely prescribed by law since a blank space instructed “insert either a fixed dollar amount or a fixed percentage.” The Court ruled that a plain reading of RSA 40:13, IV(a) does not prohibit voters from amending the unprescribed portion of RSA 32:5-c, IV.
READ MORE IN COURT DECISION!
Practice Pointer: Moderators should permit voters at an SB 2 deliberative session to amend the unprescribed portions of warrant articles whose language is otherwise prescribed by statute.