EveryLibrary's Executive Director John Chrastka and MomsRising New Hampshire Senior Director MacKenzie Nicholson penned an op-ed in the Concord Monitor explaining why SB434 raises serious concerns about censorship, vague legal standards, and unnecessary litigation. They argue that New Hampshire’s existing local policies already give families appropriate tools without inviting the kind of statewide restrictions that could chill teaching and learning.

You can take action today to oppose SB434 as it moves to the House at https://action.everylibrary.org/oppose_sb434_nh.

Opinion: Another year, another school censorship bill

Concord Monitor, February 28, 2026

This year, when Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow, we were feeling Groundhog Day in more ways than one. The New Hampshire Senate passed SB 434 on Thursday, making this the third time that a pro-censorship, anti-access bill has been advanced. This time, SB 434 would radically expand the eligible items deemed harmful beyond school library books to include everything from plays, dances and statues to pamphlets, phonographic records and “any printed material.” Every district would be compelled to establish a complaint process for “materials harmful to minors,” “age-inappropriate,” or “otherwise offensive,” but never defines what those terms mean.

SB 434 has the same core flaws as the two book-banning bills that preceded it. If a book or other material is truly so extreme that it might violate obscenity laws, send it to the courts to decide. We do not need superintendents, or whoever they pick as a designee, guessing where the legal line is. That is a fast way to end up in a federal lawsuit over the First Amendment. With vague or missing definitions and a dragnet for every item in a school, this is a recipe for censorship and legal challenges that New Hampshire taxpayers will ultimately pay for. It is essentially unenforceable in any fair or consistent way since different people would draw the line in different places.

Governor Ayotte understood this when she vetoed HB 324, the previous book ban bill, just seven months ago. Her veto message affirmed that New Hampshire should not be in the business of deciding “literary value and appropriateness” and warned that subjective standards and new penalties would lead to costly legal fights and undermine local control. Nothing in SB 434 fixes those concerns. It simply changes which office has to carry them.

Because the bill includes everything in the school, truly “any” printed matter or visual presentation, the legislation invites abuse and overreach. If this bill passes, a parent could file a complaint and push the superintendent or a “designee” to restrict or remove that material for everyone else’s kids. Given how vague the bill is, this power to complain extends to all textbooks and curricula, including biology, health, suicide prevention, art and drug and alcohol education. There is no guarantee that other parents will even know a challenge happened. The only person the bill clearly gives a voice and an appeal right to is the complainant. Parents who want their children to keep access to a book or lesson get no special standing.

Granite Staters have told our lawmakers repeatedly that we don’t want book bans. So why does this keep coming back year after year? A small but vocal minority has pushed political fights into our schools and soaked up a bunch of valuable airtime at the legislature. Meanwhile, we hear from families daily who are stretched beyond thin. They’re worried about child care, housing, and funding for our schools. None of them are asking for this. They want their kids to become strong readers and thinkers with access to honest, age-appropriate materials chosen by professionals, not to have one neighbor’s complaint limit what everyone else’s children can see.

The bill’s sponsors say they are for parents’ rights and local control. But New Hampshire parents already have tools to guide what their own children read and learn. Districts have local policies to handle complaints. Parents can ask for alternate assignments for their children when something conflicts with their family’s values. That is what real local control looks like. When one parent’s complaint removes access for every family instead of just opting out their own child, that is not about removing material that is truly obscene. It is about giving extra power to the people who want less on the shelf.

Our leaders who share the governor’s concerns about local control, free expression and unnecessary litigation should see SB 434 for what it is: another attempt to hardwire sweeping censorship provisions into state law. If we agree that the goal should be to support our children and raise kids who love reading, then we should trust our educators, librarians, and Governor Ayotte’s veto, and allow local policies that already work to give families the resources they need to thrive. The New Hampshire House should vote no on SB 434 and let our kids live free and read.