New Hampshire
New Hampshire’s New Booze Law Will Hamstring the State’s Brewpubs
The rationale behind New Hampshire’s new brewpub regulation is more headache-inducing than the beer.
On Friday, New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R) signed House Bill 242 into law. The bill, sponsored by state Rep. John Hunt (R–Rindge), will take effect in August and limits brewpubs in the state to self-distributing their beer to only one additional restaurant or business outside their premises. The bill is a follow-up to H.B. 1380, also sponsored by Hunt in 2024, which limited the amount of beer or cider a brewpub could sell to 2,500 barrels a year and permitted licensed brewpub owners to obtain licenses to sell their product on their premises in bars and at off-premise locations like grocery stores, so long as they didn’t have a manufacturing license.
If the law sounds like it will keep brewpubs small, that’s because it’s intended to do so. “This is what we call a very inside baseball bill,” Hunt told the New Hampshire Bulletin.
Hunt said that H.B. 242 was designed to preserve the state’s current regulatory system, describing New Hampshire as a “three-tier state,” where businesses operate as either beverage manufacturers, distributors, or retailers. By restricting brewpubs from becoming a one-stop shop that acts as a “bottler…distributor” and “retailer,” Hunt said the bill is intended to safeguard the “monopoly” held by beer distributors in the middle tier of this system.”Frankly, I think the relationship between the distributors and the licensees (retailers) is pretty sacred, and it works well, and there’s no reason to upset them.”
The bill was supported by the state’s restaurant and lodging trade group. “You have to understand, in order for one of these brewpubs to make enough beer to self distribute to more than one additional location, they would have to make an enormous amount of beer…and frankly, most of them didn’t think they could make enough beer to even distribute to another location,” Mike Somers, president and CEO of the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association, told the New Hampshire Bulletin. “Most of the folks in the industry that I’ve talked to didn’t really feel that the restriction was much of a restriction, because they could now own multiple brewpubs and restaurants.”
Rather than having the freedom to ramp up production and distribution, Somers contends that brewpub owners would rather start new brands and businesses from scratch.
This wasn’t the only booze-related bill that passed the governor’s desk: Ayotte also signed H.B. 467 and let H.B. 81 become law without her signature. H.B. 467 allows municipalities to create designated “social districts” where people can legally consume alcohol outdoors. These areas must be clearly marked with signs indicating the permitted times and boundaries, and all alcohol must be purchased from businesses within the district. Separately, H.B. 81 permits restaurant patrons to bring their drinks with them to the restroom.
While both laws ease some restrictions on consumer alcohol use, they stop short of meaningfully reducing the state’s overall control of alcoholic beverages. And now, New Hampshire’s brewpubs will face more hurdles to scaling up the production and distribution of their beer.
In keeping with that spirit, the state would be better served by promoting policies that encourage innovation, rather than anticompetitive laws like H.B. 242 that restrict consumer choice and unfairly penalize brewpubs for their market success.
The post New Hampshire’s New Booze Law Will Hamstring the State’s Brewpubs appeared first on Reason.com.
New Hampshire
Lawsuit challenges New Hampshire’s voter ID requirements – Valley News
Soon after Joshua Bogden attempted to register to vote on the day of Portsmouth’s municipal elections Nov. 11, he faced a tough decision.
Bogden had not brought along a passport or birth certificate to prove his citizenship. And though he had previously been registered and voted in Wilton, poll workers told Bogden he needed to leave and return with one of those physical documents.
Bogden could either drive to city hall and request a same-day copy of his birth certificate, or rush home and find his own copy. But he had only hours until the polls closed, and only minutes before Portsmouth stopped its birth certificate service at 4:30.
In the end, Bogden decided to drive home and chance that he could find the certificate, he said during a press conference Thursday. He did find it and was able to vote. But the hassle he faced is at the center of arguments by some that recent changes to New Hampshire’s voter registration laws are too strict and will result in frustrated voters choosing not to vote.
“Luckily, I lived nearby,” he said. “But if there had been any more sort of traffic or anything in my personal life — going home to pick up the kids, trying to do this after work — there’s no way I would have been able to come back and vote successfully.”
Since a new law took effect November 2024, New Hampshire voters are required to produce hard copies of citizenship documents the first time they register to vote in the state. The law eliminated the previous option for voters registering on Election Day to sign a “qualified voter affidavit” that allowed them to vote without proving citizenship by testifying on penalty of perjury that they were a U.S. citizen.
Republican supporters of the law, House Bill 1569, say the new requirements are reasonable and necessary to close loopholes that could allow non-citizens to vote, and that voters should prepare by obtaining their citizenship documents in advance
Lawmakers also passed a follow-up law in 2025, House Bill 464, that allows local election officials to access the Statewide Voter Registration System, New Hampshire Vital Records, and Division of Motor Vehicle databases in order to attempt to corroborate a resident’s citizenship.
But a number of voting rights groups are suing in federal court to block the law, arguing it creates an unconstitutional burden and that it will disenfranchise eligible voters, especially those for whom obtaining a passport or birth certificate could be difficult.
In the meantime, the October and November municipal elections have offered a fresh look into how the new law might affect voting in practice.
According to a tally by the New Hampshire Campaign for Voting Rights, 123 voters were turned away from the polls due to a lack of documents. Combined with the 121 residents the group reported were turned away for the same reason during town meetings in spring, at least 244 people were turned away in 2025, the group says.
Voting rights advocates and Democrats argue those tallies are a cautionary tale for the state ahead of the September 2026 state primaries and the November 2026 midterm federal election. Many more people are likely to vote in those elections, and many more who don’t bring along their citizenship documentation could be turned away, advocates warn.
They hope U.S. District Court Judge Samantha Elliott, who is presiding over the lawsuit, will issue an injunction ahead of the midterms. A full evidentiary trial in that case is expected in February.
At Thursday’s press conference, advocates attempted to show the difficulty posed by the new documentary requirements, which election law experts have called the strictest in the country.
In addition to Bogden, Brayden Rumsey, a Dover voter, said he had to drive home to retrieve his passport in order to vote Nov. 11. Rumsey was not aware of the new citizenship documentation requirements; he had assumed that showing a REAL ID driver’s license would suffice, since to obtain it he had been required to show his passport.
“I have my own car. I have my own way of getting there. I don’t have any kids to take care of. I have access to a passport and access to my birth certificate that I could easily get,” he said. “I know a lot of people don’t have that privilege like I do.”
And Michael Blanchette, who recently moved from Concord to Manchester, said he had called the city ahead of the Nov. 11 election to get confirmation of his citizenship using his previous registration and presence on the voter database. But despite that confirmation, Blanchette said he was still asked for citizenship documentation at the Manchester Ward 7 polls, and had to wait an hour for multiple election workers and city officials to clear him to vote.
“(I knew) if I went back home and took my pain meds, I was not coming back out,” he said. “And it was now or never. So I stuck through it. I didn’t realize it would just drag on.”
Linnea Hartsuyker, a supervisor of the checklist in Dover’s Ward 5, said she had seen at least one prospective voter leave and not return once learning of the requirements.
Hartsuyker said the 2025 law providing election workers access to the state voter file proved helpful, allowing her to verify at least those voters who had already registered. That remedy would not have worked for new voters who moved from out of state, she said.
“Last year at the general (election) I and my team registered 50 people per hour for 12 hours,” she said. “That’s almost one person per minute with the old system, and I am quite worried about being able to do that in the coming election, at the midterms.”
Access to those state databases might vary from polling place to polling place depending on internet availability and the amount of time and manpower available during a rush of voters, critics say. Rumsey and Blanchette said workers at their polling places did not appear to have direct access to those databases, necessitating calls to city hall officials.
It is not clear how the apparent tallies of voters turned away from voting might affect the trial in next year’s lawsuit.
In a July 29 ruling, Elliott ruled that some of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, filed in 2024, lacked standing because their experiences did not directly demonstrate a potential unconstitutional barrier to voting. But she granted standing to other plaintiffs, such as the Coalition for Open Democracy, the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, the Forward Foundation, and three plaintiffs who were minors but planned to register to vote when they turned 18 and said the need to procure documentation was a burden.
The Attorney General’s Office has defended the law and said the constitutional challenges are not substantiated. In a Nov. 7 memorandum asking Elliott to dismiss the case, Assistant Attorney General Michael DeGrandis argued that the law struck a balance between allowing every eligible person to vote and safeguarding the process from fraud.
“New Hampshire pairs that open access with commonsense eligibility checks so only the votes of eligible voters are counted,” DeGrandis wrote. “Striking this balance is essential to guarantee an election system that is both welcoming and vigilant in protecting the integrity of the ballot.”
And he wrote that the law does not impede the organizations suing, and that the individual plaintiffs “have not offered competent evidence of cognizable injuries.”
“It is Plaintiffs’ burden to come forward with definite, competent evidence of injury, causation, and redressability, but they have not,” DeGrandis wrote.
New Hampshire
Since 1717, State Library has chronicled and preserved New Hampshire history
New Hampshire
New Hampshire Nears Launch of Bitcoin-Backed Municipal Bond | PYMNTS.com
-
Business6 days ago
Fire survivors can use this new portal to rebuild faster and save money
-
World4 days agoFrance and Germany support simplification push for digital rules
-
News5 days agoCourt documents shed light on Indiana shooting that sparked stand-your-ground debate
-
Indianapolis, IN1 week ago
Here is how Rethink Coalition envisions future improvements to I-65/I-70 South split
-
World1 week ago2% of Russian global oil supply affected following Ukrainian attack
-
World5 days agoCalls for answers grow over Canada’s interrogation of Israel critic
-
Austin, TX1 week agoWoman dies after vehicle veers off road, hits her at East Austin bus stop
-
Business4 days ago
Amazon’s Zoox offers free robotaxi rides in San Francisco