Republicans say a clear message in the statute is necessary to re-establish the Legislature’s control over state funding to schools. (Getty Images)
Republicans have a message for New Hampshire’s Supreme Court: The state already spends enough on public schools.
In the months since a court ruled that New Hampshire’s underfunding of public education is unconstitutional, Republican lawmakers have opposed the order, calling it judicial overreach and unfair to the funding the state currently provides to schools.
Now, they are legislating to back up those words.
Two bills before the House and Senate this year would redefine what counts as “adequate” education funding and who must pay. House Bill 1815 would assert that the constitutional obligation to provide an adequate public education is a shared responsibility between local school districts and the state and is not solely a burden on the state.
If state courts uphold this legal change, it would cast a new light on state school funding obligations established in a 1990s Claremont Supreme Court decision. That would pose significant legislative headwinds to 2023 high court and 2025 Supreme Court rulings that the state does not provide enough funding to public schools and must increase their contributions. Senate Republicans have introduced an identical bill that Senate Bill 659.
Republicans say a clear message in the statute is necessary to re-establish the Legislature’s control over state funding to schools.
Rep. Bob Lynn, R-Windham, introduced a bill to change the definition of adequate school funding in state statutes following the Supreme Court’s Feb. 13, 2026, ConVal ruling. (Screenshot from New Hampshire General Court)
“I think basically what it’s saying is, ‘Court, you got it wrong. You didn’t give us an appropriate role. You should really give this a second thought,'” Rep. Bob Lynn, a Windham Republican, former Supreme Court chief justice and author of HB 1815, said Friday during a House Education Funding Committee hearing.
But Democrats and school funding advocates view both bills as attempts by the Legislature to evade its responsibilities and more than three decades of court rulings.
“This bill largely pretends that the Constitution doesn’t exist,” said John Tobin, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Claremont lawsuit who testified against the bill.
Tobin told the Education Appropriations Committee that the Claremont decision made it clear that Section 83 of Part II of the state constitution obligates the state to “cherish” public education by funding it, and that school funding must be provided through taxes that are reasonable and proportional to residents. Currently, the system is disproportionate because towns have wildly different local property taxes to fund schools, Tobin said.
Tobin argued that HB 1815 would effectively reframe school funding as a state policy choice, rather than a constitutional obligation, and would adopt language that maintains the status quo.
If signed into law, the bills could impact future court rulings on school funding. In 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 3-2 in favor of the school district in Contukuco Valley School District v. New Hampshire and ordered lawmakers to increase funding. But a second lawsuit, Rand v. New Hampshire, is expected to be heard in the high court next year.
HB 1815 and SB 659 could influence how the Supreme Court views the state’s funding of the rand. The bills could trigger further litigation if plaintiffs in the Contukuk Valley sue The case, called ConVal, claims the Legislature failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s order.
In a rare move, the New Hampshire Department of Justice, which represents the state in opposing both lawsuits, backed Lynn’s bill. Assistant Attorney General Sam Garland testified in support of the bill on Friday, arguing that it provides “necessary clarity” on the definition of adequacy of state regulations.
“What it does is bring a level of precision that existing languages don’t have,” Garland said.
But attorney Andru Volinsky, a former Democratic executive who represented the Claremont plaintiffs with Tobin and now represents the Rand plaintiffs, had a different reaction.
“Shame on Bob Lynn,” Wolinsky said in an interview. “He should know better, you can’t change the Constitution by statute.”
In addition to establishing shared funding responsibilities, HB 1815 would make two other changes to New Hampshire’s adequate funding statute.
The bill would clarify that the state’s adequate funding obligations apply only to academic programs.
It would expand the state’s definition of adequate funding to include not only the “base” adequacy payment of $4,351 per student, but also thousands of dollars more per student in “differentiated aid” payments to cover low-income students.
Criticism of Rockingham Superior Court 2023 Cornwall’s Judgment In it, Judge David Ruoff lambasted the state for paying a minimum of about $4,000 per student and ordered the state to pay at least $7,356.01 per student. Critics say that when differential aid is included, the state spends more than $7,000 per student.
Garland believes the adjustments will help clarify two issues facing the Supreme Court in the 2025 ConVal ruling: what is included in the definition of an adequate education, and which state funding streams should count toward its cost.
Although Department of Education Commissioner Caitlin Davis did not take a position on the bill, she testified that the Department has long considered differentiated aid to be part of adequacy. When the Cornish case comes to Rockingham Superior Court in 2023, Davis’ predecessor Frank Edelblut faced tough questions in court about how the department defines adequacy; Davis echoed Garland and said the bill would provide clarity.
Most importantly, Lynn and other supporters say HB 1815 seeks to reassert legislative supremacy over schools and emphasize school districts as branches of the state.
Lynn argued that the current system, in which the state is constitutionally responsible for adequacy payments but has no control over local districts’ hiring and spending decisions, unfairly empowers state taxpayers; but by separating adequacy responsibilities from school districts, the bill creates a fairer division.
The bill was controversial: 1,033 people submitted online testimonies against it, while eight people expressed support.
Opponents at the hearing said the bill would allow lawmakers to shirk responsibility for addressing the state’s unequal local education property tax system, in which towns with weak property tax bases must set high rates to keep schools open, while wealthier towns can set lower rates and provide better services. Critics point out that in Sunapee, residents pay $5 per $1,000 of assessed property value, while in neighboring Newport the tax rate is $15.95 per $1,000, and that school district budgets have been difficult.
Opponents of the bill say HB 1815 dilutes the meaning of adequacy requirements by redefining adequacy as a collective effort by school districts and states. Tobin believes sharing the responsibility could allow lawmakers to reduce the amount the government currently allocates to local districts and step back further from their funding role.
“There’s some wonderful language here about shared responsibility, integration and flexibility, but there’s nothing here that in any way delineates the bottom line of state responsibility,” Tobin said.
Throughout the hearing, it was clear that Republicans and Democrats fundamentally disagreed over that balance. When asked by Rep. Hope Damon, D-Croydon, whether his bill would increase state funding for schools, Lynn said “no.” When asked if Lynn thought the state currently provides adequate funding for education, he said “yes.”
Under pressure to act on the 2025 court ruling, Republican leaders in both chambers embraced Lynn’s approach. In January, Senate President Sharon Carson introduced SB 659 as a late bill, calling it the “exact bill” of HB 1815. Carson told the Senate Rules and Registration Bills Committee at the time that Lynn’s bill was the product of a study committee convened by Gov. Kelly Ayotte in 2025 in response to the Supreme Court’s July ruling.
“I want to commend the governor for being very proactive in addressing this issue,” Carson said. “So we’re going to bring it forward.”
The governor’s office did not respond to a request for more information.
“As we all know, the Legislature is really a laboratory of ideas, and this is an idea,” Carson said. “I hope we can have a good, lively discussion about financing education.”