When the Oath to the Constitution Means Nothing, You Pay the Price in Property Taxes

Every member of the New Hampshire General Court — the House of Representatives and Senate — begins their term by swearing an oath. Under Part 2, Article 84 of the New Hampshire Constitution, they stand before their colleagues and the public and make a promise to country, state, and God:

“I, [Full Name] do solemnly swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the United States of America and the state of New Hampshire, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God.”

“I, [Full Name] do solemnly and sincerely swear and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent on me as [Role], according to the best of my abilities, agreeably to the rules and regulations of this constitution and laws of the state of New Hampshire. So help me God.”

That oath is not ceremonial. It’s not just for fun. It is a legal condition for accepting the job of representing the People as a State Representative or Senator. It means: I will follow the Constitution. Not the parts I like. Not the parts that are politically convenient. I will honor all of the Constitution, as interpreted by the branch of government authorized to interpret it — the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

A voting majority of New Hampshire’s legislators are making a choice. They are choosing to not honor their constitutional oath — to disobey the rules of the road. If you believe such oaths – sworn before God and man – are optional for the job, stop reading now. I will convince you of nothing. Otherwise, read on.

The Constitution Is the Speed Limit

Think of it this way. The speed limit on your road is 30 miles per hour. You believe it should be 45. Are you breaking the law if you drive 45? Of course you are! The law is the law until it is changed. You can lobby, you can petition, you can run for office; but until the speed limit sign says 45, you follow the 30 mile per hour limit.

The Supreme Court has told the Legislature that the constitutional speed limit — or speed minimum, as the case may be — for education funding is $7,356 per student. The Legislature is paying $4,182. It is not in compliance with the law. And rather than come into compliance, it is attempting to pass legislation that says the speed limit does not apply to it.

No citizen gets to ignore the law while lobbying to change it. Legislators should not get that privilege either, especially when the law they are ignoring is the Constitution they swore to uphold, and especially when the failure to meet their constitutional obligation has a significant impact on your property tax bill.

The Court Order

Most people experience local government at city hall and through public services. They talk about it at little league games and when hanging out with friends. They experience federal government through taxes and elections. Federal government gets all the media attention: news, social media, and pundits. The state legislature in Concord sits in between; most residents have little reason to pay attention to it. But the decisions made in Concord directly control how much you pay in property taxes, even if your city or town is the one sending you the bill.

Here’s what happened. A group of New Hampshire school districts, led by the ConVal Regional School District, sued the state. Their argument was straightforward: the New Hampshire Constitution requires the state to fund an adequate education, and the state wasn’t doing it. The case worked its way through the courts for years. In July 2025, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled in the districts’ favor. The Court found that the state’s current education funding — roughly $4,182 per student — is unconstitutionally low, and it established a minimum floor of $7,356 per student. It is the Court that determines constitutional and legal compliance, not the Legislature. Show me someone that says that they believe in the Constitution while willfully violating Court orders, and I’ll show you a liar.

This was not the first time the courts told the Legislature it was failing. The Claremont decisions in the 1990s established the same principle: the state has a constitutional duty to fund an adequate education. For thirty years, the Legislature has been told this. For thirty years, it has refused to fully comply.

The ConVal ruling put a specific dollar figure on the obligation. The gap between what the state pays and what the Court says the Constitution requires is more than $3,200 per child. That gap has been declared unconstitutional by the highest court in the state. Repeatedly.

The Legislature Says “No Thanks” to the Court

Faced with a clear court order, the 2026 Legislature had a choice: comply with the Constitution or try to rewrite the rules so compliance would no longer be necessary. They chose to rewrite the rules.

In January 2026, the House passed HB 155, which further reduces the Business Enterprise Tax. The BET is a primary source of revenue for the Education Trust Fund — the fund that pays for state education aid. According to the New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute, the proposed rate reduction would lower BET revenue by more than $26 million annually. While claiming the state cannot afford to meet a court-ordered constitutional obligation, the Legislature voted to cut one of the revenue streams that would pay for it. Neat. Not cynical at all. Especially after repealing the interest and dividends tax last year, stripping the state of an additional $160M in revenue.

On March 5, 2026, the House passed HB 1815 by a vote of 188–162. This bill does not increase education funding. Instead, it attempts to redefine what the state owes. HB 1815 reclassifies education from a state duty to a “shared responsibility” with municipalities. It strips costs like school nurses, transportation, and building maintenance from the definition of an adequate education. All of these things are critical for any school to operate. And it declares that education funding is a “political policy matter” beyond the reach of the courts, meaning the very branch of government that interprets the Constitution would have no authority to enforce it.

The Legislature also voted down four bills that would have increased the state’s role in funding education: HB 1799 would have raised base adequacy funding to the court-mandated level of $7,356 per student; HB 1557 would have improved Special Education Aid by lowering the threshold for state assistance; HB 1835 would have moved the state toward reimbursing 80 percent of actual special education costs; and HB 1831 would have prevented a projected $9–10 million annual loss in state funding for Manchester. All four failed on the House floor in February 2026.

The House also passed HB 1300, which would cap local school district spending — meaning the Legislature is not only refusing to pay its share, but attempting to limit your community’s ability to fill the gap.

Rather than use the 2026 session to bring the state into constitutional compliance, the Legislature used it to find a way to avoid all responsibility. This was a specific choice.

The Bill Comes to Your Mailbox

When the state refuses to pay its share of education costs, those costs do not disappear. Schools still need teachers, heat, and buses. Children still need to learn. If the state does not pay, the municipality must pay. Municipalities have exactly one way to raise that money: your property taxes.

The math is simple. If an adequate education costs $100 per student and the state pays $30, your city covers the remaining $70 through property taxes. If the state cuts its share to $10, your city now covers $90. The cost of education did not change. The only thing that changed is who pays, and the answer is you.

This arrangement also lets the state hide behind your local government. When your property tax bill goes up, you don’t receive a letter from the Legislature explaining that it chose to underfund its constitutional obligation. You receive a bill from your city or town. Your municipal officials are the ones who have to explain the increase, defend the budget, and face voters at public hearings. The legislators in Concord who created the shortfall are nowhere in the room. They get to cut funding and let someone else take the blame.

The state has access to a variety of revenue sources: the Business Enterprise Tax, the Business Profits Tax, and the Meals and Rentals Tax, among others. It can spread the cost of education across the economy. Your municipality cannot. Property taxes are the only significant tool cities and towns have, and property taxes have nothing to do with income or ability to pay. They hit the retired teacher on a fixed income and the young family stretching to afford a mortgage just as hard as anyone else.

When the Legislature votes to underfund education, it is effectively voting to increase your property taxes. It just doesn’t say that second part out loud.

Last in the Nation

According to the National Education Association’s Rankings of the States report, New Hampshire ranks 50th — dead last — for the share of education funding provided by the state, covering just 28.8 percent of total public school revenue. Nationally, the average is 46 percent. That ranking is not an accident. It is the predictable result of thirty years of the Legislature failing to meet its constitutional duty.

And the Legislature is actively making it worse. It is cutting revenue that flows to the Education Trust Fund. It is rejecting bills that would bring funding in line with the Court’s mandate. It is passing legislation designed to shrink the state’s legal obligation so it never has to write the check. Every one of these actions transfers costs from the state to your property tax bill.

Legislators swore an oath to the Constitution. The Supreme Court told them what the Constitution requires. They have chosen not to comply. Instead, they are rewriting the rules, cutting the revenue, and sending the bill to your mailbox — while your local officials take the heat for a problem created in Concord.

The law is the law until it is changed. Compliance is not optional. And until the Legislature honors its oath, you will keep paying the price.

You Are Going to Vote in November. I Suggest You Vote for Lower Property Taxes

New England schools are among the most expensive in the country, and New Hampshire is no exception. More than half of your property tax bill goes to public schools, a share that’s far higher than it should be, because the state refuses to pay what the Constitution requires.

In November, you’ll vote for a new Legislature. That vote is a choice about your property taxes, whether you think of it that way or not.

You can vote for more of the same: legislators who will continue to shift the state’s constitutional obligation onto your city or town, who will keep forcing municipalities to fund public education almost entirely through property taxes, who will keep breaking their oath while your tax bill grows, and who will keep pricing retirees and fixed-income residents out of their own homes.

Or you can vote for legislators who will honor their constitutional oath, meet the state’s minimum funding obligation, and use the state’s broad revenue sources to pay for education instead of sending the bill to your mailbox. That is a vote for lower property taxes. As it stands today, the Legislature does not believe in low taxes. It believes that all taxes should be paid by property owners.

The choice is yours. I’ll be voting for lower property taxes.