The state’s Right-to-Know Law, RSA 91-A, ensures members of the public are able to access governmental records. But the process by which responses to those legal requests are compiled is labor-intensive and large requests by commercial entities add to the burden.
Over recent years, Benson and Crews wrote, the volume of Right-to-Know requests has “placed a growing strain on agency resources, consuming months of staff time and delaying responses to the very citizens that the law was designed to serve.”
“Increasingly, these requests come not from residents but from data mining firms, special interest groups, or out-of-state organizations seeking to compile or resell government information,” according to the report.
The report’s recommendation was simple: Agencies should be directed to prioritize requests submitted by state residents or entities conducting business within New Hampshire. Access shouldn’t be restricted, but staff time should be directed first toward fulfilling local requests. Those out-of-state or bulk-data requests could be scheduled for review later or processed through fee-based and automated systems, or even limited, if it’s legal to do so.
“This approach would restore balance and fairness to a process that has become increasingly burdensome,” the report says. “New Hampshire citizens seeking to hold government accountable should not be delayed behind large-scale, profit-driven data requests that consume disproportionate resources.”
NH Right-to-Know Numbers
State agencies report receiving thousands of Right-to-Know requests in 2025 alone. The New Hampshire Department of Safety logged 3,472 and the NH Department of Transportation received just 115, but 12 came from commercial entities.
“The impact these requests have on staff time and resources can vary significantly,” NHDOT spokesperson Jennifer Lane wrote. “It depends on the scope and level of detail requested, the volume of records involved, and whether any review or redaction is required prior to release.”
The New Hampshire Department of Justice received 403 documented governmental requests in 2025, though the Office of the Attorney General does not log every request. The number tallied understates the total volume of records requests or inquiries because many of those are handled informally.
Their office responds to a multitude of requests from members of the public, the media or others daily, Senior Assistant Attorney General J.D. Lavallee said.
“In practice, the office generally logs requests that are more substantive in nature,” Lavallee said. “These include requests that require collection and review of records, legal analysis regarding disclosure obligations or exemptions, coordination with agency personnel, consultation with third parties, or other significant staff time and resources.”
Lavallee said there’s another aspect not reflected in the numeric total of logged requests: The time and effort their office puts into advising executive branch agencies regarding 91-A compliance and other legal obligations.
The work “frequently includes reviewing complex legal questions associated with the disclosure of records,” he said.
Those obligations include assisting to balance transparency with statutory or confidentiality concerns.
Restrictions Questioned
In Pennsylvania, during the 2023-24 legislative session, lawmakers sought to address that question and failed when SB 210 was tabled. That bill would have allowed state agencies to charge a fee for a commercial purpose Right-to-Know request. Commercial purposes would have been defined as the use of a record for sale, commercial solicitation or any other purpose through which a requester could make money.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania opposed the bill, citing the creation of distinctions between types of requesters, the subjective nature of the term “commercial purpose,” varying fee structures between types of requests and its “failure to define the authority of the Office of Open Records” when considering an appeal.
The ACLU said if the bill were enacted, it would’ve allowed government agencies to impose different rules and fee structures on requesters, depending on who they are and why they want the information.
The New Hampshire ACLU takes largely the same position: In principle, Right-to-Know requests shouldn’t be qualified or limited based on the person or entity requesting public records.
Senators tabled SB 626, which was introduced in November 2025 and would have restricted Right-to-Know requests to people living or maintaining a permanent residence in New Hampshire, though an amended House bill was narrowly endorsed by a Senate panel in 2026.
Ahead of a Feb. 3 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Senate bill, Gilles Bissonnette of ACLU-NH and Gregory Sullivan, president of the New England First Amendment Coalition, expressed their opposition to the legislation.
The residency requirement included in the bill, Bissonnette and Sullivan argued, would hinder transparency and ignore that state policies can go beyond its borders. Would a Massachusetts driver ticketed on a New Hampshire roadway be prevented from filing a Right-to-Know request, for example?
“Under HB 626, he would be prevented from doing so,” their testimony reads.
Bissonnette and Sullivan also pointed out that the majority of states do not have an associated “citizenship” requirement and that, if New Hampshire is to make any changes to the law, it should expand access, not limit it.
© 2026 The New Hampshire Union Leader (Manchester, N.H.). Visit www.unionleader.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
