CFC PRESENTS:

The Question 2 Super-Sized Special Edition!

A new Ballotpedia study found that ballot measure titles across the country are written at an average reading level equivalent to 17 years of education. That’s roughly graduate-school level. Research also shows voters are more likely to skip questions when the language is too complicated.

Which seems like a crappy way to ask people to participate in democracy.
We’re often told to pay more attention to politics, educate ourselves, and get involved. But most of us have jobs, families, and lives to live. Why should understanding government require spending our evenings reading legislation and court decisions?

Political theorist Robert Dahl, in his book On Democracy, argued that a functioning democracy requires what he called enlightened understanding. People need a fair opportunity to understand the choices they’re being asked to make and the likely consequences of those choices.

That seems like a pretty reasonable expectation. But how can people make informed decisions when understanding a ballot question requires hours of research, legal knowledge, and a willingness to dig through government documents?

The people writing our laws have access to the research, expertise, and resources needed to explain them. The responsibility for making those decisions understandable should rest primarily with them, rather than with the people they’re asking to vote.

On November 3, New Hampshire has a pretty good example of what happens when it isn’t.

Question 2

On November 3, voters across New Hampshire will encounter Question 2. Supporters describe it as a way to limit rising property taxes, while opponents warn it could lead to cuts in public schools.

The wording itself was confusing enough that two residents challenged it in court. Since then, journalists, school officials, and ordinary Granite Staters have spent considerable time explaining what the question actually does. That’s a failure of good governance.

One of Community First Coalition’s four tenets is Democracy. To us, that includes making government understandable and accessible to the people it serves.

First, How Did We Get Here?

In January, HB 1300 was introduced as a bill to redraw New Hampshire’s congressional districts. By March, the House had rewritten it into a proposal requiring communities to vote on restrictions on school funding and administrative spending. After further revisions, the House approved the final compromise 183–170, and the Senate approved it 15–8 on June 4. Governor Ayotte signed it July 15.

Amending legislation is normal. Completely replacing its subject creates an obvious problem for anyone trying to follow what lawmakers are doing. Someone tracking congressional redistricting in January would have had little reason to expect that bill to become a statewide question about school funding.

What Does Question 2 Propose?

Question 2 combines two separate financial restrictions into one yes-or-no vote.

1. Limit how much money schools can raise through local property taxes.

The total amount a school district collects through local property taxes, called the levy, could generally increase only to account for inflation and new taxable construction.

This limits the total money collected for schools, not what an individual homeowner pays.

2. Limit central administrative spending to 6%.

New Hampshire school districts belong to School Administrative Units, or SAUs. These offices handle shared functions such as superintendents, payroll, and district finances. Some serve one district; others serve several.

Question 2 would limit central office spending to 6% of the combined school district budgets within an SAU, excluding certain bonded construction costs.

Both limits include exceptions for qualifying construction-related debt.

What Are “The Implications”? (Spooky Sounds)

1. Question 2 Doesn’t Cap Your Property Taxes

Property tax relief is the main argument for Question 2. So how much could you actually save?
In Bedford, school officials estimate that the proposed limit could require approximately $1.4 million in budget reductions.

Using Bedford’s 2025 property values, if that entire reduction otherwise would have been paid through local school taxes, a homeowner with a house assessed at $600,000 might pay about $136 less per year, or roughly $11 a month. That’s less than they otherwise would have paid, not necessarily a reduction in their current bill. And it’s an estimate, since we don’t know exactly how future budgets or property values will change.

Now consider what happens if schools respond by needing to charge families for activities previously covered by their budgets. A family that saves $136 in taxes but has to pay an additional $150 for a child’s school sport would actually spend $14 more that year. And that $150 isn’t an invented price. Hanover High School already charges that amount per sport, although Bedford hasn’t proposed this particular fee increase.

Even without new fees, your overall property tax bill could still rise. Question 2 only restricts the growth of local school tax collections. Municipal, county, and statewide education taxes can still increase, and your share of school taxes can change with property assessments.
So a homeowner might see little noticeable change in their property tax bill, while their school district faces substantial spending restrictions.

And there’s a larger concern here. Costs that were previously shared across the entire community could increasingly fall directly on families with school-aged children. Those costs would be especially difficult for working families already struggling to afford extracurricular activities.

Question 2 could slow the growth of local school taxes. But it doesn’t guarantee lower household bills, and it could shift some education costs from the general tax base onto the families using those services.

2. School Costs Don’t Follow Inflation

From 2013 to 2023, New Hampshire’s spending per student increased 58%, compared with 35% inflation.

That doesn’t mean every increase was unavoidable. But expenses like health insurance, transportation, and special education don’t necessarily follow general inflation. Some are legally required, regardless of what a district can afford.

Lawmakers have access to this information. Their own fiscal analysis acknowledges that Question 2 could reduce school revenue and spending.

So what happens when costs exceed the limit?

What Are Schools’ Options?

STATE FUNDING

New Hampshire ranks last in the country for the share of public school funding provided by state government. About 70% of school revenue comes from property taxes collected locally.
And state funding doesn’t respond to expenses as they happen. If insurance premiums jump 15%, a bus contract becomes more expensive, or a school needs emergency repairs, the state doesn’t automatically cover those costs.

Its basic education payments depend largely on student enrollment and funding amounts established by law, rather than each district’s actual bills. Question 2 provides no additional state funding to fill the gap.

FEDERAL FUNDING

Federal money normally accounts for about 5% of New Hampshire school funding, mostly through programs serving specific needs, including special education, English-language instruction, and students from low-income families.

Schools generally cannot legally redirect those grants to cover unrelated expenses. Federal special education money, for example, cannot simply pay for a district-wide health insurance increase.

federal funding is becoming less dependable, considering that in September 2025, the Trump administration terminated grants supporting more than 5,000 New Hampshire students. This March, the Education Alliance for New Hampshire announced its closure after losing major grants.

The administration has also cut the Department of Education’s workforce nearly in half and pursued further reductions. Some proposals have been blocked and some funding restored, but New Hampshire has already experienced disruptions. Federal grants are a limited and increasingly uncertain source of replacement revenue.

ADMINISTRATIVE SAVINGS

Supporters of Question 2 argue that limiting SAU central office budgets to 6% will reduce administrative spending and leave more money for classrooms.

That’s possible in districts where administrative costs exceed the proposed limit. But some districts, including Bedford, already spend well below 6%.

And lawmakers haven’t established a consistent definition of which expenses count as administration. That makes it difficult to know how much districts could actually save. Central offices also handle necessary work, including payroll, contracts, finances, and special education compliance. Those responsibilities don’t disappear when the budget gets smaller.
So while some districts may find administrative savings, the 6% limit doesn’t guarantee savings in every district or enough savings to cover higher operating costs.

SAVINGS

Districts can use money left over from previous budgets, if they have it. Under state law, voters must authorize retaining certain unspent funds, generally up to 5% of the district’s net assessment. Spending those funds also requires a public hearing.

If insurance premiums increase by $300,000 every year, using $300,000 in savings covers one year. The expense remains, and the savings are gone.

BORROWING

Schools can borrow primarily for construction, renovations, and certain short-term cash-flow needs. But state law generally prohibits borrowing for ordinary operating expenses like salaries and insurance.

Interestingly, Question 2 already exempts certain construction-related debt payments from its limits, while leaving everyday operating expenses restricted.

Borrowing also creates debt (obviously) and interest payments. It doesn’t provide recurring revenue, so that problem is not solved at all.

ASK VOTERS TO EXCEED THE CAP

Districts can seek voter approval to exceed the limit. But under Question 2, districts using annual school meetings would generally need 60% support, rather than a simple majority. Some charter-governed districts have different requirements. That means 59 out of 100 voters could support additional funding, and the proposal would still fail.

Anyone who’s attended a contentious school budget meeting knows these decisions can already be difficult. Organizations also spend considerable time and money campaigning over school spending and property taxes. A supermajority requirement gives opponents greater power to block additional funding, even when most voters support it.

CUTS

And that leaves schools with the most dependable way to close a shortfall: cutting expenses.

That can mean fewer teachers, larger classes, reduced courses and extracurricular activities, postponed maintenance, and salaries that make it harder to retain experienced staff. Students lose opportunities, teachers face heavier workloads, and families may pay more for optional programs.

New Hampshire’s expanding voucher program adds another complication. Education Freedom Account enrollment reached 12,500 students this year. When students leave public schools, districts can lose state aid, but their expenses don’t necessarily fall at the same rate. Losing ten students doesn’t eliminate a building or bus route.

Public schools also have substantial obligations to students requiring additional services. In 2023–24, about 20% of New Hampshire public school students received special education services. According to 2024 data, state and federal funding covered just 16.65% of those services’ costs. So districts risk losing students and revenue while remaining responsible for expensive, legally required services.

Cuts can then make schools less attractive to families, potentially driving further enrollment losses. And under HB 1817, public schools must also allow eligible voucher students to take certain classes without charging tuition.

We’re expanding public funding for private education while restricting how much local revenue public schools can raise.

Whether weakening public education is the intention or not, it’s a foreseeable consequence of these decisions.

But Doesn’t the Ballot Specifically Say Classrooms Won’t Be Affected?

Yes. The ballot explicitly states that the caps: 

“do not affect classroom instruction, school-based services, or other municipal expenditures.”
That is a remarkably misleading statement to put on an official ballot.

As we’ve already explained, Question 2 limits the money school districts can raise to pay for teachers, transportation, special education, and everyday operations. It provides no replacement funding and no guarantee that classrooms will be protected from cuts.

What exactly are we supposed to believe happens when a school runs out of money? We seem to talk about public school budgets as though they’re full of unnecessary expenses, with administrators sitting around lighting cigars with stacks of taxpayer cash. Of course schools have inefficiencies. Every large institution does. But eliminating waste isn’t the same thing as finding enough savings to cover rising costs, particularly when some of those costs are legally required.

And school officials are already doing the math. Londonderry has projected a possible $2 million budget reduction, while Bedford estimates a $1.4 million gap. Maybe a district can find enough savings to avoid classroom cuts. Maybe it can’t. The point is that nobody writing this law can guarantee classrooms won’t be affected. Yet that’s exactly what the ballot tells voters.

David Bates of Warner and Kelly Wieser of Campton challenged the wording in court, arguing that it was confusing and misleading. The New Hampshire Supreme Court declined to invalidate the question without explaining its decision. That ruling allows the question to remain on the ballot. It doesn’t make the statement true.

The people writing our laws have a responsibility to explain them accurately. Instead, voters are being given a reassuring statement that the legislation cannot substantiate. That’s unacceptable, whether it comes from a misunderstanding of how school budgets work or a deliberate effort to make the proposal sound harmless.

Why Do Supporters Want This?

Well, on paper, it sounds pretty good, doesn’t it?

Lower property taxes, no cuts to classrooms, and less money spent on imaginary, highly paid administrators who love to light their cigars on stacks of cash. Who wouldn’t want that?
Supporters, including Governor Ayotte and Americans for Prosperity-NH, argue that homeowners need relief from rising property taxes and more control over school spending. Those are legitimate concerns.

But as we’ve explained, Question 2 doesn’t guarantee lower property taxes, protect classrooms from cuts, or demonstrate that administrative savings can make up the difference.
And there’s an odd contradiction in the promise of local control.

New Hampshire communities already elect school boards, hold public budget meetings, and vote on school spending. Supporters argue that putting the question on the November ballot gives more people a say. Fair enough.

But once adopted, exceeding the cap generally requires 60% voter approval in districts using annual school meetings. A majority of local voters could support additional school funding and still lose. If the goal is local control, why make it harder for local majorities to decide what they’re willing to spend on their own schools?

There’s an old saying about not attributing to malice what can be explained by incompetence. We can’t know what lawmakers intended, but they had access to the same information we’ve laid out here. Whether the misleading promises were intentional or the result of poor judgment, the responsibility belongs to the people who wrote and approved them.

So What Happens on November 3?

Although voters see one question, the results are applied separately to their school district and School Administrative Unit (SAU).

School districts and SAUs don’t always cover the same communities. Each proposed restriction requires at least 60% support across the area it applies to. That means one cap could pass while the other fails, even though voters aren’t given the option to vote on them separately.

If adopted, the limits take effect with the fiscal year 2028 budget cycle, beginning July 2027, and remain in place for two years. If a limit fails, it won’t take effect through this vote. The question returns in November 2028.

For more information:
NH Secretary of State: HB 1300 and Legislative History
NHPR: School Leaders Predict Budget Cuts
New Hampshire Bulletin: Question 2 Voter Guide
Reaching Higher NH: Question 2 Explained

Alright, One Last Thing

There’s nothing wrong with wanting lower property taxes or giving communities more control over their schools. Those are reasonable things to want. And New Hampshire desperately needs a better way to pay for public education. Having the state contribute more, instead of leaving so much of the burden on local property taxpayers, would be a pretty good start.
But Question 2 is being presented in a way that makes its benefits sound certain and its consequences impossible. Neither is true.

We need to be able to trust the folks writing our laws, especially when they’re asking us to vote on them.

Research into human communication suggests that we naturally tend to believe what others tell us. It’s called Truth-Default Theory, and researchers have found that people rarely stop to question whether someone is telling the truth unless they’re given a reason to be suspicious.
And generally speaking, that’s a good thing. Imagine having to independently verify everything everyone tells you throughout the day.

So we don’t blame anyone who reads Question 2 and thinks voting yes sounds reasonable. People should be able to trust what their government tells them, especially on an official ballot. We shouldn’t expect everyone to spend hours researching legislation to find out whether the words on their ballot are accurate.

That responsibility belongs to our lawmakers, and they should be held accountable for it.
So, before November 3, talk to your friends, neighbors, and family about Question 2. Share what you’ve learned. If someone supports it, have a conversation rather than assuming the worst about them. They may be responding to the same promises we’ve spent this newsletter examining.

Vote, and then keep pushing your representatives for meaningful property tax relief and better state funding for public schools.

And whatever happens on November 3, pay attention to your local school budgets. If these caps pass, the decisions about what gets cut will still happen in our communities, and we’ll need people showing up for those conversations.

Our schools need resources, good teachers, and opportunities for every child. Strong public schools are part of what makes strong communities. We should be working to improve them, not making it harder for them to do their jobs.