Harriet E. Cady v. Town of Deerfield
169 N.H. 575
N.H.2017Background
- Deerfield adopted RSA 40:13 and holds SB 2 two-session town meetings: a deliberative session (where warrant articles can be amended) and a final ballot session.
- RSA 40:13, IV(c) provides that "No warrant article shall be amended to eliminate the subject matter of the article."
- On January 30, 2016, at the deliberative session, two petitioned warrant articles (Articles 16 and 17) that proposed making the Welfare Director and Police Chief elected positions were amended to read as advisory questions asking whether those positions should remain appointed.
- Harriet Cady (petitioner), the proponent of the petitioned articles, sought injunctive relief asserting the amendments violated RSA 40:13, IV(c) by eliminating the articles’ subject matter/intent. The Town moved to dismiss.
- The Superior Court denied injunctive relief, concluding the amendments did not eliminate the subject matter; Cady appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "subject matter" in RSA 40:13, IV(c) must be narrowly construed to include the drafter's specific intent (e.g., electing a particular officer) | Cady: "Subject matter" includes the specific intent to make the Welfare Director and Police Chief elected positions; amending to ask if they should remain appointed eliminated that subject | Town: "Subject matter" should be broadly construed to cover how a position is to be filled (election vs. appointment); the amendments did not eliminate this broader subject | Court: "Subject matter" is ambiguous; legislative history shows the statute prohibits only amendments that eliminate the article's textual subject matter entirely, not those that change intent |
| Whether the January 30 amendments violated RSA 40:13, IV(c) by eliminating subject matter | Cady: The amendments changed the question from electing to keeping appointment, thus eliminating the original subject | Town: The amendments still addressed how the positions should be filled, so subject matter remained | Court: The amendments did not eliminate the entire subject matter (the question how positions are filled remained); no violation of RSA 40:13, IV(c) |
Key Cases Cited
- Grant v. Town of Barrington, 156 A.3d 807 (N.H. 2008) (interpreting amendment limits on SB 2 warrant articles)
- Attorney Gen., Dir. of Charitable Trusts v. Loreto Publ’ns, 169 A.3d 68 (N.H. 2016) (principles on statutory interpretation; avoid adding language the legislature did not include)
- Kneeland v. Administrator, Unemployment Comp. Act, 88 A.2d 376 (Conn. 1952) (noting limitations of subsequent legislative history for statutory construction)