PRESS RELEASE: Secretary of State Confirms Textual Error in New Hampshire Constitution.
- tom9633
- Jan 20
- 3 min read
January 23rd, 2026
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Secretary of State Confirms Textual Error in New Hampshire Constitution.
Concord, NH — New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan has confirmed that a longstanding error exists in widely-circulated versions of the New Hampshire Constitution that changes the meaning of a key education-related provision.
The error appears in Part II, Article 83, where the word “or” was mistakenly replaced with “of” in many printed and online versions over the past several decades. That small change materially alters the meaning of a clause that limits how state tax dollars may be used.
As proposed at the 1876 Constitutional Convention and ratified by the voters in 1877, the correct language reads: “Provided, nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools or institutions of any religious sect or denomination.”
However, many modern reproductions incorrectly state: “Provided, nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools of institutions of any religious sect or denomination.”
Regarding the origin of the error, Secretary Scanlan explained: “We have traced the change back to around 50 years ago, with no specific event identified that would have required changing the word. It was most likely a typographical error that has carried forward to the present time.” He confirmed that the New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated have consistently preserved the correct wording, and that his office will use the constitutionally accurate text in all future print and online publications.
The difference matters. The original language of the 1877 amendment places a restriction on the use of state tax revenue on all schools. The incorrect altered wording narrows that restriction to religious schools. Importantly, read either way, the 1877 amendment neither created nor expanded any pre-existing authority to spend state tax revenue on education. That issue had been addressed in 1850, when a proposed constitutional amendment sought voter approval to allow state taxation for the support of common schools. The voters rejected it, thereby preserving the existing constitutional prohibition of state taxation for the support of education already contained in Part I, Article 6. The 1877 amendment neither altered Article 6 nor reversed the 1850 vote, but rather made the prohibition of state taxation and funding for education more explicit.
In its Claremont series of school funding decisions, the New Hampshire Supreme Court read a state duty to pay for public education entirely with state funding into the Article 83 phrase “it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools…” These decisions, none of which has ever addressed the limitations on Article 83 imposed by Article 6, as amplified by the rejection of the proposed 1850 amendment and the correct wording of the ratified 1877 amendment, have turned the meaning of Article 83 on its head. As correctly found by Superior Court Judge George Manias in the original Claremont litigation, the Article 83 words “duty” “cherish” and “encourage” were aspirational - “hortatory,” to use his term - describing values and priorities, not even a grant - much less an imposition - of taxation authority.
“This is about constitutional accuracy, not politics,” said Daniel Richard, Chairman of the National Heritage Center for Constitutional Studies, who raised the issue. “The Constitution can only be changed by the people through formal amendment, not by editorial mistakes or errant court decisions.”
Further public review and legal analysis are expected.
For additional information, contact: