In her column on March 6, “Reversing the Claremont case,” Leslie Ludtke argued for the reversal of the Claremont property tax ruling, known as Claremont II. She did not mention that she was an Associate Attorney General who represented the state at the Superior Court trial of the case in 1996. She was also one of the state’s lawyers in the appeal at the New Hampshire Supreme Court in 1997, in which the court ruled against the state and in favor of the plaintiffs.
I was part of a team of lawyers representing the plaintiff school districts, students, parents and taxpayers. Regrettably, in her column, Ms. Ludtke mischaracterizes and distorts the decision. Monitor readers can read the Claremont II decision for themselves.
The focus of the court’s opinion in Claremont II was the disproportionately high education property tax rates paid by property owners in towns and cities with low property wealth. The court compared the school tax rates in Franklin and Gilford, Pittsfield and Moultonborough, and Allenstown and Rye, noting, for example, that “The tax rate in Pittsfield … was more than four times, or over 400% higher, than in Moultonborough.”
The Court’s conclusion was simple and indisputable: “There is nothing fair or just about taxing a home or other real estate in one town at four times the rate that similar property is taxed in another town to fulfill the same purpose of meeting the State’s educational duty.”
The core principle underlying the Claremont II decision was the court’s determination that when taxes are imposed to meet the state’s constitutional duty under Part II, Article 83 to provide an adequate education to all New Hampshire public school students, such taxes are state taxes. Under Part II, Article 5 of the New Hampshire Constitution, state taxes must be proportional and uniform in rate across the state. In saying that the court “disregarded two centuries of history,” Ms. Ludtke apparently overlooked the cases from the 19th and 20th centuries, cited in the court’s opinion, that held that taxes imposed for education are state taxes.
Ms. Ludtke also said that the Claremont II ruling can only be interpreted as a “directive” to the New Hampshire legislature to enact a broad-based sales or income tax to fund education. Then, rather surprisingly, she states: “Operationally and practically, a statewide property tax is not a viable option.” This completely ignores the legislature’s creation of the Statewide Education Property Tax (SWEPT). Enacted in response to Claremont II and in effect since 1999, it has provided a small amount of state funding to help pay for an adequate education in every community for nearly 30 years.
The policy choice about which taxes to levy to meet the state’s duty always has been and continues to be a legislative prerogative. There is an array of possible revenue sources for the legislature to choose from. In addition to an expanded SWEPT, the state could decide to restore the Interest & Dividends Tax and/or the Estate Tax and it could bring the two business tax rates back up to their prior levels. It could tax capital gains, and, yes, it could create an income tax or sales tax. It could build a school funding system that includes several of these revenue streams, in a balance of its own choosing.
When one reads the Claremont II decision, or any of the other school funding opinions, it is clear that the Court’s only “directive” to the legislature about how to raise revenue is that, if the legislature chooses to continue to rely so heavily on property taxes to fund public education, the rates must be the same across the state. Ms. Ludtke said that “The legislature has been unwilling to abdicate its constitutional authority over taxation to the court system.” But the reality is that the courts don’t want that authority at all — they and the citizens of this state simply want the legislature to exercise its authority to create a constitutional, fair and effective funding system for our schools. The legislature needs to stop all the silly defensive talk about protecting their role — and actually fulfill it.
The reality in 2026 is that the people of New Hampshire are being crushed by our heavy property tax burden and the injustice of vastly disproportionate rates imposed on homeowners and businesses. This system causes great personal hardship and drags down our local and state economies. When legislators take the time to listen to their constituents, they get this message loud and clear.
The failure of the past 30 years is not because of judicial overreach, and the solution is not to eviscerate our constitutional rights by reversing decisions that uphold those rights. Our legislators need to do their job. If they can’t or won’t, we need to elect new ones in November.
John Tobin was one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Claremont case. He is also one of the lawyers for the plaintiff taxpayers in the Rand school funding and property tax case. He lives in Concord.