CACR 13: eliminating the office of register of probate

What a vote means

A yes vote

The register of probate is no longer a constitutionally named elected county office.

A no vote

Articles 71 and 81 keep their present wording and the office stays in the constitution.

In full

New Hampshire still elects a register of probate in each county, and still names the office in its constitution — twice. CACR 13 would take it out of both places ^[1]. Article 71 of the second part of the constitution lists the county officers the people elect. As the amendment would rewrite it, that list is “county treasurers, county attorneys, sheriffs and registers of deeds” — the register of probate gone from it. Article 81, which bars a judge from acting as counsel in probate business in their own county, would be retitled “[Judges Not to Act as Counsel.]” and would speak only of judges ^[1]. The oddity is on the same ballot. A Manchester voter is asked whether to eliminate the office of register of probate a few lines below the contest for register of probate, where Ross W. Terrio and June Trisciani are the candidates ^[1]. It passed the General Court all but unanimously: 325 to 15 in the House, 23 to 1 in the Senate ^[1].

On the ballot

What it would change

• Amends two articles of the second part of the New Hampshire Constitution — Article 71 and Article 81 — and the ballot prints both in the form they would take ^[1]
• Article 71 as it would read lists only four elected county officers: “The county treasurers, county attorneys, sheriffs and registers of deeds, shall be elected by the inhabitants of the several towns, in the several counties in the State, according to the method now practiced, and the laws of the state” ^[1]
• Its heading as it would read is “[County Treasurers, County Attorneys, Sheriffs, and Registers of Deeds Elected.]” — a four-office list where the office being abolished would otherwise appear ^[1]
• What Article 71 keeps is the legislature's limited power over the mechanics: it “shall have authority to alter the manner of certifying the votes, and the mode of electing those officers; but not so as to deprive the people of the right they now have of electing them” ^[1]
• Article 81 as it would read is headed “[Judges Not to Act as Counsel.]” and provides that “No judge shall be of counsel, act as advocate, or receive any fees as advocate or counsel, in any probate business which is pending, or may be brought into any court of probate in the county of which he or she is judge” ^[1]
• The question's own words say what the two edits are for: “eliminating the office of register of probate” ^[1]
• The present text of Articles 71 and 81 could not be read for this research, so what exactly is struck from each is not set out above — only the text that would replace it, and the purpose the question states (see what we could not find) ^[1]
• Nothing in the question addresses what becomes of the probate records, staff or duties the office now holds, or when a sitting register's term would end ^[1]

When it would start

• No effective date appears in the question as printed on the ballot ^[1]
• No effective-date rule was located: when a ratified New Hampshire constitutional amendment takes effect was not read from any official source for this research (see what we could not find)
• The timing matters here more than usual, because a register of probate is being elected on the same ballot: what would happen to that four-year term is not addressed in the question ^[1]

If it passes

• Articles 71 and 81 of the second part of the New Hampshire Constitution are replaced with the text printed on the ballot: the register of probate is no longer among the county officers the people elect, and Article 81 speaks only of judges ^[1]

If it fails

• Articles 71 and 81 keep their present wording, and the register of probate remains a constitutionally named elected county office ^[1]

What it would cost

• No fiscal note was read for this research: the New Hampshire General Court's website did not respond and the Secretary of State's site returned an access-denied refusal, neither of which was worked around (see what we could not find) ^[1]
• New Hampshire prints no fiscal estimate with a constitutional amendment question: the ballot carries the question, the amended text and the chamber votes, and nothing more ^[1]
• No figure was found for the cost of the register of probate offices across the ten counties, and the direction of any saving is not stated in any source read here

How it got on the ballot

• A legislative referral. The ballot heading names the source — “QUESTIONS RELATING TO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE 2026 GENERAL COURT” — and the question's footer gives the vehicle: CACR 13, a Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution ^[1]
• The margins were lopsided. The ballot records “Passed by the N.H. House 325 Yes 15 No; Passed by the Senate 23 Yes 1 No” ^[1]
• New Hampshire prints those tallies on the ballot itself, beneath the question — so a voter sees how their legislature voted before deciding ^[1]
• No sponsor, committee history, hearing record or fiscal note was located: the General Court's website did not respond to any request in this pass and the Secretary of State's site refused access, and neither block was worked around (see what we could not find)
• It is the only constitutional amendment question on New Hampshire's 2026 ballot, numbered 1 ^[1]

What came before

• The register of probate is one of New Hampshire's oldest elected county offices, named in the constitution alongside the county treasurer, county attorney, sheriff and register of deeds ^[1]
• No official statement of purpose for CACR 13 was found, so why the General Court wanted the office gone is not reported here (see what we could not find)
• Article 81's separate mention of probate business is why a single office needs two articles amended: the constitution addresses the register in the list of elected officers and again in the rule about who may act as counsel in probate matters ^[1]
• Voters are electing a register of probate on the same ballot. In Hillsborough County the contest is between Ross W. Terrio and June Trisciani, printed a few lines above the question asking whether the office should exist ^[1]
• New Hampshire ballots this year also carry a separate local question under the heading “STATUTORY QUESTION REQUIRED BY HB 1300, CHAPTER 324, 2026”, asking each municipality whether to limit local property tax growth under RSA 32:5-i. That is a municipal question rather than a statewide one, and it is not this measure ^[1]

Who is paying for the campaign

Totals reported by committees formed for this measure. They are not the final figures, and a committee that campaigns on more than one measure is counted on each.

New Hampshire political committees report to the Secretary of State. No filing was read for this research: that site returned an access-denied refusal throughout, which was not worked around. So no committee is named and no total is given — that means no figure was read, not that no money is being spent. See what we could not find.

What each side says

Other people's words and claims, not ours, each with the page it came from. Where we found no organised campaign on a side, the page says so rather than inventing one.

Questions worth asking

• You are being asked to abolish an office on the same ballot on which you elect someone to it. If the amendment passes, does the person elected in November serve, and for how long?
• Who takes over the register of probate's work — the circuit court's probate division, the county, or the judicial branch's administrative office?
• What happens to the probate records the office holds, and to its staff?
• Is there a saving? No fiscal note could be read for this profile. Ask what the ten county offices cost and what the alternative would cost.
• Article 81 is amended too, dropping its reference to probate officers. Does that change who may act as counsel in a probate matter, or only tidy the wording?
• The question prints the new text of both articles but not the old. What words are actually being struck?
• It passed 325-15 and 23-1. What did the sixteen who voted no object to?
• How much of the vote does a New Hampshire amendment need to pass? The ballot does not say, and this profile could not establish it.
• Is anyone campaigning on this at all? No New Hampshire filing could be read for this profile.

What we could not find

• Every New Hampshire state website needed for this research was unreachable. The Secretary of State's site (sos.nh.gov, www.sos.nh.gov, app.sos.nh.gov) and nh.gov return an Akamai access-denied refusal to every request; the General Court's site (gencourt.state.nh.us, gc.nh.gov) accepts the connection and then never replies. Neither block was worked around. So there is no official state source behind this page: no CACR 13 bill text, no sponsor, no committee record, no hearing testimony, no fiscal note, no Secretary of State ballot-question notice and no campaign finance filing.
• The question above was read from a scanned sample ballot published by a city clerk, using optical character recognition, because the PDF carries no text layer. Three of Manchester's twelve ward ballots were processed independently and agree word for word on the question; the only differences between them are stray punctuation marks. It is nonetheless OCR rather than a published text, and a reader who needs the exact wording should check an official ballot.
• The present text of Articles 71 and 81 of the second part of the New Hampshire Constitution was not read, because the state's websites were unreachable. So what the amendment strikes is not set out: only the replacement text, and the purpose the question states.
• The share of the vote required to ratify a New Hampshire constitutional amendment was not established from an official source, and the ballot does not print it.
• When a ratified New Hampshire amendment takes effect was not established.
• What becomes of the register of probate's duties, records, staff and the term of the register elected on this same ballot was not established; the question is silent and no implementing legislation was read.
• No campaign finance filing was read, so no committee is named and no total is given, for or against.
• The sample ballot read here is Manchester's, in Hillsborough County. The constitutional question is statewide and identical everywhere, but the county offices printed beside it differ by county.

Sources