Steven Rand et al. v. State of New Hampshire

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT Case No. 2024-0138 Steven RAND et al. v.

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The Appellant, Coalition Communities (the “Coalition”), Intervenor below, hereby objects to the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider the Decision Regarding the Remedy for Negative Tax Rate Violations, saying in support as follows: 1. The Coalition did not appeal the Superior Court’s decisions concerning the constitutionality of negative SWEPT rates and thus takes no position on the request to reconsider the portion of this Court’s order concerning negative SWEPT rates. 2. In places - such as the title of the motion – Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider appears to seek reconsideration only of this Court’s order vacating the Superior Court’s injunction concerning negative rates.

However, the prayer for relief seems to seek reconsideration of this Court’s entire opinion, and footnote 1 of the Motion is ambiguous over whether Plaintiffs are also seeking reconsideration of the Court’s decision reversing the Superior Court on the constitutionality of the SWEPT as administered (the discussion labelled “Excess SWEPT” in Part II.C. of the Court’s opinion). 3. To the extent Plaintiffs are requesting reconsideration of the Excess SWEPT portion of this Court’s decision, the request should be denied. 4. Supreme Court Rule 22(2) requires a movant to “state with particularity the points of law or fact that in the professional judgment of the movant the court has overlooked or misapprehended.” 5. The Motion does not state with particularity any points the Court overlooked or misapprehended in the Excess SWEPT portion of the Court’s opinion. Instead, the Motion only says the Plaintiffs agree with Justice Bassett’s dissent and will not repeat those arguments. That is not sufficient argument under Rule 22(2) and the Motion should accordingly be denied. 6. Furthermore, the Court did not overlook or misapprehend any points of law or fact. The Court considered and properly rejected the “effective tax” argument discussed in Justice Basset’s dissent when the Court noted correctly that “there is no evidence in the record that these ‘effective rates’ are actually paid by taxpayer,” that “under the SWEPT, as administered, taxpayers are actually assessed at a uniform rate,” and, therefore,”[t]hat concludes the constitutional inquiry.” Because plaintiffs provided no evidence taxpayers payed different SWEPT rates, the Court correctly concluded in Part II.C of its opinion there is no violation of Part II, Art. 5.

WHEREFORE the Coalition respectfully requests that the Court A. Deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration to the extent it seeks reconsideration of the Excess SWEPT portion (Part II.C) of the opinion; B. Grant such other relief as is necessary and just.

Respectfully submitted, COALITION COMMUNITIES By Its Attorneys, SHEEHAN PHINNEY BASS & GREEN, P.A.

Dated: June 26, 2025 By: _____/s/ John-Mark Turner_____________ John-Mark Turner, Bar No. 15610 Abbygale M. Dow, Bar No. 272938 1000 Elm Street, P.O. Box 3701 Manchester, NH 03101 (603) 627-8143 jturner@sheehan.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this day a copy of the foregoing pleading was served via the Court’s electronic system on counsel of record. /s/ John-Mark Turner John-Mark Turner