Opinion ID: 2319103
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: Before setting forth our analysis regarding your first and second questions, we note the proper standard of review. When we interpret statutes already in effect, they are construed to avoid conflict with constitutional rights wherever reasonably possible. Opinion of the Justices (Certain Evidence in Sexual Assault Cases), 140 N.H. 22, 26, 662 A.2d 294 (1995) (quotation omitted). The same standard applies when we review proposed legislation for it is understood that the [legislation] if enacted will be construed harmoniously with an individual's constitutional rights in any given case. Id. at 26-27, 662 A.2d 294. Thus, in reviewing proposed legislation, as when we review an existing statute, we presume it to be constitutional and will not declare it invalid except upon inescapable grounds. New-Hampshire Health Care Assoc. v. Governor, 161 N.H. 378, 385 (2011) (quotation omitted). This means that we will not hold [the act] to be unconstitutional unless a clear and substantial conflict exists between it and the constitution. Id. (quotation omitted). It also means that when doubts exist as to the constitutionality of a [legislative act], those doubts must be resolved in favor of its constitutionality. Id. (quotation omitted).