The short answer- the NH Legislature decides.
The long answer
If the General Court decided, they could follow Article 100 of the NH Constitution, which defines the selection of delegates for NH's amendment-proposing convention to the NH Constitution.
You can find the NH Constitution here.
Let's zoom into Article 100 of the NH Constitution.
[Art.] 100. [Alternate Methods of Proposing Amendments.] Amendments to this constitution may be proposed by the general court or by a constitutional convention selected as herein provided.
(a) The senate and house of representatives, voting separately, may propose amendments by a three fifths vote of the entire membership of each house at any session.
(b) The general court, by an affirmative vote of a majority of all members of both houses voting separately, may at any time submit the question "Shall there be a convention to amend or revise the constitution?" to the qualified voters of the state. If the question of holding a convention is not submitted to the people at some time during any period of ten years, it shall be submitted by the secretary of state at the general election in the tenth year following the last submission. If a majority of the qualified voters voting on the question of holding a convention approves it, delegates shall be chosen at the next regular general election, or at such earlier time as the legislature may provide, in the same manner and proportion as the representatives to the general court are chosen. The delegates so chosen shall convene at such time as the legislature may direct and may recess from time to time and make such rules for the conduct of their convention as they may determine.
(c) The constitutional convention may propose amendments by a three fifths vote of the entire membership of the convention.
Each constitutional amendment proposed by the general court or by a constitutional convention shall be submitted to the voters by written ballot at the next biennial November election and shall become a part of the Constitution only after approval by two thirds of the qualified voters present and voting on the subject in the towns, wards, and unincorporated places.
September 5, 1792. Question of calling a convention to be submitted every 7 years.
Amended 1964 twice changing submission of question on calling a convention to every 10 years rather than 7 and providing that the general court could propose amendments.
Amended 1980 twice incorporating provisions of repealed Art. 99 and requiring all proposals be submitted at the next biennial November election.But, like many other states, NH's General Court may decide to pass a "Faithful Delegate" law that sets the parameters for all Article V or other inter-state conventions.
But, like many other states, NH's General Court may decide to pass a "Faithful Delegate" law that sets the parameters for all Article V or other inter-state conventions.
NH does not want to have the same number of delegates as representatives of the General Court, nor the expense for so many delegates if they choose to follow NH's Article 100.
Instead, Representative Susan Porcelli and other House Representatives before her have chosen to be fiscally responsible and efficient with sending a small specified number of agents. Creating this law will skillfully empower the general court to implement the details surrounding any Article V or other inter-state convention, thus avoiding confusion.
Representative Susan Porcelli is the main sponsor for HB 269- FN Titled: "relative to limiting the authority of New Hampshire delegates to policymaking conventions."
Earlier this year, NH made an effort to outline how the General Court should handle their delegates. You can learn about the history of NH efforts on delegate bills from the March 17, 2022 House Journal on pages 29 & 30. Here is a great summary:
Rep. Scott Wallace for Legislative Administration. As amended, this bill places needed controls on delegates to inter/intrastate conventions, establishes the process by which the delegates are selected, provides for discipline and removal for unfaithful delegates, and sets forth their compensation. The previous version of this bill, HB 148 in 2015, was essentially the same bill and passed 233-76 in the House and passed the other body on a voice vote. Overturning the Governor’s veto was unsuccessful, but the majority of the committee feels it is important to know why the governor vetoed the bill. “Whether or not one agrees that an Article V convention is the right course of action for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution, and regardless of one’s stance on potential amendments proposed across the political spectrum, it is apparent that a convention to consider amending the constitution is not going to be called by the states any time soon.” At the time, there were only seven states, including New Hampshire, that had the needed legislation in place.* Here it is, seven short years later and the number has grown to 27 states, which means only seven more states are needed to call for a convention. It makes sense at this time to prepare for the eventuality of a convention so the legislature doesn’t have to work hastily in the future. This non-partisan language has been vetted thoroughly and has prior approval by both bodies of the General Court. The amendment clarifies the language of the original bill and defines the method of electing representatives.
* Representative Wallace referred to HCR40, which passed in 2012. The passed HCR40 is an Article V Resolution for a balanced budget amendment.
To learn about the different wording which could create legal problems on balanced budget amendments that have been sent to Congress, click here.
To learn more about why we still need to pass a Convention of States with the 3 topics, click here.
Convention of States Resolutions that have already passed in 19 states have the identical language. When the wording is exact, there can be no excuse for Congress not to set the time and place for the amendment-proposing convention.
Congress has demonstrated an unwillingness to discuss counting applications. Individual members of Congress have argued to not aggregate applications unless the subject matter is identical. This attitude extends to the wording as well. Congress seems to have indicated that it expects States to collaborate in defining the need and purpose of an amendatory convention.1
HB 269 contains the language that prior Legislature has passed.
It is clear, there will be Article V Resolutions passed in NH. What other non- violent, safe choice is there to rein in Washington DC?
Defining the selection of Agents, compensation, taking of oath, and most importantly being held accountable by the Secretary of State is an added safety net to make sure that NH's delegates do not "runaway."
To read more of the details on the bill, click here on page 29 & 30.
To learn how using an Article V convention can never runaway, click here for A Handbook for State Lawmakers by Robert G Natelson.
To learn how the difference between using an Article V and having a constitutional convention, click here.
1. Sara R. Ellis, Yusuf Z. Malik, Heather G. Parker, Benjamin C. Signer & Al'Reco L.Yancy, "Article V Constitutional Conventions: A Primer," Tennesseee Law Review 78 (2011):67 found in Drake, Timothy J. Far From Unworkable The Fears, Facts, FAQs and Court Findings Relating To The Constitution's Provision For An Article V Amendatory Convention, Libertas Books, Franlkin, Wisconsin, 2017, p. 250.
