CONCORD — The House of Representatives passed a bill Tuesday that would let legislators keep constituents' e-mails confidential, which some Right-to-Know law advocates say could compromise the statute.

"The idea is to promote free communication between constituents and legislators," said Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare, one of the primary sponsors of House Bill 349.

Kurk said he and many of his colleagues felt this exemption to the revised Right-to-Know law that state lawmakers passed in 2008 was needed so people would not have to worry about their e-mails ending up in the public domain. The measure will now move to the state Senate.

"This bill only applies to a very small number of legislative e-mails," Kurk said.

He said it does not apply to e-mails not directly related to legislative business. For example, if a lawmaker used e-mail to commit a crime or for gambling, Kurk said this proposed measure would not exempt those e-mails from the Right-to-Know law.

Rep. Frank Tupper, D-Canterbury, who co-sponsored the bill, said if a constituent wrote him an e-mail and does not want it included in a legislative committee's testimony or distributed to other lawmakers, it should not be considered a government record.

"It's not an attempt to hide anything," Tupper said. "It is meant to protect the confidentiality between the legislator and the constituent."

In the bill's language, lawmakers indicate constituents are becoming more fearful their e-mails will automatically be part of the public record.

"The general court is concerned that fear on the part of constituents and others that their communications will be made public without their knowledge or consent has had and will continue to have a chilling effect on such communications to the detriment of the legislative process," the bill reads.

The bill also states "that electronic communication or email of a legislator is confidential, not accessible by any other person without the consent of the legislator, and not subject to subpoena."

Some Right-to-Know law advocates see this proposed bill as a threat to the openness of government.

"I think that they're wrong," said Rod Doherty, executive editor of Foster's Daily Democrat, who worked with the Legislature's Right to Know Oversight Commission on the revised statute in 2008. "Their definition is it's public record for public officials who are below the rank of state legislator. I find that curious."

Before the House approved House Bill 349 Tuesday, the measure was unanimously approved by the House Legislative Administration Committee's 14 members on March 17. Kurk and Tupper said no one on the panel even raised the issue of whether the bill contradicted any portion of the revised Right-to-Know law.

"I don't understand why they are so afraid of sharing communication with constituents with the public," Doherty said.

John Howe, editor of The Citizen in Laconia, is concerned the bill could restrict public access to information they should know about.

"It's a slippery slope and once you start down it, it's hard to stop," Howe said. "The public's business is the public's business."

Attorney Bill Chapman of the law firm Orr-Reno in Concord said he has done a great of work on right-to-know cases.

"What is a government record and is a governmental record mutually exclusive with this form of communication?" are two questions Chapman would ask himself.

Chapman said if a constituent sends an e-mail to an individual member of the New Hampshire House or Senate, it may or may not be a governmental record. But if the e-mail is addressed to a lawmaker who serves as chairman of a specific House or Senate committee, he said it could be considered a government record.

Chapman said the revised Right-to-Know law passed last year sought to clarify the definition of when an e-mail or electronic communication should be considered a government record. Communication between a constituent and a lawmaker may not rise to that level, he said.

"The point is well taken that representatives and senators could take a position to seal all electronic records from the public," Chapman said.

He said that could lead to a court case that would have to determine which e-mails or electronic communication should or shouldn't be public record. Chapman said electronic communication is a sufficient enough legal term to cover everything from e-mails, Facebook and Twitter to blogs and text messages sent by Blackberry devices.

Michael Gillis, president of the New Hampshire Press Association, said he is concerned the bill calls for state lawmakers to have discretion over when an e-mail from a constituent should be a public record.

"It gives them too much power to decide what is and isn't public," Gillis said.