#

Having been forced out of her position as Coos County Democratic Party chairwoman, the former domestic partner of State Sen. Jeff Woodburn–and the alleged victim of his violence–wants her fellow Democrats to know: She’s not the problem.

“My client did not report [Woodburn’s attacks],” her attorney Patricia LaFrance told NHJournal.com “She was contacted by the authorities who asked her if something was wrong, and who told her they had reason to believe something was happening to her. She didn’t bring this. They [the authorities] brought it to her.”

LaFrance pointed out that this information was made public during the recent court hearing on Sen. Woodburn’s criminal domestic violence case, and yet her client is still being punished by the community. “She got an email, sort of like a friendly warning, that her own party was planning–and these were the exact words–“a political lynching” for her,” LaFrance told NHJournal.

“I spent 18 years in a prosecutor’s office, and I know from experience it’s hard enough getting victims of domestic and sexual violence to come forward. To see a woman treated like this…in 2018? It’s unbelievable.”

LaFrance’s client was allegedly forced from her county leadership position over Facebook postings on the Coos County Democratic Party page highlighting the issue of domestic violence and violence against women–a problematic issue when the party’s nominee for state senate is facing criminal charges for allegedly punching and repeatedly biting his former domestic partner.

At an August meeting of the Coos County Democratic Committee after Woodburn’s arrest, his fellow Democrats rejected a motion to call for his resignation. And the New Hampshire Democratic Party says it stands behind their decision to oust his victim from her county chairmanship.

“Let me be clear: The party maintains its decision to withdraw support for the District One nominee (Woodburn),” NH Democratic Party chairman Ray Buckley said in a statement. However, Buckley denied that he or the state Democratic Party had any knowledge of the harassment or threats she has received from local Woodburn supporters.  “Whoever did this was not acting on behalf of, or authorized by, the New Hampshire Democratic Party. We do not support these actions, and as soon as we learn of more details regarding this, we will address them immediately,” Buckley said in his statement.

The NH GOP wasted no time responding.  “The intimidation tactics by Ray Buckley and the Democrat political leadership against this individual are reprehensible,” GOP state party chair Wayne MacDonald said in a statement. The NHGOP also released a series of Facebook screen grabs showing prominent state Democrats like Rep. Steve Shurtleff (D-Penacook) and Sen. Martha Fuller Clark (D-Portsmouth) celebrating Woodburn’s victory over his female opponent in the September 11th Democratic primary.

Woodburn’s case–which involves multiple accounts of domestic assault and violence— comes at an unfortunate time for New Hampshire Democrats, who have been working hard to increase their support among women, have nominated a woman gubernatorial nominee (former state senator Molly Kelly), and have repeatedly attempted to link incumbent Gov. Chris Sununu and the NHGOP to allegations of misogyny and anti-woman attitudes from President Trump and the national GOP.  The tacit support for Woodburn’s candidacy feeds charges of hypocrisy from their GOP counterparts.

Molly Kelly, a political ally of Woodburn’s in the past, hasn’t helped her party’s cause. Though she offered a pro forma call for Woodburn to resign when he was first arrested, she refused to join other Democrats in endorsing or campaigning for Woodburn’s primary opponent.

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has ended her drought in New Hampshire’s First Congressional District. As reported here at NHJournal, for weeks not a single one of the eleven (count ’em, 11!) Democratic candidates in the primary would commit on the record to supporting Pelosi for Speaker of the House.

Not anymore! Thursday night at a candidate event hosted by the Hampton, NH Democrats, one of the candidates came out of the Pelosi closet.  Meet N.H. State Representative and candidate for Congress, Mark MacKenzie, who issued this statement to NHJournal:

Nancy Pelosi has served with distinction in the United State Congress for over 30 years. She was the first woman in US history to be elected as the Speaker. She has supported countless Democrats in this country helping them get elected.  The role Representative Pelosi will play in the future will be decided by the new Congress. Nancy Pelosi deserves the respect of this nation for her faithful service to this country.  My focus is on getting elected to represent the first CD and this is where my attention is focused.

So there you go, Ms. Former Speaker–you’ve got a supporter!  Interestingly, none of the three women running in the Democratic primary have endorsed Pelosi for Speaker. One of them, Rep. Mindi Messmer, has said explicitly that it’s time for Democrats to make a change.

Watch for yourself courtesy of the twitter feed of intrepid NH political reporter Paul Steinhauser:

Politico is reporting that Deval Patrick is “inching closer toward deciding on a 2020 presidential run.”

Quoting the former Massachusetts governor’s longtime political advisor John Walsh, Politico is feeding a narrative they’ve nursed for a nearly a year now–that Barack Obama and his political team want Patrick to pick up the presidential mantle.

Today, Politico reports that Patrick “is really thinking about running but hasn’t decided yet,” according to Walsh.  Last August, Politico ran a story entitled: “Obama’s Inner Circle Is Urging Deval Patrick to Run.”

According to the August piece, “Barack Obama is nudging him to run” and Patrick is “ObamaWorld’s clear and away 2020 favorite.”  At the time, Patrick was more circumspect, saying  “it’s way, way too soon to be making plans for 2020.” Fascinatingly, he gave the interview from his post-governor gig at Bain Capital, the (evil) venture capital firm founded by another former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney.

Some big-dollar Democratic donors who play beltway politics are reportedly pushing Patrick, too.  And Patrick advisors like David Axelrod say Deval has early state advantages due to his experience campaigning in small-town central and western Massachusetts (helps in Iowa) and the eight years as governor of New Hampshire’s southern neighbor.

However, as NHJournal has reported, early polling has Patrick in single digits in the Granite State (despite eight years of coverage in the area’s biggest TV market), and when Sen. Liz Warren’s name is added, Patrick’s support drops to 4 percent.

Do polls six months before the midterms really matter? Of course not. But it does show that, for the moment, Washington, DC politicos and publications are more excited about the Patrick run that New Hampshire’s Democrats are.

Democratic State Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (author of the new book Lion Of The New Hampshire Senate) tells NHJournal: “I don’t think Patrick would capture the attention of NH Democrats.  He didn’t spend a lot of time here and I don’t believe he has been back since he left office.  As you know, the Bernie followers are very active.  It remains to be seen as to what the field will look like.”

UPDATE: Longtime Democratic activist and media personality Jim Braude tells NHJournal that Patrick would be a strong candidate in the Granite State. “Deval Patrick is maybe the best campaigner I’ve ever seen,” says Braude, who along with his broadcasting partner Margery Eagan hosted Gov. Patrick’s monthly “Ask The Governor” radio program during his eight years in office.

“Speechifying and one-on-one, he’s tailor made for Iowa and New Hampshire. Throw in the fact that he’s a liberal who business types can relate to and you’ve got a candidate,” Braude says.

The “Politics and Eggs” breakfast at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics is one of the compulsory events in Granite State politics for anyone considering a presidential run.  Conservative journalist and national leader of the #NeverTrump movement, Bill Kristol, will be making an appearance–and firing up the 2020 rumor mill–on Wednesday, May 23rd.

NHJournal’s Michael Graham caught up with Kristol at one of his Harvard Yard haunts on the eve of his speech for a quick Q&A:

MG: My first question for you is this: Is Bill Kristol coming to “Politics and Eggs” to formally announce his candidacy in the 2020 presidential race?

BK:  It’s tempting, it’s tempting. But then I’d be laughed out of New Hampshire and I’d be slipping back across the border to Massachusetts in about 12 minutes. So I think I won’t do that.

I’m just talking about my analysis of the political situation. It’s always great to be in New Hampshire because people here are so interested in national politics, and they follow it much more closely than almost any other state because they’re so conscious of their “First in the Nation” primary. And I do think the fact that independents can vote in either primary–and so many New Hampshire voters are independents–means they tend to follow both parties. In some states the Republicans follow Republican stories, and the Democrats have the Democratic stories. In New Hampshire, everyone follows everything.

MG: Which potential 2020 candidate best matches the mood of the Democratic electorate?

BK:  I think there are several moods going at once, which is why it’s complicated. There’s obviously a ‘We hate, loathe and despise Trump and we will reward the person who hates, loathes and despises him the most’ [mood].  There’s also a ‘Look, we’ve got a win’ [mood], with Democrats saying ‘We cannot afford to lose to this guy and, incidentally, we lost because we were out of touch with parts of middle America. Some of those concerns were legitimate, and some of those concerns are traditional Democratic concerns–stagnant wages and stuff like that–and so we need somebody who can speak to them.’

That leads you in two pretty different directions.

The conventional wisdom among Republicans in Washington is the Left has all the energy. Everything’s going Left. The empirical evidence so far in the primaries is a little mixed, I would say. Some moderates have won primaries. Some Lefties have won some primaries, and some have just been extremely close like the Nebraska [NE-2] primary. So I’m sort of open-minded about that debate on the Democratic side.

MG: What about Republicans?  Trump’s approval is back in the upper 80s, approaching 90 percent among Republicans. Of those Republicans who are dissatisfied–maybe they’re reluctant Trump supporters, whatever. Are they angry at Trump, or do the just want their party to go in a different direction?

BK:  I think Trump supporters–let’s just say it’s 80, 85 percent of the Republicans–are split into two categories: Half of them, some 40 percent of the Republican Party, are Trump loyalists. They believe in him. They are proud to have voted for Him. They hate his enemies and they like the fact that he’s shaking things up.  But about half of Trump supporters are reluctant Trump supporters. They voted for someone else in the primary–Bush or Cruz or Rubio.  They mostly voted for Trump in the general election because of Hillary and judges and so forth.

They support some of the things Trump has done, but they’re not Trump loyalists and I think they’re open to the following argument, one which you can’t really make now, you have to make it the day after the midterms:

It goes like this: ‘You voted for Trump. We’re not gonna criticize that. You support a lot of things he does. You think a lot of the criticisms of him are unfair. We’re not going to quarrel with that.  But–do you really want to do this for another four years?

It’s a little crazy. It’s a little chaotic. He comes with some downside risks. In foreign policy and and other things, maybe you could just like pocket the gains and get a more normal, so to speak,  Republican or Conservative.’

I think that message would have–could have– more appeal after Election Day this year. Right now it sounds like, ‘Well, you’re just anti-Trump. We’ve got to rally to Trump, we’ve got to defeat the Democrats.’  But I think November 7th [the day after the midterms], everything changes.  Because the question becomes not a retrospective question of were you right to vote for trump or his critics, or ‘what about Hillary?’ It becomes a prospective question. What do you want going forward?

MG: Last question: The Democratic ticket that you think Republicans should be the most afraid of in 2020?

BK: That’s a good question. These things are actually harder to predict.  I’m inclined to give the conventional answer, which I think is right, which is the more moderate the candidate Democrats nominate, the easier it is to win back some Republican voters and independents.  I guess I have the kind of conventional view that that’s the most dangerous thing for the Republicans.

But you know, sometimes history fools you.  Everyone thought Reagan would be easier to defeat than a more moderate Republican.  Take Elizabeth Warren. [Republicans think] That’d be great. We can demonize her. She’s scary. She’s left wing.

Well, I don’t know.  Maybe she could run a campaign that was pretty intelligent and get the best of both worlds: The Hillary Clinton appeal, first woman president; And some of the Sanders energy. Look, she’s a Harvard law professor. She’s not crazy.

It could be like Obama. [Independent voters saying] ‘She’s a little more liberal that I like, but she comes from modest origins.’ So I think [my fellow conservatives] may underrate Warren a little bit.

Former–and possibly future–Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has already become an issue in New Hampshire’s midterm elections. And not in a good way.

As reported at NHJournal, of the nine Democrats seeking their party’s nomination in the First Congressional District primary, the number who have committed to supporting Pelosi for speaker is…zero.  As it turns out, they may be on to something.

A new Morning Consult/Politico poll finds that both among Democrats nationally and voters in the liberal Northeast, Rep. Pelosi (D-CA) is surprisingly unpopular. When asked “In thinking about the 2018 midterm elections in Congress, would an endorsement from each of the following make you more or less likely to vote for a candidate?” an astonishing 49 percent of Hillary Clinton supporters said an endorsement from Pelosi would made them less likely to support a candidate. Only 38 percent said it would make them more likely.

More locally, 58 percent of registered voters in the deep-blue Northeast would be less likely to support Pelosi-backed candidates.

Morning Consult also reports another disturbing trend for Democrats:  Trump voters are more motivated to vote in the November midterms than Hillary Clinton voters, 68 to 58 percent.  More broadly, they report 84% of Republicans describe themselves as motivated, while 80 percent of Democrats say the same.

One glimmer of good news for Democrats in New Hampshire and beyond:

The poll also shows Democrats leading on the generic congressional ballot by 5 percentage points, 43 percent to 38 percent. That is slightly closer than Democrats’ 7-point lead in last week’s poll, 42 percent to 35 percent.

The only question Democrats should be asking themselves about taking control of the House of Representatives in 2018 is “What color does Nancy Pelosi want for the drapes?”  At least, that’s the conventional wisdom. Add together the fact that it’s Trump’s first term (first-term midterms are usually bad for the party in the White House); Republicans have lost far more special election since Trump’s election than they’ve won: and the fact that, well, it’s President Trump, and it would appear that a Democratic House majority is a 2019 lock.

And yet…

Small data points keep appearing that give the Republican faithful reason to hope. The most recent is a new Reuters/Ipsos poll showing younger voters’ support for the Democratic Party fading as the midterms draw nearer.

Enthusiasm for the Democratic Party is waning among millennials as its candidates head into the crucial midterm congressional elections, according to the Reuters/Ipsos national opinion poll.  The online survey of more than 16,000 registered voters ages 18 to 34 shows their support for Democrats over Republicans for Congress slipped by about 9 percentage points over the past two years, to 46 percent overall.

And they increasingly say the Republican Party is a better steward of the economy.  That presents a potential problem for Democrats who have come to count on millennials as a core constituency – and will need all the loyalty they can get to achieve a net gain of 23 seats to capture control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November.

NHJournal has already reported why younger voters have less of an impact on New Hampshire elections than almost any other state. However, any sign that anti-GOP sentiment might be fading is good news for embattled Republicans hoping to pick up a congressional seat in New Hampshire this year.

Other recent pro-GOP data points include:

     Democrats’ Lead On Generic Ballot Has Gone From “Humongous” To Merely “Big”

In February there were polls showing Democrats had a 14-point lead on the question “Would you rather be represented by a Democrat or a Republican in Congress?” That’s a huge number, historically speaking. But the latest Real Clear Politics average shows the Democrats’ advantage down to 6.8 percent, and the trend is narrowing.  It’s still a sizable lead—about the same lead the GOP had just before the 2010 midterms when they won 63 seats and took control of the House.  So while the number may be improving….it’s still bad.

     The GOP And Its Allies Are Raising Lots of Money.

The Republican National Committee recently announced it raised $39 million in the first three months of 2018, including a record $13.8 million haul in March. It’s part of a $250 million campaign for the midterms. Meanwhile, the NRA just announced it set a one-month record in fundraising for its political arm. It’s true that Democrats are also raising a lot of money but, given the enthusiasm gap, the GOP can be encouraged by the fact that they’re keeping it close.

     Trump’s Approval Rating Seems To Have Stabilized at “Mediocre.”

Nate Silver, the notorious numbers-cruncher at FiveThirtyEight.com made an interesting observation at the end of April: The Trump presidency may be volatile, but his numbers are not.

“Trump’s approval rating has been between 40.0% and 41.1% for 55 consecutive days in our tracking. It really doesn’t move very much at all. And it’s not like there hasn’t been news during this period.”

Now add in the fact that the overwhelmingly-negative media coverage makes some percentage of Trump supporters unwilling to admit it to pollsters—say, around 3 percent—and you’ve got a president whose real approval is around 45 percent. Not great, but not a disaster, either. 

All in all, Sean Trende, Senior Elections Analyst for RealClearPolitics told NHPolitics.com:  “Trump’s improving job numbers and the narrowing generic ballot suggest that Republicans have a fighting chance, though not much of one.”

Which is why so many GOP candidates in 2018 are recalling the words of that great political philosopher, Lloyd Christmas: “So you’re telling me there’s a chance…”

Martin O’Malley, former Maryland governor and 2016 Democratic presidential contender, brought a message of unabashed optimism to Tuesday’s “Politics and Eggs” event. Optimism–and liberalism.

“I bring good news,” O’Malley told the crowd at St. Anselm College. “It’s springtime. There’s goodness in this country, and it longs to be called forward.”

The “Politics and Eggs” event hosted by the New England Council and St. Anselm’s Institute of Politics is a mandatory stop on the presidential-contenders New Hampshire circuit.  O’Malley used this return visit to call upon Democrats to embrace the energy and idealism of young Americans. He specifically pointed to the leaders of the #MarchForOurLives rally for gun control, which he attended with his son.

“If you want to know where a country is headed, talk to its young people,” O’Malley said. “What I heard from that stage was the best of America.”

O’Malley made light of his previous less-than-successful bid for the White House, calling his return to the Granite State “a triumph of hope over cruel experience.”  He also took a pot shot at his previous POTUS rivals (“I was the only lifelong Democrat who ran for President in 2016”) and offered praise of a sort for the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:

“Donald Trump is the most effective tool for candidate recruitment we Democrats have ever had.”

On policy, O’Malley toed the progressive line on issues from gun control to immigration to social spending—even calling for an expansion of Social Security at a time when many analysts are concerned about its long-term solvency.

But the specific issue most on the mind of the crowd and the candidate was guns. “America is the only developed nation on the planet to allow people to buy combat assault weapons,” O’Malley said repeatedly throughout his remarks.  When a questioner asked what he would do about school violence “without repealing the Second Amendment,” O’Malley laid out his extensive record on gun control while governor of Maryland: Requiring fingerprints and gun training for all purchases; imposing a mandatory 7-day wait period; banning the sale of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition; and banning the sale of what O’Malley insists on calling “combat assault weapons.”

The NRA calls these same guns “45 specific types of commonly owned semiautomatic firearms” and Maryland passed O’Malley’s gun law in 2013 over their strenuous objections.  Interestingly, the homicide rate in Maryland has actually increased since the 2013 gun ban went into effect. In fact, the city of Baltimore alone had almost as many murders in 2017 (343) as the entire state had the last year O’Malley was governor (363). Why would gun crime increase in the wake of a gun ban, and at a faster rate than the nation as a whole?

“It’s hard to measure prevention,” O’Malley said, before laying the blame for increased homicide rates at the feet of the two Baltimore mayors,  Stephanie C. Rawlings-Blake and Catherine Pugh, who were elected after he left the mayor’s office to become governor.

O’Malley claimed there’s “a strong correlation between states that make it harder for pope to buy combat assault weapons and lower rates of both homicides and suicides,” an opinion some researchers do not share.

“In Baltimore there were a number of things we did during the 10-year period [when O’Malley was mayor] we led all cities in the rate of reduction of crime, and I was not able to make many of those things permanent. Upon my leaving, my two successors starting making different policy choices.”

O’Malley paused, then added: “There really wasn’t much journalistic scrutiny about those reversals of policy and as a result a lot of people are being killed again in our poorest neighborhoods.”

So does Martin O’Malley believe that gun control is a winning issue for Democrats in 2020?

“Yes I do. In 2020, and beyond.”

Is it time to repeal the Second Amendment?  Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an op-ed for the New York Times urging just that, and at least one New Hampshire Democrat thinks it’s worth considering.

Rep. Katherine Rogers (D-Merrimack) has long been active in the New Hampshire state house pushing gun control measures (she prefers the phrase “gun violence prevention”) and in an interview with the NH Journal, she said “it’s an interesting discussion that we should have.”

“I think that the United States Constitution is a living, breathing document and it’s always time to revisit and to look at our Constitution,” Rep. Rogers said.

“So I think having this discussions is good, and maybe the op-ed by Justice Stevens leads to a lot of interesting discussion. That’s a good thing. I don’t know if I’m ready to say let’s get rid of the Second Amendment, but I think it’s an interesting discussion for everybody to have,” Rogers said.

Jonathan Weinberg, one of the student leaders of the #MarchForOurLives rallies in New Hampshire singled out Rep. Rogers, along with state senator Martha Hennessey (D-Hanover), for supporting students’ efforts on gun control. Last week, students from the group presented a petition signed by several hundred area students to Gov. Sununu and the state senate urging the legislature to change state law and allow local school districts to declare their schools gun-free zones. The measure failed 14-9.

Meanwhile, the New Hampshire GOP is following the lead of President Trump, seizing on the Stevens op-ed to urge gun-rights supporters to get involved in the 2018 elections.  Just hours after President Trump tweeted about Justice Stevens’ call for repeal (“NO WAY! We need more Republicans in 2018 ad must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!”) the NHGOP posted “StopTheGunGrab.com,” featuring a video by party chairwoman Jeanie Forrester. In the video, she warns New Hampshire residents that “The Left is openly advocating the repeal of the Second Amendment…It’s unconscionable.” (See full video below)

Forrester demands elected Democrats like Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, Sen. Maggie Hassan and Rep. Annie Kuster “must denounce this un-American threat to our liberties.”

For their part, Democrats don’t seem worried. Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley responded to the video by mocking the GOP.

This is not a parody from the @nhdems staff. This is real. Let that sink in and the donate to the https://t.co/9XneCHlKtJ to #VoteThemOut2018. They are stunningly out of touch with reality.   #nhpolitics https://t.co/w84trzZpzb

— Ray Buckley (@ChairmanBuckley) March 28, 2018

Is welcoming a conversation about repealing the Second Amendment and mocking gun-owners concerns a sign that the New Hampshire Democratic Party is moving left on the gun issue, along with their national party?  Do they believe that gun control could be a winning issue in the Granite State?

“Oh, please,” says Republican Bill O’Brien, former Speaker of the NH House, “throw us in that briar patch!” O’Brien believes that even among Democratic voters, support for gun rights in New Hampshire is strong.

“We’re not afraid of guns here,” O’Brien to the NHJournal. “I don’t know who [the Democrats] are talking to with these messages—maybe the academic crowd, college students? Let them run on gun control and see how most voters react.”

It wasn’t a good day for Democrats in the New Hampshire House. Lawmakers who were opposed to bills like election law reform and fetal homicide legislation saw that their efforts were futile in convincing a Republican-led chamber to defeat them.

Thursday marked the final deadline for the House to act on legislation that originated in the Senate before conference committees are set up on bills to reconcile any differences between the two chambers. Naturally, some of the most controversial bills were saved for this day and most of them passed the House despite protests and hard campaigning from Democrats.

Today has been a day of gut punches in #nhpolitics. Our resolve needs to be absolute https://t.co/qAJgSLhCop

— Sherry Frost (@frostnhstaterep) June 1, 2017

The House passed Senate Bill 3, a bill tightening the identification requirements for people registering to vote, by a 191-162 vote. Only two Democrats voted for the bill and nine Republicans opposed it.

“I commend the support of the House in strengthening the residency requirements for voters in New Hampshire as there is nothing more sacred as a citizen of this state and this nation than the right to cast a ballot in a free and open election,” said bill sponsor Sen. Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead. “This legislation does nothing more than ask a resident to provide proof that they live where they say they do and provides an additional layer of protections increasing the integrity of elections in the state of New Hampshire.”

This was one of the most hotly debated bills of the legislative session. Proponents say it closes a “domicile loophole” where people are allowed to vote in the state without being required to prove it. Opponents believe it’s a GOP bill to suppress voters, especially young people.

“Today’s vote in support of SB 3 was a partisan sabotage of the election process that will do nothing but confuse and intimidate new voters,” said House Minority Leader Steve Shurtleff. “This legislation adds over 350 words to the registration form that new voters will be required to read, and swear to understand, with the pressure of a growing line behind them at the polls on Election Day.”

The bill heads back to the Senate, which is expected to concur with small changes made by the House. If they approve of it, the bill will go to Gov. Chris Sununu’s desk where he is expected to sign it into law.

Democrats accused that the bill further perpetuates President Donald Trump’s claims that there is rampant voter fraud in the United States.

“This legislation was clearly designed to placate those who buy into President Trump’s discredited assertion that fraud cost him the popular vote in New Hampshire,” Shurtleff said. “Leaders from both parties denounced those assertions, and as we know from the reports released following every single New Hampshire election, voter fraud is not an issue in our state.”

SB 3 also has the backing of Secretary of State William Gardner, a Democrat. He said he doesn’t believe the bill places undue burdens on any voter. He was recently asked to sit on Trump’s voter fraud commission.

The bill also garnered interest from outside groups that spent money in the state to convince residents to contact their legislator to oppose the bill.

“As host of the first-in-the-nation primary, New Hampshire has the obligation to ensure our system is beyond reproach,” Sununu said in a statement. “This bill does exactly that and as such, I support SB 3 and commend the House of Representatives for their actions today.”

Democrats were also not happy about the passage of Senate Bill 66, legislation that defines a fetus at 20 weeks and beyond as a person for purposes of criminal prosecution of murder or other violent crimes.It contains an exemption for abortion. The bill passed 186-170.

Handmaidens @NHHouseofReps reminding us of the importance of protecting women's reproductive rights #nhpolitcs pic.twitter.com/Od0DPWAA7N

— ACLU_New Hampshire (@ACLU_NH) June 1, 2017

Democrats tried several times during the session to table the bill, but those attempts failed. The bill was originally retained in the House Criminal Justice Committee a couple weeks again and lawmakers expected to work on it over the next few months. In a surprise move last week, Republicans reconsidered the bill and voted it ought to pass to the full House.

“Today, the House of Representatives passed a critical fix that allows prosecution of individuals who criminally end the life of a viable unborn baby,” Sununu said. “It provides security and addresses injustice for women who may have been in abusive situations that resulted in the death of a fetus.”

The bill will also go back to the Senate to concur on a House amendment and then on to Sununu’s desk, if approved.

There was a bright spot for Democrats when the House overwhelmingly passed Senate Bill 191 to fund full-day kindergarten in the state. The final vote was 231 to 100.

Approximately $1,100 per pupil would be sent to school districts for the program with the funds coming through revenues from Keno, the electronic bingo game, which is currently illegal in New Hampshire.

“The House of Representatives deserves high praise for moving full-day kindergarten forward and recognizing that this is a priority for many families in both considering the quality of a community’s public education and in their decision-making process when choosing a place to raise their children,” Sununu said.

The bill heads back to the Senate, which has historically rejected Keno. Democrats blasted the Senate budget for not funding full-day kindergarten in its proposal, but it’s not clear if tying Keno revenues to the program will deter it in the Senate.

“This bill is a long-overdue recognition of those benefits, and a signal to working families and the business community that we understand our obligation to offer all New Hampshire children the opportunity for a high quality education,” Shurtleff said. “Support of full day public kindergarten is a top priority for House Democrats, and I am pleased that the Republican majority has joined us in recognizing the benefit of this investment.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

This week, the New Hampshire Democratic Party will hold its annual state committee meeting to elect new officers to serve through the 2018 elections. Judging by their honored guest and keynote speaker, the Democrats have failed to learn anything about the 2016 Presidential election and are instead doubling down on a dangerously extremist leftwing ideology.

On Saturday evening, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison will share his vision for America. It’s a vision that will no doubt make the likes of Annie Kuster and Carol Shea-Porter stand on their chairs and cheer. But it’s a vision that should make regular working Granite Staters shudder.

Ellison comes from the extremist wing of the Democratic Party – the wing that puts ideology over the needs and concerns of working families. Consider Ellison’s authorship of an “alternative” budget in 2015. Ellison’s budget called for a breathtaking $4 trillion in job-killing tax increases. He’d want us to believe these were just tax increases on the “rich.” But the truth is Ellison’s budget was no friend to American taxpayers. It advocated for an increased gas tax, increase taxes on retirement savings, restricted itemized tax deductions, jacked up taxes on savings and investments, and imposed a new carbon tax, among other terrible ideas. Ellison’s budget was a smorgasbord of loony leftwing policy ideas that would have put government in control of just about everything while crippling family budgets.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said Ellison’s budget “offers a more liberal alternative than that proposed by either party or the President.” The President to which they were referring was Obama. Incidentally, Hillary Clinton was too conservative for Ellison, too. He called her a Republican while declining to endorse her in September, 2015.

Worse still, Ellison’s budget represents something of a conservative compromise for him. In it, he calls for a top tax rate of 49 percent. Elsewhere Ellison has advocated for tax rates as high as 63 percent. “There’s plenty of money,” he argued. “It’s just that the government doesn’t have it.”

It’s not just financial freedom that Ellison opposes. He’s against personal freedom, as well.

Rep. Ellison is openly hostile to the rights of gun owners. In Congress, he has proposed legislation to severely limit the amount of ammunition sold and called for a so-called assault weapons ban.

When asked by Bill Maher in a 2014 interview why the Democratic Party didn’t “come out against the Second Amendment,” Ellison responded, “I sure wish they would. I sure wish they would.” Understand Ellison here isn’t calling for gun control – he’s calling for the full repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

What is the New Hampshire Democratic Party saying about itself by showcasing Rep. Ellison? It appears fully embrace this radical worldview, which is so belligerent to regular working folks. It’s an odd takeaway from an election in which working people walked away from the liberal policies of the Democratic Party in droves.

Ellison is a close ally of New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley. The Democratic National Committee rebuffed their alliance, which would have made Ellison the party’s national chair and Buckley a high-ranking party official. Apparently, their liberal worldview was too much for the national party to bear. Instead they chose a Clinton insider to head the party.

But this liberal tandem isn’t going away. They’re just bringing their goofy leftwing routine to New Hampshire in hopes of radicalizing the Live Free or Die state.