#

During the seven-hour hearing for Frank Edelblut’s nomination as the state education commissioner, there were several comparisons of the former state representative to Betsy DeVos, President Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of education.

Edelblut is to NH as DeVos is to US. We can do so much better on both levels. #nhpolitics

— Gerald W.R. Ward (@wardports) January 31, 2017

Both DeVos and Edelblut have little experience with the public school system. They are both strong supporters of school choice.

While Edelblut is a product of public schools himself, he and his wife homeschooled their seven children. Edelblut did receive his bachelor’s degree in business at a public institution, the University of Rhode Island, and eventually received a master’s in theological studies at the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology.

Since 2009, Edelblut has served on the board of the Patrick Henry College Foundation, which is partnered with the evangelical Christian college in Virginia. This affiliation became a contentious point during his hearing between Edelblut and Democratic Executive Councilor Andru Volinsky of Concord. According to the college website, affiliates of the school must attest to a “Statement of Biblical Worldview” and follow “God’s Creative Works,” which is the belief that God created humanity and started with Adam and Eve as the basis for human ancestry.

“You will be the chief educator to whom all of the science teachers in our state will report,” Volinsky said. “Do you subscribe to this such that the science teachers need to worry about whether you will require creationism to be taught alongside evolution?”

Edelblut said he believes “there are other understandings of human origins.”

“And finally, as the commissioner of education, I will not have jurisdiction or responsibility for the development of curricula,” he said. “That I believe remains in the domain of the science teachers and the local school boards.”

And that’s where advocates for Edelblut believe that his lack of public education experience could be one of his biggest strengths.

With Gov. Chris Sununu’s nomination of his former Republican gubernatorial primary rival (Edelblut came in a close second, only losing by about 800 votes), it signals a departure from previous state education commissioners, who all had some sort of public education experience. It was a point Volinsky wanted to make, by reading the resumes of every education commissioner for the past 40 years.

But Sununu doesn’t want another career educator in the driver’s seat. He wants Edelblut, a businessman, to be in charge of this billion dollar industry. Many opponents don’t like that he’s against Common Core and is pro-charter schools. And they say he’s looking to “destroy public education.”

“Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said. “I want to see public education work well for all students. My job will be to implement the policies of the state board of education.”

The state board of education sets policy, curriculum, and standards for the public schools in the state. While the state education commissioner plays a role in the process, it’s ultimately not up to him to make those decisions.

Edelblut said he supported outgoing education commissioner Virginia Barry’s focus on “personalized learning.”

“Home education is personalized learning,” he said. “It recognizes that each individual student is unique, that they develop differently and at different paces.”

The same sentiments could be found in DeVos’s confirmation hearing earlier this month.

“Parents no longer believe that a one-size-fits-all model of learning meets the needs of every child,” she told the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. “And they know other options exist, whether magnet, virtual, charter, home, faith-based or any other combination.”

DeVos attended a private high school in Michigan and also received a bachelor’s in business from Calvin College. Her four children all went to private school and although she has never worked in a school, she is very philanthropic toward school systems that she personally supports. She backs school choice and school vouchers, allowing students to attend private schools with taxpayer support.

DeVos has been one of the most contentious cabinet nominees for Trump. But it can be argued that Trump and Sununu are looking at education in a similar manner. Trump sees DeVos as a strong advocate for school choice and able to use the budget for the education department to make education better for all students.

Both DeVos and Edelblut don’t necessarily have that much power when it comes to changing policy in the positions they will likely hold. They help set the agenda, but ultimately, any changes go through Congress and the states, and in New Hampshire, that means through the state board of education and the Legislature.

It’s no surprise that Trump and Sununu are facing a lot pushback on their respective nominees for education. After all, Sununu was one of Trump’s supporters during the presidential race, his support never wavering. But many supporters of the two politicians appreciate the comparison of Edelblut and DeVos. They both symbolize change and a departure from the Democratic “status-quo,” they have felt for the past eight years in D.C. and 12 years in the Granite State.

The people of New Hampshire should expect more similarities between the federal government and New Hampshire (or with Sununu and Trump) to pop up during the next two years.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

After President Donald Trump issued his immigration executive order on Friday, which put a four-month hold on allowing refugees into the United States and temporarily barred travelers from Syria and six other countries, New Hampshire’s congressional delegation was quick to respond.

But for some of the Democratic lawmakers, their statements are at odds with their previous rhetoric and voting records.

Before getting into their statements, it’s important to reiterate what Trump’s executive order entails. You can read guides from USA Today and Reuters. But here’s the quick highlights:

1. His executive order suspends all refugee entry for 120 days.
2. It indefinitely suspends entry by Syrian refugees.
3. The order blocks for 90 days all immigration of citizens of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, which are Muslim-majority countries.

Since he announced his executive order, Green Card holders and permanent residents of the United States have been detained at airports, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the order, and protests have erupted at airports across the country. Trump’s administration has made it clear that the immigration ban would not apply to Green Card holders.

Sen. Maggie Hassan probably has one of the most unclear records when it comes to immigration and Syrian refugees. Following the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, Hassan became the first Democratic governor in the country to call for a pause in Syrian refugee resettlement.

“The governor has always made clear that we must ensure robust refugee screening to protect American citizens, and the governor believes that the federal government should halt acceptance of refugees from Syria until intelligence and defense officials can assure that the process for vetting all refugees, including those from Syria, is as strong as possible to ensure the safety of the American people,” said Hassan’s spokesman at the time.

And she never wavered from that position throughout the extremely close campaign against Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte. Ayotte was known for being a foreign policy and immigration hawk.

But now, it seems Hassan is singing a different tune. She called Trump’s executive order “un-American” and her office said that she never supported an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

“Senator Hassan believes we can strengthen the vetting process for all entryways into the country while staying true to the values that make America the greatest country on earth. She never has and never will support a policy like what the President has put into place with this executive order, which is a backdoor Muslim ban and religious test that goes against American values. Senator Hassan will work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reverse this un-American executive order that will make America less safe,” her office said in a statement to WMUR.

“Senator Hassan strongly opposes this un-American and dangerous executive order which includes an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees, something that the Senator has never supported,” her office added. “The Senator believes that we can strengthen the process for all entryways into the country while remaining true to our values and engaged in addressing this humanitarian crisis.”

So while that statement is technically correct, since she only supported a “temporary halt” in Syrian refugees, not an indefinite ban, some people are wondering where she really stands on the issue. Was she reacting to the Paris attacks with what she thought was the best decision or was she pandering to voters on her right? It’s still unclear.

@SenatorHassan yes or no? Do you support a ban on Syrian Refugees as you previously said you did? #MuslimBan #nhpolitics #NHpolitics

— Winston Smith (@RumpoleinUSA) January 30, 2017

Rep. Annie Kuster also has an interesting position on Syrian refugees and immigration policies.

Kuster called for a broad expansion of former President Barack Obama’s administration’s program to bring Syrian refugees to the United States before the Paris attacks. She joined other House Democrats in signing a letter to Obama, calling on him to increase the number of refugees to be allowed in the United States to 200,000 by the end of 2016.

But after the terrorist attacks, Kuster didn’t mention anything about bringing in more Syrian refugees. She actually voted with Republicans for a stronger vetting process.

“I am fiercely protective of our national security and believe we must be tough and smart in pursuing policies that protect Americans both at home and abroad,” she said in a statement. “As we work with our allies to defeat ISIS without endangering American lives in another civil war, we must maintain and expand rigorous screening and security checks for any Syrian refugee fleeing terrorism by seeking to enter our country.”

She joined 46 other Democrats and all of the House Republicans to pass the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act. The bill expanded the screening process for refugees attempting to enter the United States from Iraq or Syria by requiring the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct its own background checks in addition to those conducted by the Department of Homeland Security.

In defense of her vote, Kuster told New Hampshire Public Radio that, “it doesn’t pause the program. It doesn’t apply a religious test. It’s a certification that the person does not pose a threat to the security of the United States.”

But Kuster is now the only member of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation that did not release a statement after Trump’s executive order was announced. Instead, she took to Twitter for a very brief statement that didn’t really say if she was for or against the ban.

America can & should be a beacon of hope around the world. Urge @realDonaldTrump to honor the values of inclusion that make us truly great.

— Ann McLane Kuster (@RepAnnieKuster) January 29, 2017

She followed that tweet up later with another one that said, “Not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans, we can balance security & compassion. USA founded on freedom from religious persecution.”

Both Kuster and Hassan have brought up religion in their statements, saying they believe his executive order is a religion test as a way to ban Muslims from coming to the United States. That point is still debateable and up for interpretation. There are many media reports that have former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani saying it is a “Muslim ban” as Trump put it.

But other articles say religion already plays a role in federal asylum and refugee law. David French from the National Review has an extensive piece on it and Politifact rated former Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s claim that religion plays a role in refugee screenings as “Mostly True.” Obviously, the law leaves much room for interpretation, so expect several legal experts to weigh in on the subject in the coming weeks.

As for Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, they both have been the most consistent in their language when discussing Syrian refugee resettlement and immigration.

Shaheen was supportive of allowing more Syrian refugees to come to America during Obama’s presidency and she hasn’t changed her mind after Trump’s executive order.

“We’re among those members of Congress who think that the United States can and should do more, both to try and take in more of the refugees who have been vetted, but also to support — in every way we can — the humanitarian crisis that has been created,” she said in 2015.

After Trump’s announcement, she said in a statement, “This executive order is un-American and grossly inhumane. We are a nation of immigrants and should remain welcoming to all nations and faiths, particularly those who are fleeing violence and oppression. Refugees, from Syria in particular, are fleeing unspeakable terror and hunger, and it’s unconscionable that the United States will no longer provide any of these refugees a safe haven.”

Shea-Porter said the United States should welcome Syrian refugees, but should also ensure they are properly vetted. She voted with House Democrats against a 2013 Republican amendment that would defund Obama’s executive orders on immigration.

“I think we’re very capable of absorbing a certain number of refugees who are fleeing their country for the same reasons that we would,” she said in 2015. “I think we all need to know exactly what kind of vetting is being done.”

She released a very straightforward statement on Saturday rejecting Trump’s actions.

“Our nation’s founders built this nation on dreams of a better, more tolerant society, and now we must stand together and defend and preserve those ideals,” she said. “I call on President Trump to immediately reverse his actions, and I invite all Granite Staters to join me in letting our refugee and immigrant neighbors know that we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them as one community.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

There are 19 groups in New Hampshire that have signed on to completely resist President Donald Trump, and they’re trying to take a page out of the Tea Party’s playbook.

A new national organization called “Indivisible” is going back to the basics: push back against Trump from the grassroots level. The group published a manifesto, essentially a manual on how to resist the Trump agenda, written by former Democratic congressional staffers.

“We examine lessons from the Tea Party’s rise and recommend two key strategic components: A local strategy targeting individual members of Congress; a defensive approach purely focused on stopping Trump from implementing an agenda built on racism, authoritarianism, and corruption,” they wrote.

Indivisible, which has more than 2,400 local groups registered with them, is advising voters to assemble at the local level and have members focus on their respective elected senators and representatives by speaking out at town hall meetings, asking their elected officials questions at local photo-ops and ceremonies, showing up at their district offices for meetings, and overwhelming their phone lines with coordinated calls.

“We can all learn from their [the Tea Party] success in influencing the national debate and the behavior of national policymakers,” the group wrote. “To their credit, they thought thoroughly about advocacy tactics.”

Many progressives are trying to recreate the circumstances that led to a wave of Republican victories in Congress and state legislatures in the 2010 midterm elections. Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, gained more seats in the Senate, and flipped several state legislative seats, mostly campaigning on conservative ideals and anti-President Barack Obama rhetoric. But liberals could find it difficult to implement a similar strategy and might find more success if they work with Trump when possible.

The Democratic Party enters the Trump presidency completely shut out of power, with Republicans in control of the White House, House, Senate, and even most state governments. And they’re already divided amongst themselves with progressives versus moderates, and whether they should oppose Trump or work with him on common interests.

Just after his first week in office, it looks like many Democrats and progressive activists want to resist him at every step. The American Civil Liberties Union already filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s executive order that temporarily bars entry to refugees from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen due to terrorism concerns. A federal judge granted an emergency stay Saturday to stop deportation of people with valid visas who landed in the United States.

But if they continue that mentality, they might run into some trouble in the 2018 midterm elections and even the 2020 presidential election. Even though the party in charge usually doesn’t do well in midterm elections, many House seats will still favor Republican control due to gerrymandering. And Democrats have to defend 10 Senate seats in Republican-controlled states. The political terrain isn’t favorable for them right now.

By refusing to compromise, Democrats may be unable to influence policy even when the president’s agenda aligns with traditional Democratic interests. It’s true that rejecting compromise can reveal internal differences and struggles within the president’s own party, such as with the ongoing Republican debate on repealing Obamacare. More damage could be done by working with Trump and exposing the internal divide in the Republican Party that’s been there since the rise of the Tea Party movement in 2009.

An area some Democrats and Trump could work on together is infrastructure spending, albeit with some disagreements on how to fund it. Trump will almost need Senate Democrats to help get it through Congress. Some of his ideas resemble the “big-government conservatism” of George W. Bush that upset many Tea Partiers. Working out a few deals with Trump could anger some Republicans, and it might do more damage to the president than being vehemently opposed to everything he does.

If the Democrats could unify around that message, they could be in much better shape to retake Congress and the presidency, and ultimately be able to govern themselves and the country better than before.

Uncompromising Democratic opposition is essentially saying the party wants to be more like the Republican Party, by trying to emulate what the Republicans did in 2009. But while the Republicans were “unified” by being anti-Obama anything, they didn’t take the time to rebuild as a party and create a clear message for the base. That was evident by the loss of Mitt Romney in 2012. And now, look at them. They ended up nominating a candidate who barely aligns with their platform. They have full control over the federal government, but they still are struggling to be unified over how to run it, as exhibited by disagreement over many of Trump’s policies.

While it’s understandable that Democrats and progressive activists would want to go about rebuilding their party the same way the Republicans did in 2009, it’s better for their party to engage with Trump in policy debates because those issues are ones they can build a campaign on, and not just on partisan rhetoric.

The Democrats have a prime opportunity to genuinely build their party from the grassroots level up. If the loss of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election taught them anything, it’s that they need to listen to the working class in Middle America again and create a message that appeals not only to their base, but also to disenfranchised voters who feel left out of the system.

It’ll prove to be difficult for them to do that though, especially with some major players on the national stage that see the party going in a different, more radical direction.

Just look at the confirmation hearing battles. Several Democratic senators who are looking to run for president in 2020 won’t vote for anything put forward by Trump out of fear from attacks to their left. John Kelly was confirmed as secretary for homeland security by a vote of 88-11. Some of those “no” votes came from Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). The more moderate Democrats might feel pressure to vote a certain way in order to follow suit, and especially when the media reports that former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, Warren, and Booker voted one way, it could make it seem like the Democrats who don’t fall in line aren’t supportive of the party.

An unpopular Trump could win another four years if the next Democratic presidential leader is too far outside of the political spectrum.

And speaking of leaders, the race for the next chair of the Democratic National Committee is revealing to show how anti-Trump and against compromise the Democratic Party could be. While members of their party were participating in the Women’s March earlier this month, most of the 10 candidates for DNC chair were at a private fundraising conference held by liberal political operative David Brock. The message that could send to grassroots leaders is that the Democratic Party hasn’t learned its lesson from its recent defeat and instead, continues to listen to big money rather than voters.

The latest forums between the candidates have also shown that there aren’t many disagreements between them; they don’t have many new ideas to jumpstart the party, and they all have zero desire to work with Trump.

“That’s a question that’s absolutely ridiculous,” said New Hampshire Democratic Party chairman Ray Buckley at one of the forums, when he was asked about working with Trump.

If the Democrats try to imitate the Tea Party movement, don’t create a unifying message for its voters, and resist Trump at every turn, then they’re in for a long eight years.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

Who has final say over New Hampshire’s abundance of regulations put forward by state agencies? That’s the latest battle at the State House, where a legislative committee says it is in charge, not Gov. Chris Sununu, of the process to decide on the need for administrative rules.

The Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules unanimously sent a letter to Sununu on Friday saying the committee and the process that already exists “accomplishes many of the goals of your letter seeking a reduction in governmental rules and regulations.”

During his inaugural address, Sununu called for a 90-day moratorium on new regulations.

“There are a lot of regulations in this state, for such a small state,” he said. “It is unbelievable. Let’s take a pause. Let’s take a step back and figure out what we are doing and why we are doing it.”

The next day, Sununu sent a memo to agency heads and department commissioners asking them to “immediately establish a pause on any proposed adoption, amendment, re-adoption or re-adoption with amendment of administrative rules until March 31, 2017.”

The request did not apply to any proposed rule mandated by law or that was “immediately essential to the public health, safety and welfare.” By March 31, he asked the agency heads to review “each and every regulation under the agency’s jurisdiction that is currently being proposed” or is already in effect.

The bipartisan joint committee includes five state senators and five House members and is authorized, according to state law, to have final say over rules proposed by state agencies, following a detailed approval process.

In their letter to Sununu, the committee members say they’re who oversees the rulemaking process.

“The majority of rulemaking is mandated by statute, and agencies cannot choose not to adopt rules when a statute says that they shall,” the letter states.

Sen. John Reagan, R-Deerfield, who chairs the committee, told WMUR that no rule or regulation can “exceed the authority of the legislation.”

“There seems to be a lack of understanding in the corner office about what the process is to create rules,” he said. “It seems that he was trying to do what everyone promises to do in Washington, stop passing laws that proliferate bureaucratic rules.”

In fact, President Donald Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, issued a very similar memo to Sununu’s on Friday telling federal agencies to not issue any more regulations.

He told the federal agencies not to send any regulation to the Federal Register until the rule is reviewed and approved by the new head of that respective agency, who is appointed under Trump.

But Reagan said New Hampshire is different than the federal government. Rules in the Granite State expire every 10 years and must be reauthorized. This year alone, 250 rules and 41 interim rules will expire, he told WMUR.

The agencies must hold public hearings on proposed rules, which are then submitted to the committee, and the committee’s attorneys determine if a proposed rule exceeds its legislative authority.

“What we’re saying to the governor in the letter is, let the process go on because we’re already doing what you want done,” Reagan said. “As chairman, I felt it was incumbent on me to state for the sake of the committee’s reputation to say that we already do this. This is what we have been doing for all these years. We’re not challenging anybody. I just had to make a statement for the sake of the committee.”

Emily Corcoran, a law professor at the University of New Hampshire, said the committee is “reasserting their belief that they have jurisdiction [over rulemaking] and then the courts would be the arbitrator” if the moratorium were to be challenged.

“You also see some changes in power here,” she told NH Journal. “It’s the change we have when a new person with a different political view is trying to separate themselves from what their predecessor did. You also have renewed power struggles among the different branches of government vying for power.”

Corcoran also clarified that Sununu announced the moratorium through a memo instead of an executive order. While both methods essentially produce the same result and are legally binding, the memo method could send a non-confrontational message, she said.

“Executive orders are a way to reverse existing policies,” she said. “If you want to reverse a position from a previous administration, you have to do that through an executive order. To put a policy on hold or not do anything right now to reassess, it signals that there is a new sheriff in town who wants to see where things are and where things are going. It doesn’t send the signal that we are ending anything quickly or completely switching gears.”

“He’s exercising his power to give agencies guidance,” she added. “It could be that he wants to appear measured and also signal to people that voted for him that it will be different under his term than [former] Gov. [Maggie] Hassan.”

Sununu has not issued his first executive order yet.

And Sununu is not alone for calling a halt in new regulations. Missouri Republican Gov. Eric Gretiens issued a similar action this month, except through an executive order, to freeze new rules and regulations.

Arizona Republican Gov. Doug Ducey issued a continuing moratorium through an executive order on Monday. Arizona has had a moratorium on new regulations since 2009.

Even Massachusetts Republican Gov. Charlie Baker issued a similar executive order halting new regulations in 2015.

While it seems like Republicans are the only ones who halt new regulations, it’s actually not partisan. Former President Barack Obama issued a moratorium, through a memo when he took office on Jan. 20, 2009, telling federal agencies to refrain from sending any new or proposed rules.

“You do tend to see that happen with new administrations,” Corcoran said. “He [Sununu] made campaign promises and he’s acting out on them.”

Sununu’s office responded to the committee’s letter on Monday, saying, “New Hampshire is an over-regulated state with too many rules stifling opportunities for economic growth.”

“As the state’s chief executive, he is leading a collaborative effort with department heads and commissioners to foster an environment in which businesses can more easily grow jobs,” said David Abrams, Sununu spokesman, in a statement to WMUR. “His carefully thought-out request has been met with enthusiasm and cooperation and we are confident that the information we have gathered will lead to meaningful reform.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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