#

Nashua Democratic state Rep. Stacie Laughton is back in legal trouble, this time being held at Valley Street Jail in Manchester on stalking charges. 

Laughton, 38, was arrested over the weekend by Hudson police on charges she was stalking a resident in that town, according to a report from Patch. Court records show Laughton was already on bail after being charged with sending fake 911 texts to police. Those charges resulted from an investigation last year.

Last week’s midterm elections brought better-than-expected results for Democrats, and they have an outside chance of winning control of the state House. Republicans say that is one reason Democrats, in Nashua and in Concord, are silent about Laughton’s history of criminal behavior. 

Reps. Steve Shurtleff (D-Penacook) and Matt Wilhelm (D-Manchester) are locked in a race to lead the House Democratic Caucus. Both declined to respond to a request for comment about Laughton’s ongoing criminal prosecution.

Outgoing House Minority Leader Rep. David Cote (D-Nashua) also declined to comment on Laughton’s behavior, as did other Nashua Democrats NH Journal contacted regarding the matter. Rep. Michael Pedersen (D-Nashua), who serves as chair of the city’s Democratic Committee, did not respond to a request for comment, either.

Democrats may not be talking about Laughton’s latest arrest, but Nashua Republican Di Lothrop is fed up.

“She has a huge problem,” said Lothrop, co-chair of the Nashua Republican Committee. “She’s been through this before, she’s been in prison. Obviously, the lesson wasn’t learned.”

Laughton became the first transgender person elected to the New Hampshire Legislature in 2012, though she was quickly forced to resign when her criminal past became public. Laughton was sentenced to prison time in 2008 for a Laconia credit card fraud conviction. Laughton served a few months but was released on a 10-year suspended sentence.

Laughton was pressured to resign her House seat but signed up to run in the ensuing special election. That bid was cut short when it was deemed she was legally ineligible for office since she was still serving her suspended sentence for the felony credit card fraud case.

Under New Hampshire law, convicted felons may not vote or hold public office while they are serving their sentences. Once the sentence is discharged, however, people convicted of felonies may again vote and seek public office. The New Hampshire Constitution only states that people must reside in the district they are seeking to represent.

Laughton was charged with another crime in 2015 for allegedly calling in a bomb threat to Southern New Hampshire Medical Center, an episode she later blamed on a mental health problem. That criminal case has since been closed.

Laughton’s political career restarted in 2019 when she was elected a Nashua Ward 4 selectman, and she won the House of Representatives seat in 2020.

 Lothrop blamed the city’s Democratic Party for promoting a person with clear mental health problems to represent voters. There is a good chance Laughton will still be in jail by the time state representatives gather in Concord for their swearing-in, she said.

“How can she dedicate her time and energy to the voters who she is supposed to represent? She’s unfit,” Lothrop said. “It’s abominable, and it’s an embarrassment to Nashua to have her go up to Concord and represent [the city.]”

Chris Ager, chairman of the Hillsborough County GOP, said any decision on Laughton’s status needs to be made by House leadership.

“This is a very serious matter that must be looked into with respect to actions the leadership of the House of Representatives can take,” Ager said.

With New Hampshire’s open qualifications for office, Ager said both parties have a responsibility to provide some oversight on who is running for office on their respective tickets. However, there is only so much a party can do, he added.

“There is some responsibility for the party, but ultimately the voters of the district elect the person,” Ager said.

Most Granite Staters may have moved past the “masks and lockdowns” phase of COVID-19, but state Democrats are still pursuing their months-old lawsuit targeting state House Republican leadership over pandemic policies. And in their latest filing, Democrats have raised the rhetorical stakes, insinuating that Republicans are responsible for former House Minority Leader Renny Cushing’s death.

Long-standing House rules require members to attend sessions in person in order to participate. Since February 2021, Democrats have been in court attempting to force Speaker Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) and GOP leadership to allow members to conduct business — including casting votes — remotely due to fears of COVID-19. “They still want to do everything by Zoom,” Packard to NHJournal. “It just doesn’t make any sense.”

The lawsuit, originally filed by Cushing and six other Democratic legislators, has repeatedly been shot down in court in the face of expansive accommodations by House leadership. For example, during the height of the pandemic, House sessions were held at the New Hampshire Sportsplex in Bedford, a 50,000-square-foot facility. Before that, members met at UNH’s Whittemore Center.

In March, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston denied New Hampshire Democrats an injunction against Packard. House Minority Leader Rep. David Cote (D-Nashua) responded by saying he would continue the lawsuit.

Cote, 61, lives with cerebral palsy among other health issues and, despite holding the title of Assistant Minority Leader and now Minority Leader, he has not been to Concord for a vote in more than two years.

Packard successfully argued that, as speaker. he enjoys “legislative immunity” and is exempt from following the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was the original basis for the lawsuit’s appeal for accommodation

The new complaint, filed in the United States District Court in Concord, notes that two of the original plaintiffs, Cushing and Rep. Katherine Rogers (D-Concord) have since died. Both Cushing and Rogers were diagnosed with cancer.

While the lawsuit does not say where or how Cushing contracted COVID-19, it claims the virus was the complicating factor that resulted in his death. Cushing, suffering from stage four prostate cancer, had been responding well to innovative cancer treatments. There was hope that, with further treatments, he would be able to recover and return to his duties full-time until he got COVID this year, Democrats claimed in the filing.

“Despite being fully vaccinated, his health took an almost immediate turn for the worse, and he was never able to recover well enough to resume the immunology treatments at Mass General [Hospital] due to the serious impact of COVID-19. The untreated cancer complicated by COVID-19 caused his death shortly thereafter,” the lawsuit states.

Even as Cushing battled cancer, and fought to get remote access, he continued to show up in Concord for votes and other legislative business, according to the lawsuit. Rogers, who suffered from degenerative joint disease, also came to the House to conduct business. The lawsuit also blames her death on the GOP policy.

The lawsuit also contends that since the majority of the legislators seeking remote access were Democrats, the Republican Speaker was engaged in partisan politics, not protecting the rules of the House.

“Motions to explicitly allow remote attendance have repeatedly been decided on a partisan basis,” the lawsuit states. “In essence the Defendants have deliberately created an extraordinary dilemma for the disabled—they can either place themselves and their families at an extreme risk of death, or they can forgo participation in democratic institutions, thus leaving their constituents unrepresented.

“This is really not fundamentally different from pointing a gun to the heads of the Individual Plaintiffs to block them from entering the House. Given the ready availability of measures to provide reasonable accommodations, the refusal to do so is not only of an extraordinary character but shocks the conscience.”

Packard says what is really shocking is that Democrats would use such inflammatory rhetoric, particularly on an issue that has been largely resolved. “It’s disappointing they would make an insinuation like this about Renny Cushing and Kathy Rogers. It is unbelievable to me they are choosing to go down this path.”

Packard said the latest filing “has a lot of inaccuracies and statements that just aren’t true,” but he is waiting to hear from the lawyers before elaborating further.

“We’ll be meeting with the lawers later this week to go over the filing in full and decide what our next step should be,” Packard said.

CONCORD — New Hampshire Democrats face a difficult dilemma in the wake of the death of House Minority Leader Renny Cushing: Fight or flight?

Do Democrats hold a vote to pick a new leader, which would almost certainly lead to a divisive leadership fight; or do they stick with acting Minority Leader Rep. David Cote (D-Nashua) and ride out the rest of the session?

What most voters probably don’t realize is that by state law, Democrats do not get to pick their leader. Under New Hampshire’s Constitution, the authority to name the leaders for both parties rests not with the party caucuses, but with Speaker of the House Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry).

“Technically, it’s up to the Speaker,” said Secretary of State David Scanlan. “But how we get there is up to the Democrats.”

Democrats can vote for a leader, but the choice has to go through the Speaker of the House. 

“The minority caucus has to determine what they are going to do,” said Clerk of the House Paul Smith. “But there’s nothing in the rules that [says] the Speaker has to name anyone to anything.”

When Republicans lost their leader, Rep. Dick Hinch, to a COVID-related illness just over a year ago, they didn’t face this situation because he was Speaker. The position is elected by the entire House and there are clear rules in the Constitution and state law about picking a replacement.

“Within 30 days after a vacancy occurs in the office of president of the Senate or speaker of the House of Representatives, the Senate or House of Representatives, as the case may be, shall select a successor from among its members.”

Smith said when there has been a death of a party’s leader in the past, the party has chosen to keep the acting leader in place for the remainder of the session. Given there are just a couple of months left in the current legislative session, Smith said Democrats could keep Cote in place for the time being.

Packard was not available for comment on Tuesday, and Cote did not respond to a request for comment. 

Former House Speaker Shawn Jasper said he could not recall any past Speaker ignoring the wishes of either party when it comes to picking leadership.

“(The Speakers)  just can’t do that on their own,” he said.

While Democrats could keep Cote in place, Jasper said, much legislative work remains to be done in Concord and the party might want to hold a leadership vote.

“What complicates the matter here is that (Cote) has not been coming to the State House. It will be very difficult for him to be effective for the next couple of months. He needs to be on-site,” Jasper said.

According to multiple sources inside the Democratic caucus, Cote is “terrified of COVID,” and as a result has refused to attend any in-person gatherings.

“You can’t run the caucus from your basement,” one concerned Democrat told NHJournal.

Greg Moore, who served as the chief of staff for the New Hampshire House of Representatives, said it has been a difficult couple of years, with both parties losing their leaders.

“It’s been a tough legislative session for the House,” Moore said.

Moore thinks Democrats are likely to hold a leadership vote in the coming weeks. Cushing was well-liked on both sides of the aisle, and he had the ability to lead. That is something Democrats will miss.

“When you lose your leader, you want to have somebody who has the force of the vote,” Moore said. “That gives the caucus a lot of confidence.”

If there is a caucus in the coming weeks, Moore said the candidates who ran against Cushing last time are likely to be top contenders. Rep. Matt Wilhelm (D-Manchester) and Rep. Marjorie Smith (D-Durham), who both challenged Cushing for the Minority Leader post, did not respond to requests for comment.

Moore said the ultimate decision will be made by the members.

“It’s up to the caucus what they want to do,” Moore said.

After last week’s opening House session of the 2022 season, Speaker of the House Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) spoke to New Hampshire Journal about events at the Doubletree in Manchester. Packard defended the new district map approved by the Republican-led House and predicted vaccine mandates and the COVID pandemic in general are likely to play a big role in the coming 2022 election.

NH Journal: 

Overall, what were your goals for this first session of the House.”

Packard:

My goal was to get through safely and not have any incidences of sickness. We’ve had two years now. Every time we’ve met, we’ve never had a case. And so I’m hoping and praying that that continues. 

We sent out tests to every member prior to the first few days of the session and asked them to check themselves before they came. So I’m hoping that’s what they use the test kits for. But we also had like twenty machines in there going the whole time, to clean the air. So that was my first thing, to try and make it as safe as possible. 

(Over the weekend, the New Hampshire House Communications team sent out an email to members informing them that at least two people at the Jan. 5 and Jan. 6 House Sessions tested positive for COVID-19. Members and people who attend are being asked to watch for symptoms.)

NH Journal:

On the redistricting issue, do you agree with people who say that this was a good map for Republicans and one that Republicans should rally around and support?

Packard:

I think it’s a fair map. I think it’s a very fair map. We were very careful when we picked the Redistricting Committee as to who we put on it. And I thought on both sides we put people who were very knowledgeable. You gotta remember too … that the redistricting committee went to every single county in the state, including Coos county, and had a public hearing.

If you really look at the map, the 1st District is much more condensed because of the population, where we’ve got 55 percent of the population in two counties. So, it’s much more condensed than the Northern counties and the other counties that have smaller populations. So, it’s going to be a much larger area than the other districts, strictly because of the population.

NH Journal:

Many people were concerned about the bill to ban businesses from being able, if they chose to, have a vaccine mandate for their own employees. There’s a lot of passion surrounding that issue and some Republicans were adamant about it. And yet it got tabled by a pretty large margin. Was that smart politics from the Republican leadership that knew this was a loser issue and killed it quickly? Or was this an ideological vote in the sense that both Democrats and small-government Republicans agreed that the state shouldn’t be interfering in what a business chooses to do?

Packard:

I’m not sure it had anything to do with any particular philosophy on either side. We started out with over 40 bills that had to do with COVID, in some form, whether it be the mandates, the vaccines, or anything else. We whittled that down to about 20 bills. So we’ve got approximately 20 bills sitting in our committees right now that are going to be dealing with this issue. So our goal is to have fair, open hearings on all those bills and come up with the best policy we can. And that’s why I think you’ll find it if you talk to most representatives … I mean, something’s going to pass the legislature and hit the governor’s desk, and that’s what we’re going to be working on over the next couple of months.

NH Journal:

And what do you anticipate hitting the governor’s desk? Is it going to be some restriction on what private businesses can do when it comes to vaccines? 

Packard:

Well, my personal feeling is I’m against the state mandating a mandate. We’ve always been against that. And I feel it is important that we need to protect the workers, but shouldn’t be telling businesses what they can and cannot do. But we need to protect the workers against being fired or laid off because they truly believe that this vaccine is not safe. And many people I talked to believe it’s not safe. I’m not a doctor, and I’m not going to make any determination whether it is or not. I’ve had my shots and I’ve had a booster. 

So, that’s what we’ve got to work out. I would anticipate we’ll have four or five bills that go forward to hit the government’s desk in some form … I truly believe out of the 20 bills we’ve got we will have probably four, I wouldn’t say more than six, land on the governor’s desk that will probably cover all the [COVID] issues that we’re talking about. 

NH Journal:

 As of today, 2022 looks like it’s going to be a good year for Republicans. Do you believe that issues like trying to get in the COVID vaccine fight and the fight over anti-vax versus mandates, etc., is a good issue for Republicans in 2022? Or is it the kind of issue that would actually slow down your potential progress? 

Packard:

I think society today is so conflicted as to the vaccine itself, whether it’s safe or it isn’t safe. I mean, there are some pretty ludicrous statements out there on both sides. And I’m certainly not a doctor, but I think this is going be an issue until this pandemic, is put to bed and at some point is gone. 

 Moving forward, I think it will depend on how events transpire, whether we actually can get rid of it by summertime. I think only time will tell how this is really going to affect the elections. 

I mean, the Democrats have filed some pretty crazy bills too. There was one in there that had to do with, if you were on government assistance, more or less welfare, and you got elected to the State House, they get you more money. There are some pretty crazy bills that have been filed by our Democratic colleagues. So, once I think the public sees some of the crazy stuff, they’re going to realize that they don’t want (the Democrats) leading the state. 

NH Journal:

There’s been a lot of talk about a leadership vacuum in the Democratic House caucus, ongoing struggles between the progressive and traditional Democrats. Are you able to find partners across the aisle to negotiate with and work with, to try to pull more bipartisan legislation forward? Or are you just not interested in doing that? Or is it hard to find people across the aisle who have the ability to bring votes with them to work with as was common in legislatures 10 or 15 years ago? 

Packard:

Oh, I absolutely believe there’s still the hope that we can work together on a lot of legislation. If you look at the history, as long as I’ve been here, 80 to 85 percent of the bills we work on are usually bipartisan in some form. But nobody ever hears about them because they are bipartisan, there’s no conflict. The other 15 to 20 percent are the ones that make all the headlines and make all the news and make all the hubbub.

So, I truly believe that there are still a lot of bipartisan bills out there and a lot of bipartisanship in the committees too. There are a few committees you might consider partisan, like the Election Law Committee. But many of the committees out there, Public Works, Transportation, Fish and Game, all those are fair, bipartisan committees.

So, it depends on the subject matter, but I truly believe that in many cases, the parties will be able to work together going forward.