#

The right to vote is the most sacred right a citizen has in a democracy. It underpins the whole concept of self-government and the very idea of “We the People.” It’s a right that has not come easy for many in our country, and one that must be guarded fiercely because it holds the key to the power and prestige that those with unbridled ambition are willing to lie, cheat and steal to acquire.

That is why election integrity is so important to Republicans, and why we are unwavering in our commitment to the principle of one man, one vote. When that principle is violated, it breeds dangerous cynicism that is cancerous to our republic. We must treat vote fraud and election tampering for the crime against democracy that they are and be vigilant in preventing and punishing them.

That is why I recently issued my plan to strengthen election security and improve confidence in our election outcomes through a series of simple measures that keep it easy to vote, but make it harder to cheat. My seven-point plan will do the following:

• Require Voter ID. Those seeking to vote should present verified identification just like you must do when you buy a beer, board a plane or establish employment eligibility.

• Remove The Statute Of Limitations For Vote Fraud. Those who commit voter fraud, whether it was a year ago or six years ago, must be held accountable and prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law. We must remove the statute of limitations on cases of election fraud.

• Increase Penalties For Vote Fraud. Every fraudulent vote cancels out a legitimate one. We need to treat voter fraud as the crime against democracy that it is by increasing penalties so that would-be election thieves think twice before cheating.

• Implement Election Audits. Where credible evidence of election irregularities exists, we must conduct forensic audits by a multi-partisan committee of election security experts, just as we did in the town of Windham. Proper audits in legitimate circumstances will serve to strengthen confidence in our elections and our government.

• Require In-Person Voting Except With A Legitimate Excuse. In-person voting on Election Day is not just an important part of our civic culture, but it is a critical election security measure that requires you to show yourself at the polls. New Hampshire should retain its custom of in-person voting, and continue to allow absentee voting only under special circumstances where it is a necessary accommodation for someone to cast their ballot.

• Provide Enhanced Training For Election Workers. Our election officials are mostly volunteers doing the best they can to implement free and fair elections, and they almost always get it right. But innocent mistakes do happen. By providing enhanced training on proper election procedures, we can reduce human error and the resulting frustration and cynicism.

• Protect States Rights & The First In The Nation Primary. Our friends and neighbors, who we know and trust – and who know us – should oversee our elections, not nameless, faceless, federal bureaucrats. While Chris Pappas supports the federalization of our elections, which would undermine New Hampshire’s state constitution and our long history of competently run elections, I will always put New Hampshire first. And we must never give up New Hampshire’s status as the First-In-The-Nation primary. Our unique, grassroots style of politics is a critical safeguard that ensures big money and Big Tech aren’t deciding factors in making our presidential nominations.

These are important measures for restoring trust in our elections, which are the lifeblood of our democratic republic. In the Republican primary for Congress, we have a responsibility to nominate a candidate who can credibly advance election integrity and the principle of one man, one vote. Our nation truly does depend on it.

Gail Huff Brown is a candidate in the Republican primary in the First Congressional District. If you also stand for Election Integrity, please donate to Gail here. 

[Paid for by Gail Huff Brown for Congress]

New Hampshire liberty advocates won a major victory on Wednesday when our State Senate voted to pass HB 440, Rep. Jim Kofalt’s Civil Liberties Defense Act. This bill will prohibit constitutional rights from being suspended during a state of emergency.

Kofalt proposed the bill because New Hampshire’s emergency powers laws have been interpreted by our state courts to allow a governor to suspend constitutional rights during an emergency. This is no exaggeration: According to the legal test used by our state courts, even “fundamental rights such as the right of travel and free speech” may be “suspended” by a governor in a declared emergency.

That means that, as Rep. Michael Sylvia pointed out during a House floor debate, “We are all enjoying our fundamental rights, including free speech and trial by jury, at the mercy of the current governor.” As long as a governor’s actions are related to a declared emergency, any constitutional challenges to those actions can simply be dismissed out-of-hand.

Although HB 440 faced some initial setbacks, on Wednesday every Republican State Senator joined in sponsoring an excellent floor amendment that restored the key substance of the bill. Senate Republicans then voted unanimously to pass the bill and protect our constitutional rights. It’s important to contact your Republican state senator now and thank them for their vote.

During Wednesday’s Senate floor debate, Republican Sen. Sharon Carson made a powerful argument in favor of HB 440. During World War II, the legal theory of “suspending constitutional rights” was used to uphold the internment of Japanese Americans in detention camps. Carson pointed out those Americans had their property confiscated and their lives destroyed by a government wielding unchecked emergency powers. As Sen. Jeb Bradley noted, abuses of that kind should be unthinkable in the “Live Free or Die” state.

Republican Senators wisely made clear this bill is not a repudiation of Gov. Chris Sununu. As Rep. Matt Simon said during the initial House floor debate, the bill is necessary to “shore up our constitutional defenses during a state of emergency so the responsibility for any potential future abuses will not rest upon our shoulders.” Accordingly, Sununu is likely to sign the bill. When he does so, he will deserve our thanks for helping to protect the fundamental rights of Granite Staters from his successors and their subordinates.

While Wednesday’s vote is a great victory, it should also serve as a dire warning about the intentions of New Hampshire Democrats. In the House, HB 440 did enjoy a modicum of bipartisan support, including from Democratic former House Speaker Steve Shurtleff. In the Senate, however, Democrats unanimously voted against the bill.

Democratic Sen. Rebecca Whitley rose to speak against the proposal. In her remarks, she claimed it would prevent judges from balancing the public interest against individual rights in times of emergency. But that is false.

Courts balance the public interest and individual rights in perfectly ordinary constitutional challenges every single day. As a trained lawyer, Senator Whitley must know this. Our problem in New Hampshire is that a “suspension” theory is not a balancing test: It is a rubber stamp on government action. So long as an executive’s actions are factually connected to a state of emergency, New Hampshire courts have said they will simply set constitutional rights aside. That is not “balancing.”

Aside from Whitley’s ambiguous remarks, Democrats offered no explanation for their votes to allow “suspending” the Constitution. The only thing we know for sure is Senate Democrats have just voted to uphold the same legal doctrine that Franklin Roosevelt once used to put an entire race of people into camps.

As recently as the first candidacy of Barack Obama, many Democrats claimed to be champions of civil liberties. Rep. Steve Shurtleff seems to represent this form of Democratic politics—one that is increasingly rare in his party today.

Instead, in today’s Democratic Party, authoritarian cultural progressivism is the order of the day. Many Democrats appear eager to wield unchecked power over their political adversaries, and Wednesday’s vote was a startling reminder of that fact. Granite Staters should be wary of what Democrats could do with that power if they regain control of the state government.

To learn more about HB 440, see Cornerstone’s page of resources on the bill. Don’t forget to thank your Republican senator for voting to safeguard our constitutional rights and to thank Kofalt for his tireless efforts on behalf of liberty.

For months, Gov. Chris Sununu kept the NHGOP frozen in place as it awaited what many had thought was his certain decision to enter the 2022 U.S. Senate race. Instead, he announced he will seek a fourth term as governor, which sent Granite State Republicans scrambling.

For the first few days, the rumor mill revolved around the “usual suspects” of potential Senate candidates, namely a trio of former U.S. senators. But Kelly Ayotte, Scott Brown, and Judd Gregg all said they’re not entering the race.

Now a new list is emerging — one that is almost certain to grow in the coming days — of potential Republican candidates. NHJournal asked 10 Republican strategists, officeholders, and activists to give their impressions by ranking the possible candidates in order of their strength. We also asked for a comment or two about the would-be contenders.

To foster brutal, intra-party honesty, NHJournal is not disclosing the names of the GOP panelists who participated.

We will be updating this list as events warrant, but here are the first NHJournal GOP Senate Primary Power Rankings:

The NHJournal GOP U.S. Senate Primary Power Rankings

1. State Sen. Chuck Morse
2. Londonderry Town Manager Kevin Smith
3. Commissioner of Education Frank Edelbut
4. Matt Mowers
5. Rich Ashooh
6. Bill Binnie
7. Phil Taub
8. Corky Messner
9. Tom Moulton
10. Jeff Cozzens
11. Former congressman Frank Guinta
12. Ret. General Don Bolduc

TOP TIER:

Senator Chuck Morse: Senate President Morse made the top three of all but one of the GOP panelists’ rankings. The consensus is he’s the “safe” pick for New Hampshire Republicans.

On the plus side, “Morse is the most likely to run on the Sununu accomplishments platform, which the polls show is a winner,” one Republican noted. On the less-than-plus side, “every time he has tried to go beyond Salem he flops,” said another. “Highly credible, but not really known outside of Concord and Salem.”

Londonderry Town Manager Kevin Smith: In what must be a surprise to nearly everyone — including Kevin Smith himself– the Londonderry town manager’s name also appeared near the top of nearly every list.

Smith hasn’t run for office since losing the GOP primary for governor in 2012, which the panelists viewed as both a strength and a weakness: Lower name ID, but also a harder target for the Hassan campaign to hit. “A star just waiting for the right moment to shine. He has a great economic development record. And he scares Democrats,” one panelist said. But another noted that, while “he’s young and ambitious, smart and well-spoken. — what has he done lately?”

Commissioner of Education Frank Edelblut: The Commissioner of Education and one-time gubernatorial candidate has made no secret of the fact that he has political ambitions. And as many of the panelists noted, Edelblut would start with the most inspired, motivated base. He would likely own the Trump/conservative lane in a primary, and that’s a pretty big lane.

But, as one panelist asked, “Has he drunk the Kool-Aid? Is it too close to the ReOpenNH crowd?” Another commented: “Edelblut owns the number one issue of the moment — education. But he snuck up on everyone in 2016. That won’t happen again.”

SECOND TIER:

Matt Mowers: Mowers is in the second tier largely because most of the panelists believe he’s going to hold onto his front-runner status in the First Congressional District GOP primary rather than risk a U.S. Senate race. “Unless one of the other candidates catches fire, he has a clear path to win the primary for CD1 and become the next Republican congressman from New Hampshire.”

Rich Ashooh: “People like him, which is why he’s near the top of the list” summarizes one view of Ashooh. “He’s conservative and he gets along with everyone.” But sources inside Trumpworld NH say Ashooh’s a non-starter for some because they believe he was less-than-loyal to the president in whose administration he served. “He worked for Trump, but his instincts are all Warren Rudman. Those days are over for the GOP.”

Bill Binnie: Anyone who can write a check for $25 million to kick-start his campaign is going to be taken seriously. And while the media magnate’s 2010 race may not have gone well (“disastrous,” one panelist calls it), that was 12 years ago. And another added: “He’s got a great story — business built from scratch, a former race car driver, it’s great. But he told it once before and it didn’t work. What’s changed?”

Phil Taub: The most volatile name on the list. Some insiders had him near the very top, others nearly at the bottom. The consensus is his fundraising is appreciated, as is his work on behalf of veterans. But he’s also described as “a moderate who endorsed Jeanne Shaheen in 2014.”

Corky Messner: He’s got millions of dollars in name ID left from his 2020 bid, and he’s been working both hard and smart for the NHGOP since losing to Sen. Jeanne Shaheen last year. However, he did lose badly and the general consensus is being the guy in front of the camera, as opposed to working for the GOP backstage, may not be his skill set.

UNKNOWNS:

Tom Moulton (NOTE: On 11/16, Moulton announced he’s not considering a run): He was the University of New Hampshire’s Entrepreneur of the Year in 2021 and he owns a successful company, Other than that, most of the political insiders put Moulton down as a TBD.

Jeff Cozzens: Jeff Cozzens got a lot of buzz when he entered the GOP primary for Second Congressional District and Gov. Chris Sununu promptly tweeted out his encouragement for the Littleton brewery owner’s candidacy. There are rumors the governor would be happy to see Cozzens switch and run for the Senate, and strategists say he’s got a great story to tell. But most of the panelists put him in the “wait and see” category.

BOTTOM TIER:

Former Congressman Frank Guinta: Lots of talk that former Congressman Frank Guinta is looking seriously at a run. Not a lot of talk that it’s a good idea. “A retread who lost his last race while being called a ‘Damned Liar’ on the front page of the Union Leader isn’t the answer,” said one panelist. Another added: “He’s been a D.C. lobbyist since leaving office – you can’t drain the swamp when you’ve planted your roots in it

Ret. General Don Bolduc: Phenomenal bio, horrible candidate. Short an endorsement from Trump — which is always a possibility — Bolduc’s candidacy is already over. Calling the most popular Republican in the state, Gov. Chris Sununu, a “Communist Chinese sympathizer” isn’t widely viewed as a winning strategy. One panelist called him “one of the worst candidates for major office our state has ever seen.” Plus, as one panelist put it, “He already lost to a guy named ‘Corky'”

During a conspiracy-spinning interview with radio host Jack Heath Tuesday retired Brig. Gen. Donald Bolduc called fellow Republican Chris Sununu a “Chinese Communist sympathizer” whose family business “supports terrorism,” and claimed he drove the governor from the U.S. Senate race.

“I derailed Gov. Sununu from running for Senate,” Bolduc said. “Let’s face it — the most powerful political family in New Hampshire made a decision not to run against a political outsider for the United States Senate.

“We ran a Sun Tzu-like campaign that brought to the forefront all of his flaws for serving at the national level as a U.S. Senator. And he surprised all of his supporters because in the 11th hour, he looked at the polls and there was no guarantee could beat Bolduc. And he can’t afford a loss based on his future ambitions in the political arena.”

A UNH Survey Center poll released in October found that while Sununu led Sen. Maggie Hassan 45-42 percent, Bolduc trails her 47-42 percent.

Bolduc also called Sununu a “Chinese Communist sympathizer” who’s “in business with Saudi Arabian companies that give money to terrorists. He’s a globalist world-government guy.”

While some of Bolduc’s rhetoric appears to be motivated by personal anger at Sununu’s unwillingness to back him in last year’s Senate primary, the retired general has embraced conspiracy theories as a central part of his campaign.

Bolduc is touting Trump’s fact-free claims about the Biden campaign stealing the 2020 presidential campaign.

Bolduc was also one of 124 retired generals and admirals who released a letter in May claiming the election was rigged in Biden’s favor. And his most recent campaign event headlined disgraced former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

“He was a lousy candidate when he was sane,” one NHGOP insider told NHJournal. “Running as a lunatic isn’t much of an improvement.”

On Friday night, the media coverage was dominated by the question: “Will she or won’t she?” Would Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) get the votes she needed to pass the “BIF” — the bipartisan infrastructure bill?

Now that it has passed in the House by a 228-206 vote, with 13 Republicans voting in favor and six Democrats voting against it, it’s time for another question:

What the heck did Congress just vote for?

All four members of the New Hampshire delegation voted for the $1.2 trillion spending plan. (Sens. Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen voted for it nearly three months ago. It was trapped in the House since.)

Most of the coverage of the “BIF” has focused on the traditional infrastructure spending, including:

— $110 billion in funding for roads, bridges, and major projects;

— $66 billion investment in rail, most of which will go to Amtrak;

— $65 billion for broadband infrastructure and development;

— $7.5 billion for electric vehicle chargers.

That’s certainly the focus of Hassan and Rep. Chris Pappas. “Investments in our roads and bridges, water systems, and broadband are critical to our future economic growth and way of life in New Hampshire, and they will help us continue to rebuild our economy and regain our competitiveness following the COVID-19 pandemic,” Pappas said after the vote.

Pappas specifically touted the more than $1.5 billion in the additional road, bridge, and transit spending over the next five years, “representing a 47 percent funding increase in fiscal year 2022 and additional increases in years to come.”

Who could object to a nearly 50 percent jump in spending on roads? And cell phone users who travel the Granite State are likely pleased by the idea that their notoriously spotty service might improve.

But these are the headlines of Friday’s late-night vote. In the fine-print, Granite Staters will find New Hampshire’s delegation also voted for:

More Deficit Spending

Despite repeated assurances from President Joe Biden that infrastructure spending “costs zero dollars,” the BIF  costs more than $1 trillion. What Biden meant, his allies say, is that it won’t cost any borrowed dollars, that Americans can feel good that neither of his infrastructure bills will add to the deficit.

Unfortunately, they’re wrong on that count as well. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published its score of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (as opposed to the much-bigger reconciliation) in August, and they found the legislation would directly add more than $340 billion to the deficit.

A Vehicle Mileage User Fee Pilot Program

SEC. 13002 of the bill is the “National Moter Vehicle Per-Mile User Fee Pilot Program.” The objectives of the program, according to the legislation, are to “test the design, acceptance, implementation, and financial sustainability of a national motor vehicle per-mile user fee” and “address the need for additional revenues for surface transportation infrastructure.”

Critics of the program point to the phrase “additional revenue” as opposed to “replacing revenue.” They say it’s a sign the goal is to add a mileage tax on top of the current gasoline taxes, rather than to replace them. And, they note, a mileage tax takes away one of the few incentives to drive an electric car — namely, lower costs.

Biden’s defenders say it’s just a pilot program and the administration has no (announced) plans to impose such a national fee. The pilot might encourage individual states to pursue it, however. Just as the state of New York has passed a ban on the sale of regular internal-combustion engine cars as of 2035. Every car sold as of that date in New York must be a zero-emissions vehicle.

EV Chargers for Electric Cars That Don’t Exist

Speaking of EVs…

The $7.5 billion Congress just passed for electric vehicle (EV) chargers is, according to the White House, just a down payment on the funding needed to install 500,000 public EV charging stations by 2030.

The question is, who’s going to use them?

First, from a statistical standpoint, virtually nobody owns EVs in the U.S. As climate expert Matthew Lewis recently noted, of the 280 million or so registered cars and trucks in the country, only about 2 million are fully electric. Even if the nation added another 2 million electric vehicles a year — which would be a sales level far beyond anything the nation has seen — there would still be fewer than 15 million EVs on the road — still a tiny fraction of the total.

And then there’s the charger technology. In a recent interview for Emerging Tech, EV expert Brendan Jones, president of Blink Charging, talked about the chargers this tax money will buy:

“Jones said that in a good scenario, it takes about six months for an L2 charger—which need up to 8 hours to fully charge a car and make up 82 percent of public chargers in the U.S.—to go through permitting and get in the ground. Meanwhile, a D.C. fast charger (also known as an L3 charger) takes 60 to 90 minutes to charge a car, but can take considerably longer to build.”

How many drivers can park in a public lot for 8 hours to charge their cars? Or even for 90 minutes?

Advancing The Controversial Reconciliation Spending Bill

In the wee hours of Saturday morning, the House cast a straight party-line vote to move Biden’s so-called “Build Back Better” bill forward. It was a key step to get to what Pelosi says will be a vote before Thanksgiving on the legislation itself.

That’s the $4 trillion plan that includes massive social spending and more than half a billion on green energy policy. In the new Suffolk University poll for USA Today released Sunday, Americans are split on this bill, with just 47 supporting it and 44 percent in opposition. And only one in four Americans says they believe it will help them and their families.

Which brings up perhaps the most relevant fact about the votes cast for the infrastructure bill by New Hampshire’s congressional delegation: They didn’t address the issues Americans care about most.

Inflation. Bare store shelves. A lack of workers. The lingering impacts of COVID on daily lives, particularly on schools and children. Those are the things voters said last week brought them to the polls. Notably absent: Road and bridge construction, train travel, or the Green New Deal.

Even if Americans were in the mood to add billions to the national debt, there isn’t much information to show Americans would want to borrow this much money for EV chargers and Amtrack trains.

“I knew Doris Day before she was a virgin,” quipped Oscar Levant. He could have been talking about New Hampshire Democrats and redistricting.

Press coverage of the proposed congressional redistricting map from the GOP majority is full of pearl-clutching over the fact that a map drawn by politicians that will impact the political balance of power is (you may want to sit down for this) political.

During a hearing on Thursday, state Rep. Bob Lynn (R-Windham) a former chief justice of the state Supreme Court, scandalized those in attendance by stating the obvious. “This is a political process, as the Supreme Court has said repeatedly, both the New Hampshire Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a political process. That’s why it’s done by the legislature. So, was that something that was taken into account? Of course, it was.”

Democrats responded to this modest display of candor with outrage.

“Today’s presentation confirmed what we have known all along – that Republicans have no reason outside of partisan politics to justify the drastic redrawing of congressional districts they have proposed,” said Deputy House Democratic Leader and Ranking Redistricting Democrat David E. Cote (D-Nashua) in a statement. “Republicans clearly do not believe they can win congressional seats without rigging the districts in their favor as today’s presentations confirmed.”

In fact, based on conversations with New Hampshire Republicans, they feel particularly confident about being able to win at least one seat — and maybe two — with the current congressional maps. This year. It’s the years after that are at issue.

The most important math for the NHGOP is this: In the six New England states, there are three Republican governors. There are currently 31 New England members of Congress — House and Senate — and one Republican: Susan Collins.

Why? Ask Massachusetts, where about 35 percent of the state consistently votes Republican for president and where Republicans are regularly elected governor — and there isn’t a single competitive congressional district among the state’s nine seats. There’s only one district in the entire state, the 9th, with a Democratic advantage less than D +10, and the Democrat won it last year with more than 60 percent of the vote.

How does that happen? It doesn’t hurt to have districts that look like this:

Massachusetts 7th Congressional District

The same is true in New York, where Democrats are planning to ignore the recommendation of a nonpartisan redistricting commission and gerrymander out as many as five of the eight current GOP seats. And progressives at The Nation magazine are urging them to do it. (Read “N.Y.’s Redistricting Might Just Save Joe Biden’s Presidency.”)

In Maryland and Illinois, Democrats are planning “extreme gerrymandering” to make GOP victories all but impossible.

Granite State Democrats’ reply? “That’s New York, not New Hampshire!”

Maryland’s 3rd Congressional District

Which is where Doris Day makes her appearance.

From 2007 until 2011, Democrats controlled all of New Hampshire government. Gov. John Lynch was wildly popular and Democrats had votes to spare in the legislature. At any time, they could have passed a nonpartisan redistricting law — similar to the one they passed in 2019 and 2020 when they had a majority but Republicans controlled the governor’s office.

But when Democrats had the chance — they didn’t. In fact, a modest reform proposed in 2009 that would have had a seven-member, bipartisan commission draw up a map for the legislature’s consideration was voted down by the Democratic-controlled House in a voice vote.

Are New Hampshire Democrats being hypocritical? Of course, they are. Just like the Republicans of New York and Maryland, who would absolutely draw themselves as many GOP districts as possible if they could.

If New Hampshire Democrats were in power today, and they saw the coming 2022 GOP tidal wave, does anyone doubt they would draw maps to protect as many members as possible? Of course, they would.

It’s called “politics.” And in a democracy, it’s the only game in town.

Democrats can swoon and gasp and claim to be shocked, shocked! by the very notion. But like Doris Day, it’s all just an act.

It had the support of all four members of the New Hamshire congressional delegation and 50 members of the U.S. Senate, but a Democratic bill to federalize state and local elections was blocked by Senate Republicans Wednesday afternoon.

It’s the latest attempt by the delegation to pass legislation limiting the power of state officials like Secretary of State Bill Gardner (D) to oversee Granite State elections are conducted — including the state’s signature First In The Nation primary.

New Hampshire Democrats have been among the most outspoken advocates for the law.

“Today, I’m voting yes on the #FreedomToVoteAct,” Sen. Maggie Hassan tweeted Wednesday. “Free and fair elections are the bedrock of our democracy, and this bill would help stop billionaires from buying our elections, crack down on dark money, and make sure every American can have their voice heard.”

Reps. Annie Kuster and Chris Pappas both signed a letter urging the Senate to pass the legislation.
“The Freedom to Vote Act can fortify our democracy and bring Americans of all political stripes back into the town square,” the letter reads.

Critics note the legislation would prevent voters in the town square from making the rules for their own elections.

“Our position hasn’t changed,” Deputy Secretary of State David M. Scanlan told NHJournal. “This bill would be a federal takeover of New Hampshire’s elections.” He called the bill’s defeat in the Senate “good news.”

“The bill is hundreds of pages long, and it covers aspects ranging from requiring states to mail every voter an application for an absentee ballot, to drop off boxes for ballots, and at locations other than with the city and town clerks. That creates logistical problems of getting ballots to where they belong, and doing so securely,” Scanlon said.

The defeated bill would also:

— Force New Hampshire to send postage-paid mail-in ballots to every voter who requests them, rather than having Election Day voting supplemented by absentee ballots;

— Require New Hampshire to have at least 13 days of early voting, including weekends, and to count ballots that come in late;

— Ban voter ID requirements by mandating allowing voters without ID to cast ballots based on a signed statement alone;

— Give millions of public dollars to political candidates to use on campaign staff, TV ads, attack mailers, etc.

And of special concern in New Hampshire, the law would cover “a primary election held for the expression of a preference for the nomination of persons for election to the office of president.” In other words, the First In The Nation primary.

That’s something not even the more expansive For The People Act attempted. According to Garder, this fundamentally changes the primary, which is currently a state election involving state officials, aka representatives to the Electoral College.

“The point is they did this now, and they didn’t do it in the first bill,” Gardner said. “You had a 1,500-page bill and now you have a 600-page bill, but they are still fundamentally changing how we conduct and participate in our election.”

“This is a terrible way to do this,” Gardner said.

The overwhelming support for the bill among New Hampshire’s elected Democrats is raising questions yet again about their support for the FITN primary. Polls show most Granite State Democrats don’t support the state’s law protecting the primary. And the state Democratic Party recently handed New Hampshire’s slot on a key DNC committee to a Washington, D.C. resident with few ties to the state.

The DNC’s leadership has repeatedly complained about New Hamsphire’s first-in-line primary position.

The primary isn’t just an important part of the national political process, it’s a key part of the Granite State’s economy, bringing in millions of dollars of business into the state. The fact that all four Democrats in the delegation are willing to back bills that endanger it is a telling political development in the Granite State.