inside sources print logo
Get up to date New Hampshire news in your inbox

In Politically Charged Times, Instances of Bipartisanship Appear at N.H. State House

It’s not often that you get a Republican governor, GOP-led Legislature, and Democratic minority to agree on anything. Especially after the contentious 2016 presidential and U.S. Senate race in New Hampshire, which saw numerous attack ads and damaging remarks, it wasn’t clear how the new dynamics at the State House would impact how policy gets done. Despite the expected political battles between the two parties, there have been some rare moments of bipartisanship in Concord.

In the past couple of weeks, there were a few bills making their way through the lawmaking process that saw bipartisan support.

Senate Bill 9 has seen some passionate testimony from advocates and lawmakers who want to strengthen New Hampshire’s rape shield law. It would protect a victim’s “sexual past, interests and predispositions” from being introduced as evidence at all stages of the judicial process, including appeals.

The bill was prompted by the rape and murder of University of New Hampshire student Lizzi Marriott in 2012, whose family had to appeal to the state Supreme Court to prevent details of her sexual past from being admitted during an appeal of the convicted murderer Seth Mazzaglia. The court originally ruled that the information could be made public because the rape shield law didn’t apply at the appeals level. Victim advocacy groups protested the decision and former Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan, and all four members of the Granite State’s congressional delegation, filed a motion asking the court to reconsider. The court eventually reversed its order.

It passed Tuesday in the House Judiciary Committee on an 11-4 vote. Four Republicans voted the bill was “inexpedient to legislate” because it was too expansive and could remove discretion from courts. Despite those four representatives, this bill has seen supporters from both parties as it makes its way to the governor’s desk.

Sen. Kevin Avard, R-Nashua, introduced the bill in the Senate, where it unanimously passed in the chamber. The night before the panel’s hearing on Tuesday, Gov. Chris Sununu urged the committee to pass the bill in a three-page letter to committee members.

“I encourage legislators to support Senate Bill 9, as passed by the Senate, to help ensure another family does not go through the painful and lengthy legal battle the Marriott family has had to undertake to protect their daughter’s privacy,” he wrote.

The committee was late to start the meeting because House Speaker Shawn Jasper and the House GOP leadership team caucused with the Republican members before the vote. He encouraged them to pass the bill as is without any new amendments.

With House GOP leadership pushing its passage, Sununu weighing in on it, and Democrats supporting the bill, SB 9 is likely to make it into law.

The other bill showing signs of bipartisanship is House Bill 640, which would decriminalize small amounts of marijuana.

The House has passed eight of these bills in the last 10 years, but they were always shot down in the Senate. With Massachusetts and Maine voting in November to legalize recreational marijuana, advocates say 2017 is the year for the state to catch up and it looks like the Senate will get it done.

HB 640, which would allow possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, was overwhelming approved last month by a 318-36 vote in the House. Last week, the bill moved over to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the members heard testimony on the bill.

Passage of the measure in the five-person committee is considered likely. The two Democrats, Sens. Bette Lasky of Nashua and Martha Hennessey of Hanover support the measure. Republican Sen. Harold French of Franklin also approves of it, but his GOP colleagues, Sens. Sharon Carson of Londonderry and Bill Gannon of Sandown, oppose the bill.

When it gets to the full Senate for a vote, Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley said he predicts it will pass.

“I think when all’s said and done we will pass decriminalization and I think both sides, the advocates as well as law enforcement, will be able to live it,” he told NH1 News.

The committee is currently debating whether the amount should change from one ounce to half an ounce. Regardless of the amount, Senate Minority Leader Jeff Woodburn said Democrats are willing to compromise.

“I’m certainly going to work to create a majority that can get something passed and get something turned into law,” he said. “I think the larger amount is fine with me but I’m willing to compromise to move the ball forward.”

It’s also expected that Sununu would sign the bill once it reaches his desk. He supported marijuana decriminalization during his gubernatorial campaign. He recently said he prefers the half an ounce amendment, but would let the legislature hammer out the details.

On some education issues, there has also been bipartisan work, especially when it comes to full-day kindergarten. Republicans also supported an effort to kill a school choice bill for the rest of the year. The move was applauded by Democrats, but it’s likely to reappear again in 2018.

This isn’t to say that New Hampshire Republicans and Democrats are working together on everything. Democrats fervently opposed a right-to-work bill that came up earlier this year, and they were also players in the House’s failure to pass a budget. Also, just look at the New Hampshire Democratic Party and New Hampshire Republican Party‘s Twitter accounts. They are often filled with mudslinging tweets at the opposing party. Yet, on several big issues at the State House, it appears both parties can be bipartisan.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

Progressive Outside Groups Weigh In on New Hampshire Voting Rights Bill

Outside groups often funnel money into states during an election, but many New Hampshire residents were probably hoping it would be some time before they again face the onslaught of more political ads. Yet, two progressive groups are currently spending money in New Hampshire, trying to influence how lawmakers decide on a voting rights bill that would tighten the state’s voter ID and registration laws.

The latest group, Let America Vote, made a five-figure digital ad buy in the Granite State at the end of March targeting Sen. Kevin Avard, R-Nashua, to change his vote on Senate Bill 3.

Senate Bill 3 was introduced by Sen. Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead, to address concerns that due to New Hampshire’s “lax” voting laws, people who aren’t living in the state, or are only temporarily here, are voting in New Hampshire elections. Republicans want to tighten the process, but Democrats have dubbed the bill as a form of voter suppression. The Senate passed the bill on March 30 on a party line vote, 14-9, with Avard voting for the legislation.

The bill tackles the complex issue of “domicile” versus “residence.” Under current laws, the definition of domicile is “that place, to which upon temporary absence, a person has the intention of returning.” Republicans think that’s vague and want to make clear who can and cannot vote in the state.

Democrats are pushing the narrative that the bill would prevent college students and military members who are “temporarily” in the state from voting in elections when it’s their right to cast their ballot. That’s the message Let America Vote wants residents to hear, so they can encourage their lawmakers from moving the bill forward.

Republican lawmakers and New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Jeanie Forrester are pushing back, saying it will not stop college students or military members from voting.

Let America Vote is a new group that formed in February 2017 under the leadership of Jason Kander. The former Democratic Senate candidate gave Republican U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt a run for his money in the Missouri Senate race, which was one of the most watched races in the country. Blunt beat Kander — 49.2 to 46.4 percent.

Kander didn’t stay quiet after losing the election, though. With his new organization, he focuses on states that are trying to suppress voting rights.

Let America Vote recently announced they were launching three new voting rights ads in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District special election, in Virginia to oppose a Republican plan to overturn Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s veto of a bill that would require a photo copy of a state-issued ID included with absentee ballots, and in New Hampshire to oppose SB 3, “which could strip voting rights from college students and would allow elections officers to visit people’s homes to check in on residents just because they voted.”

Kander penned an op-ed for The Nashua Telegraph on Sunday, writing that Republicans are trying to suppress Democratic voters so they can win in future elections.

“For decades, some Republicans across the country have gotten away with passing deliberate voter suppression laws by rebranding them as efforts to fight against voter fraud,” he wrote. “There is more to this agenda than simply suppressing the vote. Not coincidentally, Republicans are pushing this bill just months after New Hampshire Democrats won both a U.S. Senate seat and the presidential vote in the 2016 election. Senate Bill 3 will tip the scales against Democrats where they’ve have won by razor-thin margins.”

Yet, it’s been noted by several right-wing bloggers and members of State House press corp that progressive outside groups seem to be very interested in this bill. New Hampshire Democrats often decry when outside money for Republicans pour into the state, but now, they have publicly applauded these groups focused on voting rights.

Priorities USA, a pro-Democratic group, launched digital ads earlier in March targeting Republican senators on the Election Law Committee to defeat the bill before it went to the Senate.

The ads targeted Sen. James Gray, R-Rochester and Sen. Andy Sanborn, R-Bedford, both cosponsors of the bill, and Birdsell, author of the bill and chair of the committee.

“Hmmm — liberal Democrats from outside New Hampshire trying to influence the outcome of our democratic process. Sounds familiar,” said NHGOP senior adviser Patrick Hynes to WMUR when Priorities USA launched their ads.

Priorities USA is known nationally for its focus on voting rights. The fundraising arm of the organization, Priorities USA Action, was the top super PAC supporting Democratic president candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016 and was the main money driver for former President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.

The group also said it urged voters to call N.H. House Speaker Shawn Jasper’s office about voting rights.

The bill now moves to the House Election Law Committee, which will hear public testimony again before the bill moves on to the full House for a vote. It can be expected that these outside groups, and possibly others, will also continue their campaign to kill the bill.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

NHGOP, Conservative Group Blast Hassan After Meeting With Supreme Court Nominee

U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan met with Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch on Monday to discuss issues important to the freshman senator from New Hampshire. Republicans were quick to criticize her statement about the meeting, saying it’s riddled with hypocrisies and calling on her to support a full Senate hearing for Gorsuch.

“I appreciated the opportunity to meet with Judge Gorsuch and to discuss the importance of a strong and independent judiciary,” Hassan said in a statement after the meeting. “In our conversation, I highlighted the critical role the judicial branch plays in protecting the civil rights of all Americans, including a woman’s constitutionally protected right to make her own health decisions. I also emphasized the importance of ensuring equality for LGBTQ individuals, as well as my concerns with the influence of unlimited corporate and dark money in American politics. I will continue to thoroughly vet Judge Gorsuch’s record and views throughout the hearing process.”

Hassan and her Democratic colleague, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, have expressed concerns about Gorsuch, but have also called for a full confirmation hearing and vote by the Senate.

“It is not in our interest to deny a hearing to Neil Gorsuch,” Shaheen said at a Friday town hall. “That’s what’s prescribed under the Constitution. Let me tell you something. I’m not going to go out and say it’s wrong for them and then say that it’s right for us.”

Last year, the GOP Senate leadership refused to hold a hearing or vote for former President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. There has been some discussion among Senate Democrats who want to filibuster or block Trump’s nominee, similar to what Republicans did to Garland. The GOP has been calling for an “up-or-down” vote on Gorsuch, meaning a direct “yay” or “nay” vote on him without any obstruction.

Hassan and Shaheen have not made a final decision on how they will vote for Gorsuch. His confirmation will require 60 votes, or a cloture vote, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

“I think it is absolutely appropriate and right for us to do our constitutional duty and have a hearing,” Hassan said.

New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Jeanie Forrester is going to hold Hassan to her promise, noting that last year, the former governor called for a hearing and confirmation vote for Garland.

“If she doesn’t call for an immediate hearing and vote on Judge Gorsuch, she will be in direct contradiction of her past statements,” Forrester said.

Hassan penned an op-ed in the New Hampshire Union Leader in February 2016, calling on the Senate to hold a hearing and vote to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia

“As is often said, justice delayed is justice denied. A stalled Supreme Court will not move our country forward; it will only exacerbate the deep political divide and gridlock in Washington,” Hassan wrote.

America Rising Squared (AR2), an arm of the Republican opposition research group America Rising, is also pushing for Hassan to call for an up-or-down vote for Gorsuch.

“After spending nearly a year talking about the importance of having a ninth justice on the Supreme Court, Senator Hassan should join Senator Shaheen in calling for an ‘up-or-down’ vote for Judge Gorsuch,” said Nathan Brand, spokesman for AR2, in a statement to NH Journal. “If she instead joins in Senator Schumer’s obstructionist games, it reaffirms her hypocrisy and the fact that she puts her partisan agenda before the interest of Granite Staters.”

There was some confusion earlier this month on Shaheen’s comments about calling for an up-or-down vote. On the Senate floor, she surprised many people when she said on February 7 that she would support an up-or-down vote, going against what Schumer wants. Shaheen met with Gorsuch on February 15.

“Unlike the Republican majority, I haven’t heard any Democrats saying we don’t think that Judge Gorsuch should get a hearing or that he should get an up-or-down vote,” she said. “Everybody I’ve talked to agrees he should get a hearing and an up-or-down vote.”

However, Ryan Nickel, Shaheen’s communications director, took to Twitter to correct the record saying she meant a cloture vote, or 60 “yeas” to be approved.

Ar2 also criticized Hassan’s statement, specifically when she said she has “concerns with the influence of unlimited corporate and dark money in American politics.”

The New Hampshire Senate race between Hassan and former GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte was the second most expensive race in the country, with more than $90 million spent in outside funding. Only the Pennsylvania Senate race topped it with more than $119 million in outside spending.

Hassan and Ayotte had the opportunity to avoid big spending by outside groups in the race, but a pledge failed to come to fruition.

Ayotte proposed a “People’s Pledge” similar to one adopted in Massachusetts in the 2012 race between Sen. Scott Brown and Sen. Elizabeth Warren — requiring that a candidate who benefits from a third party ad donate 50 percent of the ad’s total cost to a charity of the other candidate’s choice.

Hassan countered Ayotte, declining to sign the pledge and suggesting limiting each candidate’s spending to $15 million. “This move is politician speak for ‘I do not want to sign the People’s Pledge,’” Ayotte said. The candidates could not come to an agreement and the outside group money flooded into the state.

The Center for Responsive Politics wrote an article about the staggering amount of dark money in the New Hampshire Senate race titled, “Dems in New Hampshire supported by the secret money they rail against nationally.” The article exposed the issue of Democratic candidates being against dark money and outside spending, yet letting it happen anyway.

“If hypocrisy is the coin of the realm in politics, then spending by a Democratic dark money group in New Hampshire’s Senate race could be Exhibit A,” the article stated. “For years, Democrats have blasted Republicans’ use of unlimited secret money in elections. There’s one problem: Hassan herself is receiving millions of dollars in ground support…” from outside groups.

More outside money was spent against Republicans in the New Hampshire Senate race. Nearly $45 million was funneled to the Granite State opposing Ayotte, while $34.8 million went against Hassan.

Gorsuch is making the rounds through the Senate, led by Ayotte, who is helping President Donald Trump’s nominee through the confirmation process. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin on March 20.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

 

 

 

Why Did Right-to-Work Fail Again in New Hampshire?

Yet again, the House voted Thursday to kill a right-to-work bill. Since the early 1980s, the New Hampshire House has rejected right to work 35 times and despite Republican control of the State House, they still couldn’t get it done this year.

The bill, which would have prevented unions from requiring nonmembers to pay the cost of representing them, failed by a 200-177 vote, with 32 Republicans joining every Democrat to oppose the bill. Fifteen Republicans and four Democrats did not vote. After the bill was voted down, the House brought up a measure, which passed, stating the right-to-work issue could not be brought up again until the next legislative session in 2019.

So why did it fail again? The Democrats argue that right-to-work is union busting, creates a “free rider” problem, and is wrong for the Granite State. If it had passed, New Hampshire would have been the first state in the northeast to have a right-to-work law on the books. However, the politics of the vote reveals confrontational rhetoric, deep wounds within the Republican Party, and the blame game of who’s at fault for letting it fail.

 

“STRONG-ARMING” VOTES

Gov. Chris Sununu made it clear throughout his campaign that he wanted to see right-to-work pass in New Hampshire. He even mentioned it in his inauguration speech in January, saying how the law would be an important economic benefit for the state and would encourage businesses to come here.

Before the vote, the governor said he was not “banging the walls” trying to get House Republicans to vote a certain way. However, behind closed doors, he reportedly told the House Republican caucus on Thursday that “you’re either with us or against us.”

“You’re either a Republican or a Democrat,” and he invited opponents of right-to-work to “go leave and vote with the Democrats.”

High-ranking supporters of the bill also told lawmakers that if they won’t vote in favor of the bill, then figure out a way not to vote against, meaning stay home or abstain.

Rep. Matthew Scruton, R-Rochester, said he was encouraged by his colleagues to stay home because “the roads were slick.”

“I did not listen to that advice,” he told the Fosters Daily Democrat. “This bill was being pushed by several out-of-state special interest groups and was not going to help New Hampshire workers.”

State Republican Party Chairman Jeanie Forrester also displayed some of her strength in her newly elected position at a Wednesday press conference, where she said “for those folks who support the governor,” they will be rewarded in the next election cycle with campaign funds.

Even for outside groups, like the state chapter of Americans for Prosperity, said they wouldn’t support lawmakers who broke their pledge. During each election, the group asks all legislators to sign a five-part pledge, which includes support for right-to-work.

Reps. David Miltz, of Derry, and Rio Tilton, of Seabrook, signed the pledge, but voted against the bill Thursday.

“Have I mentioned that we don’t treat pledge breakers well,” AFP state director Greg Moore told the Union Leader. “If we don’t do something when you break a pledge, the pledge doesn’t mean a whole lot, right?”

This pressure from House leadership, the governor’s office, state party, and outside groups might not have convinced “on-the fence” Republicans who are current or former union members, or know people who are in a union. Rep. Tim Josephson, D-Canaan, said strong-arming the House Republican caucus into voting in favor of something they don’t agree with alienates them.

For some lawmakers, they are concerned about how their vote might play in their home district come election time next year or if they choose to run for local office.

That happened to House Speaker Shawn Jasper in 2012. He lost an election to serve as Hudson selectman, even though he served on the board for years and was the incumbent chair. He blamed his loss on his support for right to work, which failed by one vote in the House in 2011.

 

THE JASPER BLAME GAME

Jasper’s role in the vote is also being questioned by the more zealous right-to-work lawmakers. Some say he didn’t try hard enough to convince people to vote for it and are blaming him for the bill’s failure. Jasper is pushing back saying that’s not true, he supports right-to-work, but it was always going to be a tough sell in the House. Jasper was also endorsed this past election by the SEIU Local 1984, State Employees Association. That endorsement probably didn’t help his cause either.

The speaker barely won his gavel for a second term after defeating a fervent right-to-work supporter in Rep. Laurie Sanborn, R-Bedford. After the December vote, Jasper said he recognized that his party was fractured, but he hoped to move forward and work with all Republicans.

“I think we’d all like to move beyond the issues of the past,” he told reporters at the time. “I’m certainly going to be working with the people who were not in favor of me being re-elected.”

To prove he stood with the governor, Jasper stepped down from the speaker’s podium, went to his seat, and cast a vote in favor of right-to-work. After the vote, he echoed a similar message as he did in December.

“What I’m trying to do, and not everyone appreciates this, is to avoid tearing my caucus apart,” he said.

Despite his sentiments, some Republicans still think his support his disingenuous. Some say he “stacked” the House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services Committee with anti-right-to-work Republicans.

“There has been an ongoing attempt by a number of Right-to-Work supporters, who facing the possibility that SB 11 will be defeated in the House on Thursday, are attempting to portray me as the reason for such a defeat, alleging that I had ‘stacked’ the Labor Committee,” Jasper said in an email to House Republicans on Wednesday before the vote. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

At the press conference with Forrester, Jasper pushed back against making right-to-work a “litmus test.”

“I’ve said all along that this is a difficult issue,” he said. “I don’t think this is an issue that should define a good Republican versus a bad Republican. I would not characterize anyone who votes against this as a bad Republican.”

Jasper was then criticized by former NHGOP Chairman Jennifer Horn on Facebook, saying he sent “a clear and consistent message against this legislation.”

“Speaker Jasper has failed the governor and he has failed our party,” she said. “Worst of all, he has failed New Hampshire.

Jasper quickly shot back, saying “her comments shows a lack of understanding of the legislative process and a lack of understanding of the individuality of House members. Republicans are not just mind-numbed robots who do what they are told.”

 

LACK OF UNIFIED CAUCUS OR MESSAGE

Jasper is right in that the New Hampshire Republican Party is fractured and this right-to-work bill further exposed the wounds that have yet to be bandaged. Among the 32 Republicans who voted against the legislation, several of them were from Jasper’s leadership team.

Twenty of the 32 Republicans were from Rockingham County and out of 10 representatives from Derry’s delegation, seven of them opposed it.

The vote also split former allies, including President Donald Trump supporters. Rep. Fred Doucette, R-Salem, a former co-chair of Trump’s campaign and a member of the labor committee, voted against right-to-work. Doucette is also a former union member and said many of his constituents are also union members.

Rep. Al Baldasaro, R-Londonderry, chair of Trump’s state campaign veterans’ coalition, supported the bill, saying “union members in the Republican Party failed us.”

House Democratic Leader Steve Shurtleff told WMUR that the GOP leadership “is trying to paint it as being Democrat versus Republican, but it is bipartisan. I don’t think it plays well to tell Republicans who disagree with this that they will be ostracized by the party going forward. I’ve always told my caucus they are free to vote their consciences.”

It remains to be seen how Jasper and the House leadership plan to unify the Republican caucus, but if another controversial vote comes up, expect to see some divide in the party again.

Rep. Sean Morrison, R-Epping, also voted against the bill and said the right-to-work fight was more of “a matter of message than substance.”

“I too believe this is about freedom … freedom of businesses to conduct themselves as they see fit, and freedom from overreach by government in private business matters,” he told the Union Leader. So let’s lower energy costs, lower business taxes, less red tape and less government interference in employee/employer relationships, as we should in the Live Free or Die state.”

Sununu said he was “deeply disappointed” in the result of the vote, but isn’t going to let this failure define his term.

“It is clear that some House members did not understand this opportunity to unleash the untapped potential of our economy,” he said in a statement. “I know that we can continue to work collaboratively on initiatives that will drive new business into the state. Right-to-work, though important, is just one piece of a broader effort to promote economic development, signaling to our nation’s business community that New Hampshire is open for business.”

 

WHAT COMES NEXT?

Expect to see a push on further cutting business taxes in the state. Former state Rep. Joe Sweeney also hopes that becomes a focus of the administration.

There’s also a national right-to-work bill that has been introduced in Congress. If that passes and Trump signs it, New Hampshire will have to comply with it. It has a possibility of making it through, since Republicans hold majorities in the House and Senate, but it’s almost certain that Democrats would filibuster the bill if it reaches the Senate floor.

It’ll also be important to keep an eye on the 32 House Republicans that voted against right-to-work next year if they seek reelection. Will the NHGOP find someone to challenge those representatives in a primary fight? Will they see any funds from the party for reelection?

However, don’t expect right-to-work to be gone for good. If the GOP can hold on to the State House in 2018, it can push the legislation again.

“It’s always been a heavy lift,” Moore told the Union Leader. “This cause can succeed but only if you make it a prolonged message which galvanizes the support for free enterprise that is out there across this state. We’re bowed but not beaten.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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