#

New Hampshire’s Republican-controlled legislature has taken a principled conservative stand in voting to repeal the state’s death penalty. It is part of a growing trend across the country of GOP lawmakers, as well as rank and file conservatives like myself, deciding that capital punishment is a failed government program that should be ended. Driving this change is a commitment to fiscal responsibility, life, and liberty.

Perhaps nowhere in America is the ethos against unjust actions by government stronger than in New Hampshire. The state motto “Live Free or Die” reflects an inherent mistrust of government authority and the death penalty provides ample reason for concern. To date, more than 160 people have been freed from death rows across the country due to wrongful convictions. Time and again while debating death penalty repeal, New Hampshire legislators cited innocence and the fallibility of the system as reasons for voting to end capital punishment. They know that once an innocent person is executed their liberty can never be restored.

Valuing life is also at the core of why so many conservative Republican lawmakers in New Hampshire and elsewhere are turning against the death penalty. As pro-life people, we truly want to build a culture of life and be consistent in our beliefs – specifically that human life is sacred from conception to natural death.  For us, as Christians, it is a matter of faith. We do not want risk interfering with God’s processes and preempting any chance of redemption.

Moreover, valuing life includes a commitment to the families of murder victims in the aftermath of violence. The death penalty does not address those needs and instead submits families to an agonizing and lengthy process that promises an execution at the beginning, but often results in a different sentence in the end.

Along with issues of life and liberty, capital punishment in New Hampshire has also been a stunningly wasteful program. The Granite State has not executed anyone since 1939, and yet it has spent millions of dollars on the death penalty. Even if executions had taken place, there is still no escaping the reality – based on numerous cost studies – that the death penalty process, with its exorbitant trial costs and lengthy appeals, costs more than the alternative already in place: life without parole.

The tide is turning. In fact, the number of Republican state legislators sponsoring death penalty repeal bills nationwide has increased tenfold since the year 2000. They have discovered the death penalty does not protect innocent life, it does not protect liberty, and it does not save money. They have learned that the death penalty is anything but conservative.

Here’s the scenario:

It’s November 2020.  President Donald Trump is locked in a political struggle with Democratic POTUS nominee Liz Warren. In a razor-thin race, both campaigns were thrown into chaos when a bipartisan ticket of John Kasich and Kanye West launches an independent bid.

Trump holds onto his 43 percent of the popular vote, finishing in first place. But he loses New Hampshire and its key four Electoral College votes—just enough to make Liz Warren president.

Except—they don’t. Because (in this scenario) in 2019, New Hampshire’s Democratic-controlled legislature joined about 20 other states in an agreement to give its Electoral College votes to whichever candidate won the national popular vote.  And so, with the votes—but not support–of the people of New Hampshire, Donald Trump is sworn in for a second term.

Hey—it could happen.  Even the Kanye part.

This weekend the Connecticut General Assembly voted to become the 11th state—plus DC—to join “The Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.” Connecticut is committing to cast its electoral votes for the candidate who wins the most popular votes nationwide, regardless of which candidate wins their state.

The compact only kicks in when states that control at least 270 electoral votes—enough to pick the president—sign up.

And a group of New Hampshire Democrats wants the Granite State to get on board, too.

“We must ensure that each person’s vote is counted equally,” NH State Rep. Mindi Messmer told NHJournal. “[Presidential] elections should be based on the popular vote.”

Messmer, a candidate for the Democratic nomination in the NH First Congressional District race, supported a house bill last year to put the Granite State in the compact. The bill was defeated in a largely party-line vote, with Democrats like Messmer and Rep. Mark Mackenzie—another candidate in the race to replace retiring Rep. Carol Shea-Porter–voting to keep it alive.

(Rep. Mackenzie did not respond to requests for comment)

Shea-Porter raised the issue herself when she cast her Electoral College ballot for Hillary Clinton as an elector in 2016:

“Now think that [Hillary] did win the popular vote. And the popular vote (margin of victory) is the size of two of the state of New Hampshire. Two. We need to address this,” Shea-Porter said.

“This is a very short-sighted view for a small state like New Hampshire” says Josiah Peterson, debate coach at The King’s College in New York and author of The Electoral College: Critical To Our Republic.

“The only reason presidential candidates campaign in small states like New Hampshire is because of the Electoral College. In 2016, Donald Trump came to New Hampshire on the last day of the race, along with big states like Michigan and Florida. That won’t happen again if you end the Electoral College,” Peterson told NHJournal.

The National Popular Vote effort would seem to benefit big states, and yet four of the six relatively small New England states—Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and (America’s smallest state) Rhode Island—are already on board.

The other states are California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Washington state, plus DC.

What do these states have in common? None of them have backed a Republican president since 1988. This adds to the argument that partisan politics is the primary motive behind this effort, as does the fact that the National Popular Vote effort is bankrolled by “John Koza—a California Democrat who made his fortune by inventing the scratch-off lottery ticket,” according to Politico.com.

Does a small, purple state like New Hampshire want to be part of a partisan effort to reduce the influence of its own state’s voters in picking a president?  And what about the risk the compact effort poses to New Hampshire’s “First-in-the-Nation” primary?

“If the only thing that matters is appealing to the most people, no matter where they are, why would you have your first primary in New Hampshire?  Or Iowa?” Peterson asks.

“You’d want to have primaries in states with lots of large cities. You’d have a primary in Ohio, or you’d go to Florida, or California. You’d go where the population is.”

“Abandoning the Electoral College system would run roughshod over the interests and idiosyncrasies of smaller states like New Hampshire,” Peterson says. And possibly the #FITN primary, too.

So why do so many New Hampshire Democrats support it?

She says she’s not running.

He’s in the middle of a “pay-offs to porn stars” story that would kill any conventional politician.

And yet the (very) early tea leaves from the “First in the Nation” primary state already point to the match-up many pundits dream of:

President Donald Trump vs. Sen. Elizabeth Warren in 2020.

Let’s take a moment to insert all the standard disclaimers: We haven’t even gotten to the midterms yet, two years is a political eternity, Sen. Warren could (theoretically) lose her re-election bid in November, President Trump could (less theoretically) be unable to seek re-election due to incarceration, etc.  The fact remains that the new poll from Suffolk University aligns with the emerging conventional wisdom:  Democrats want Liz Warren and the GOP is going to stick with Donald Trump.

In his analysis of the numbers. Suffolk University’s David Paleologos notes how Sen. Warren’s strength draws from virtually every other major Democratic candidate.

“When we first asked likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire who they would prefer—and we left Liz Warren’s name off the list— we got the expected results:  Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders well ahead of the pack of list seven possibilities:

Biden 30%

Sanders 25%

Booker 10%

Patrick 8%

Harris 6%

Gillibrand 3%

McAuliffe 2%

“Then we introduced Sen. Warren’s name to the mix,” Paleologos told NHJournal, “and she cleared the field:

Warren 26%

Biden 20%

Sanders 13%

Booker 8%

Harris 4%

Patrick 4%

Gillibrand 2%

McAuliffe 2%

According to Paleologos, what makes Liz Warren’s position so strong is that “looking at the cross tabs, what we see is that all of the candidates lose something to Elizabeth Warren. Most of the candidates lose about one in five core supporters between scenario one without Warren and scenario two. And [former Massachusetts governor) Deval Patrick and Bernie Sanders lose a very big share of their voters.”

If Warren were merely strong in New Hampshire because of geography, the implications would be as significant. Instead, her strength is ideological–she’s the first choice (by far) of the voters looking for a nominee on the left end of the Democrats’ spectrum.  Plus, the fact that a third of Biden voters would jump on her bandwagon shows she’s strong with more old-school Democrats as well.

“On the progressive side, it appears voters are saying ‘Sanders had his chance,'” Paleologos suggests. “Elizabeth Warren is a little bit younger, a woman who has been carrying the challenge to big business, big dollars in politics.  And you may have some Hillary Clinton supporters who, if given the choice, either gravitate to Biden or to Warren, but not to Sanders.”

And that’s how Sen. Warren wins the nomination: Progressive voters, a few establishment voters, and some Hillary voters still smarting from the Bernie vs. Hillary fallout.  What about President Trump?

Two months ago, a New Hampshire poll gave him a narrow six-point lead over Gov. John Kasich. In the new Suffolk poll, he’s crushing all comers:

Trump beats Kasich 68-23 percent;

Trump beats Sen Jeff Flake 72-15 percent;

Trump beats Sen. Marco Rubio 65-23 percent;

Trump beats Mitt Romney 63-28 percent.

Trump lost New Hampshire, though narrowly, to Hillary Clinton in 2016. It’s a state more known for it’s moderation than it’s bombast, where candidates with names like Bush, McCain and Romney tend to do well. For Trump to be dominating like this, Paleologos notes, is a sign that he’s in no real danger within his party.

Once again: It’s early, it’s politics and it’s Trump.  But if you are hoping for a Trump vs. Warren throwdown in 2020, we are well on our way.

In this edition of “New Hampshire Journal: On the Air,” listen to David Paleologos, Director of Suffolk University’s Political Research Center, talk about his new poll of New Hampshire voters.

From the governor’s race to the 2020 primary–and the possibility of a GOP challenge to Trump–Paleologos shares the numbers that popped for him.

Find more podcast conversations at NHJournal.com.  And to subscribe to the NHJournal.com newsletter, please click here.

The Analysis Group just released their review of the effects of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and they give it an A+.  They claim greenhouse gas emissions are falling, the state economies are growing, and renewable energy is on the rise.  RGGI must be working, right?

Only if you grade on a curve.  When you check the math, you’ll find that RGGI has no impact on emissions, has had minimal impact on improving energy efficiency, and done very little to increase wind and solar power generation.

What RGGI has done is put upward pressure on electricity rates which, in turn, has driven energy intensive businesses out of the RGGI region—along with the good-paying jobs those businesses supply.  In New Hampshire, for example, the loss of these high-wage jobs has reduced real medium household income by almost $2,000 a year, while increasing electric rates.

How can the facts be so far from the Analysis Group’s reporting? Let’s check their assumptions.

RGGI works by forcing power plants to pay for emission allowances in quarterly auctions.  The one point we all agree on is the cost of those allowances gets passed on to electric distributors and then onto ratepayers.  Between 2015 and 2017, those auctions collected about $900 million dollars—once again, all from the pockets of customers.

In their report, the Analysis Group (a paid consultant for RGGI, Inc.) assumes $800 million of that money is invested in local economies where it is leveraged by indirect and induced affects into $1.4 billion of economic impact.  But they’re using gross figures, not net.  They don’t account for the economic impact of that $800 million if it had been saved or spent by the electric customers themselves.  If the $800 million had been dropped into the economy from the sky, their analysis would be accurate. But it didn’t. The money came directly from local businesses and consumers in RGGI states who would have spent, saved or invested it themselves, thereby adding to economic growth.

That net number, alleged RGGI growth minus the loss of economic activity from ratepayers and customers, is nowhere to be found.

The other assumption is the RGGI invested revenue more than offsets the costs leading to electric bill savings, thus justifying the $1.4 billion impact estimate.  They assume energy efficiency investments should lead to lower demand, and lower demand should result in lower electric prices.

The problem with this assumption is lower electric demand can actually lead to lower power plant operating efficiencies.  For example, coal-fired power plants pay a higher RGGI allowance because they release about twice as much carbon dioxide as natural gas for each unit of electricity produced. These power plants were designed to run almost all the time.  An analysis of power plants in two RGGI states shows operating hours fall as the plants are less competitive, the plants stop and start more often, and efficiency has fallen 16 percent The result is higher costs and emissions.

Furthermore, energy efficiency doesn’t show up in a state-by-state analysis of energy intensity.  Energy Intensity measures the amount of electricity needed to support a dollar’s worth of economic production.  Between 2007 and 2015, energy intensity only improved 9.6 percent in RGGI states. In comparable states outside the RGGI agreement but with similar energy policies, it improved by 11.5 percent.  Electric demand has fallen in RGGI states, but the reduction can be traced to lower industrial demand from companies that left the region, taking jobs and $30 billion of business revenue with them.  Similarly, the comparison states created twice the amount of new in-state wind and solar generation as the RGGI states.

Even if you assume that RGGI spending is the engine behind improved energy efficiency or expanded renewables, there’s still a math problem: Relatively little of the RGGI tax revenue has been spent on energy.   For example, the New Hampshire program spends only 25 percent of revenue on energy efficiency with the rest given as electric customer rebates.  Connecticut and New York have re-directed large sums to their general funds, and Delaware simply hasn’t spent most of the money.   It’s hard to credit progress to dollars still sitting in the bank.

The Analysis Group also stated the RGGI states saved a billion dollars in fuel purchases thanks to lower energy generation.  Unfortunately, while these states generated less energy, that doesn’t mean they used less.  Instead, their imports of out-of-region electricity doubled from 7 percent to 14 percent between 2007 and 2015.  And less energy generated also means less energy to sell. As a result, New Hampshire has lost about half a billion dollars of electricity exports to other New England states. That means lost revenue and lost jobs.

When I began my independent analysis, “A Review of the Regional Greenhouse Initiative’, published in the peer reviewed winter 2018 Cato Journal, I expected to find some emissions savings for RGGI states as compared to other, comparable states.  I expected the debate would be over how big those savings were and whether they would be worth the price of distorting the energy market.

Instead, I found essentially no emissions savings can be attributed to RGGI.

The RGGI emission reductions were duplicated in the comparison states—and across the US.  Emissions cuts have come primarily from lower coal use.  I found 70 percent of the emission savings came from coal’s inability to compete with lower cost natural gas.  The other 30 percent can be attributed to US Environmental Protection Agency regulations that required expensive pollution controls be added to coal-fired power plants.  It just wasn’t worth investing in older, smaller power plants and, as a result, emissions fell.

The RGGI program is being extended from 2020 to 2030 with another 30 percent emission reduction goal, and up to six times higher allowance cost planned.  New Hampshire already met the 2030 emissions goal in 2016.  The RGGI program hurts New Hampshire’s economy with lost business, lost high paying jobs, lost income, and lost tax revenue.  After a decade there is no apparent environmental benefit from RGGI, and there has been a minimal impact on energy efficiency, and wind power.

New Hampshire’s elected officials should consider the impact on local businesses and residents, already burdened by the 3rd highest energy costs in the US, and ask themselves if it’s time to issue RGGI a failing grade and get out.

“Let’s do this thing!”

So said former Attorney General Eric Holder on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show Tuesday night when asked about a presidential run in 2020. Holder was admittedly being flippant, but the former Obama administration official then confirmed to host Trevor Noah that he’s giving the idea of a White House run serious consideration.

Holder made similar comments on MSNBC the same night: “I’m thinking about it, but I’ve not made any determinations. I’m focusing on the work I’m doing with the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and trying to deal with gerrymandering.”

Holder may not have made any determinations, but he has made some concrete plans to come to New Hampshire and speak at “Politics and Eggs,” hosted by the St. Anselm College Institute of Politics and the New England Council, on Friday June 1st.  This event is a mandatory stop on the New Hampshire #FITN political circuit, and the 2018 list of attendees already includes Sen. Jeff Flake, former Gov. Martin O’Malley and Weekly Standard founder Bill Kristol (scheduled for next month).

What sets Eric Holder apart is his openness about his intentions. “Julian Castro did the same thing–and I think that’s smart,” St. Anselm IOP’s Executive Director Neal Levesque told NHJournal.com.  Castro hasn’t appeared at a Politics and Eggs event (yet), but he did visit the St. Anselm campus and speak to students in February.

“Everybody knows why people like Eric Holder are up here,” Levesque says. “It’s not like they’re coming to New Hampshire just for breakfast.”

When Republican Governor Phil Scott–who ran as an opponent of expanded gun laws–recently signed a series of gun restrictions into law, he was greeted with cries of “Traitor” from Second Amendment supporters in Vermont. But on the other side of the border, he may hear a different cry:

“Cha-CHING!”

According to media reports, New Hampshire gun stores in communities along the Vermont border are already seeing an uptick in sales–and are anticipating even more.

“We always get a fair amount of business from Vermont, but there has been a little bit of an uptick the last few weeks,” Dick Basnar of Corey’s Sports Shop in Littleton told Caldonian Record.

Leila Welch, owner of Welch’s Gun and Gift in Lebanon, NH is having a similar experience. “I don’t have many AR’s,” she told the NHJournal, “but I’ve had some magazines [people from New Hampshire] are buying.”

Restrictions on magazines (no more than 10 rounds for rifles, 15 rounds for handguns) are a key part of the new laws that will be taking full effect in Vermont as of October 1st. The law also expands background checks and prohibits people under the age of 21 from buying guns unless they take a government-approved training course.

Gov. Scott’s flip-flop on gun rights has inspired both a surge of anger–and possibly a surge in New Hampshire gun sales.  Meanwhile, Vermont’s gun rights activists insist these new laws are solving a “problem” that doesn’t exist.

“Our average murder rate by firearms is four a year, out of a population of 625, 000,” notes Eddie Cutler of Gun Owners of Vermont, a pro-Second-Amendment organization that’s organized opposition to these laws. “Once Gov. Scott, in his infinite wisdom, decided to [find] an excuse to pass gun control, he opened the flood gates and next thing we knew we were up to our armpits in gun control laws.”

And possibly a flood of gun sales in the Granite State beginning this fall.

Supporters of Marsy’s Law provided these comments from the testimony of crime victims and their families during Tuesday’s hearing before a NH House committee:

“I have heard opponents of this legislation say it solves no problems—my family and I have lived the problems that make Marsy’s Law necessary. When my daughter was brutally murdered, we had no voice, no standing in the system that was supposed to bring justice to Lizzi. With Constitutional rights that were given equal consideration to the defendant, much of the terror, anger, and helplessness that we experienced in the process would have been alleviated. New Hampshire needs Marsy’s Law to protect the next family who experiences the unspeakable tragedy that we did,” said Bob Marriott, whose daughter Lizzi was raped and murdered in 2012.

“There is a Victims Bill of Rights under current New Hampshire law. However, these rights are only statutory, and the rights afforded to the accused and convicted are constitutional. In reality, this means that the rights of the accused and convicted will always outweigh the rights of their victims. While it is of course very important for the accused to have constitutional rights, it seems only reasonable that victims should have very basic, commonsense rights in the constitution as well. Right now, in the New Hampshire constitution, victims have zero rights,” said Paula Czech Lesmerises, a survivor of child sexual abuse.

“I have heard some say that statutory rights are sufficient for victims of crime and that enshrining these rights in the constitution will not make them any more enforceable. If that’s the case, then why don’t we remove defendants’ rights from the constitution and put them in statute? If statutory rights are sufficient for victims, then why aren’t they good enough for defendants? I was not notified that my rapist was being released—I wasn’t given the opportunity to weigh in or speak to the impact that him moving to New Hampshire would have on me and my children. I needed the protection from the government. I needed the same weight of law that he had. Please don’t tell me that statutes are enough. I’ve lived through the system and I can tell you that they’re not. When you say that a person who has been kidnapped and raped in front of their children doesn’t deserve basic constitutional protections—then, who does?”–Carissa Dowd, who was kidnapped and raped by a stranger in front of her two young children.

“Two years after my sister’s murderer was convicted he climbed a wall and escaped from prison. For two weeks he was free in the community and no one notified us.  Years later, in spite of the escape, he was paroled. Again, no one notified us. We did not know he was up for parole, we did not know he had a parole hearing and we did not know he was released. After what we’ve been through as a family, not much scares me, but the thought of coming face to face with that monster terrifies me.”– Bill Greeley, whose sister Lee Ann was murdered in New Hampshire in 1973.

“I had my power stripped away when I was drugged and raped. The very system that was supposed to hold him accountable stripped my power away again and silenced me. Victims of crime deserve better. Elevating my statutory rights to the same constitutional level as the man that violated me is the only way to have ensured that I had a voice in the process and had the chance to address the court prior to conclusion of the case. I understand my statement may not have changed the outcome of the case, but at least I would have been heard.”– Sexual assault survivor, Debbie Verdicchio.

A new poll by Harvard’s Institute of Politics has a lot of news about young voters, Republicans and the 2018 midterm elections—none of it good.

First the bad news: According to the IOP’s Spring 2018 IOP National Youth Poll, voters under the age of 30 really don’t like Republicans in general and President Trump in particular. Things were bad for Republicans  last fall when 65 percent of young voters wanted Democrats controlling Congress, and just 33 percent picked the GOP—a 32 percent Democratic advantage.

Believe it or not, that number has actually gotten worse. In the IOP’s new poll, the GOP now trails Democrats by 42 percent, 69-28, when it comes to partisan preference among young voters.

The same with President Trump, whose dismal approval rating among young voters a year ago (32 percent) is now down to an abysmal 25 percent. To put that number into context, President Nixon’s overall approval rating when he resigned was 24 percent.

Republican partisans tend to dismiss bad poll numbers from the under-30 set because of they don’t tend to turn out on Election Day, particularly for midterms like 2018.  Which is why the worst number for the GOP in this new poll may not be the depth of the partisan divide, but the height of the political passion.

The IOP poll found a record-high level of interest in voting in the November midterms.  “The percentage of young voters who say they definitely plan to vote this year is 37 percent,” said IOP’s Polling Director John Della Volpe.  “That’s 14 points higher than in 2014 when the GOP took control of the US Senate, and six points higher than the last wave election in 2010.”

“We’re seeing a voter intensity among young people unmatched in recent times, and it will only get hotter as the election nears,” Della Volpe said.

If that intensity holds up, the GOP’s chances of holding the House will be completely washed away.

Consider a state like New Hampshire, where Republican Gov. Chris Sununu won in 2016, a presidential year, by just 3 points. (He lost among young voters by 5 points, by the way).

In midterm elections, turnout among under-30 eligible voters in New Hampshire averages just 20.3 percent, according to research by the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tuft University’s Tisch College of Civic Life. If 37 percent of young voters actually do turn out in New Hampshire this November, Sununu and the state GOP will be wiped out by a Democratic tidal wave.

Is it likely that youth voter turnout in the Granite State will nearly double over its average, from 20 up to 37 percent? Probably not. But even if it just goes up by 25 percent, Republicans like Sununu will struggle to hold onto office. Which may be why Tufts CIRCLE ranks Gov. Sununu as one of the 10 governors most vulnerable to the impact of young voters in 2018.

Then there’s the impact on congressional races.  If under-30 voters really do turn out as the IOP poll indicates, competitive districts like NH-1 (Democratic incumbent Carol Shea-Porter isn’t seeking re-election) become an almost-certain lock for Democrats.

More bad news for Republicans. And once again—it gets worse.

The left-leaning Voter Participation Center tracks the voting behavior of demographic groups like Millennials, unmarried women, minorities, etc. and their influence on election outcomes.  Their most recent report found that this group, which includes voters under-30, makes up a smaller segment of the New Hampshire electorate than in any other state.

In other words, the Granite State may be as good as it gets for the GOP. And right now, it looks very, very bad.

New Hampshire politicians from the State House to the US Senate have lined up against the expansion of internet sales taxes ahead of a Supreme Court hearing later this month that could end the current sales-tax status quo.

Gov. Chris Sununu and NH Attorney General Gordon MacDonald submitted an amicus brief in the case of South Dakota v. Wayfair, to be heard by the Supreme Court on April 17th. New Hampshire’s entire congressional delegation has also urged the court not to force small businesses in sales-tax-free New Hampshire to collect taxes on behalf of other states.

“It is unacceptable that New Hampshire businesses may be forced to act as tax collectors for other states. We will not sit idly by while Washington, D.C., and sales-tax-reliant states try to raid the pockets of Granite Staters and increase the price of retail goods in New Hampshire,” Sununu said. “That is the very definition of taxation without representation, and we will not stand for it.”

Pro-free-market groups like FreedomWorks, The Institute for Policy Innovation and Americans for Prosperity have also filed an amicus brief on behalf of online retailer Wayfair and its fight to avoid collecting taxes for states where it has no “physical presence”–the standard set by the Supreme Court 26 years ago in the Quill decision.

(Click here for an excellent analysis of the legal issues raised by the Quill decision)

Anti-internet-sale-tax advocates may be facing an uphill battle, however. New Hampshire is just one of five states with no sales tax. The state of South Dakota argues that their lawsuit is necessary to “save Main Street,” an argument that appears to resonate with President Trump–particularly in his current political battles with Jeff Bezos and Amazon.com.

Court watcher Eugene Volokh also points to a previous opinion from Justice Anthony Kennedy, widely viewed as the swing vote on the court, on the issue of states and tax collection for clues on how he might rule:

What can states do in order to collect sales and use taxes on Internet and direct mail transactions, where the seller is outside the state but the buyer is inside? And Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurring opinion signals that — when the substantive issue comes before him — the answer would be “a lot”: he would reverse Supreme Court precedent that generally bars states from collecting such taxes from the out-of-state sellers. (emphasis added)

And the court’s newest member, Justice Neil Gorsuch, has also been critical of the Quill precedent, writing that “internet retailers don’t seek comparable treatment to their brick and mortar rivals, they seek more favorable treatment, a competitive advantage.”

In the end, it may all be about the Benjamins.  Americans spent almost $120 billion online last year, and the 45 states with sales taxes claim they could collect around $26 billion a year in taxes on online and direct-marketing sales. There will be a lot of pressure on the Court to give states access to all that out-of-state cash.