#

After four days of back-to-back negotiations between the New Hampshire House and Senate, lawmakers on the state budget conference committee finally decided Wednesday on an $11.7 billion two-year spending plan. Although its widely expected to pass the Senate, there is still a chance that it could fail in the volatile House.

“This is a budget the legislature and the people of New Hampshire can be proud of,” said House Speaker Shawn Jasper after the committee approved the final version of the budget. “This budget provides resources to address the opioid crisis, mental illness, and domestic violence, includes several reforms to state government, and keeps spending in check. We’ve achieved a balance that ensures our citizens will have access to services they need while reducing the tax burden.”

Whether it will garner enough Democratic or conservative votes remains to be seen. Democrats claim Republicans are not spending all of the revenue available to the state and criticize that a workforce training proposal, known as Granite Workforce, was cut from the budget. It would have provided training and wage subsidies for certain types of workers since the state is dealing with a worker shortage.

“Democrats have made it very clear: we will not support a budget that asks working people to dig further into their wallets while the elite get more handouts,” said Senate Minority Leader Jeff Woodburn. “Unfortunately, our efforts to stand up for everyday people have been rejected at every turn. The reality is that this Trump-like, Republican budget agreement caves to the wealthy elite and ignores those who are most in need.”

Also, Democrats still don’t like that language was added to the budget that prohibits the state from giving money to health care facilities to provide abortions, which indicates that House Democrats are most likely not going to vote in favor of the budget in the full session next week.

State Reps. Al Baldasaro, R-Nashua, and Debra Altschiller, D-Stratham, brought up that issue on Twitter.

There, I fixed it:"Repubs would rather legislate NH women's reproductive systems than create a budget that serves the people" #nhpolitics

— Debra Altschiller (@DebrasATeam) June 14, 2017

Little has changed from the Senate version of the budget passed last month, with a few notable exceptions. The new budget includes an amendment mandating new work requirements for people enrolled in the state’s expanded Medicaid program. Low-income adults would have to work, attend job training, or go to school for at least 20 hours per week to qualify for the New Hampshire Health Protection Program. If the federal government rejects the work requirement, as it did last year, expanded Medicaid would end by 2018.

Some advocacy groups, like New Futures — which focuses on mental health, substance abuse, and children issues — were critical that an amendment in the budget would allow the governor to divert money away from the state’s Alcohol Fund, which is used for substance abuse treatment, prevention, and education programs. The governor would be allowed to reach into the fund to help pay for operations at the state’s juvenile detention center in case of emergencies after approval from the fiscal committee.

“Weakening the addiction treatment system in the midst of New Hampshire’s devastating opioid crisis will place the lives of people struggling with addiction at risk,” said Linda Saunders Paquette, CEO and president of New Futures. “This irresponsible decision by the committee cannot be overstated, and will be felt for years to come, as our public health crisis will only intensify without long-term sustainable investments.”

The budget includes cuts to the state’s businesses profits tax and business enterprise tax, but lawmakers also eliminated the electricity consumption tax, which generates about $5.5 million for the state each year.

“This budget also eliminates the Electric Consumption Tax, helping our state move in the right direction to reduce the burdensome electric rates paid for by homeowners and businesses,” said Senate Finance Chair Gary Daniels, R-Milford. “By making changes that will result in lower monthly bills, we put money back in our employer’s pockets and create an improved, lower cost state to run a business.”

With these tax cuts, House GOP leadership is hopeful that enough members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus join in supporting the budget. The caucus still has concerns that the state spending levels are too high, indicating that some of its members will probably vote against it.

@jdistaso @WMUR9 @DaveSolomon72 for those thinking $11.7B is a big budget number, try counting to 196 (votes) #nhpolitics https://t.co/mOycLchaiP

— NH Freedom Caucus (@NHFreedomCaucus) June 15, 2017

The House needs a majority to pass the budget and they need conservative support in order to do that. Jasper said he is optimistic the budget will get passed in the House next week. Behind the scenes, top GOP officials are starting to whip votes in order to make sure that it happens.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

In a 10-hour marathon session, the Republican-led Senate approved an $11.8 billion state budget, defeating all Democratic attempts to increase spending in mental health, social services, and education. The budget ultimately passed on a 14-9 party line vote.

The spending plan changed very little from what the Senate Finance Committee put forward, but concerns and praise for the budget fell on party lines. Republicans applauded the money going to help the mental health crisis in the state, but Democrats disagree, saying the budget doesn’t fund critical social services.

Some of the budget’s highlights include expanding mental health treatment beds, creating a new student scholarship program, and cutting the state’s business taxes.

“What we’ve developed is a budget that serves the citizens of New Hampshire, but lives within our means,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Gary Daniels. “I believe we have achieved an appropriate balance between the two and we’ve done a lot to get us to this point.”

Democrats put forward more than two dozen amendments to increase funding for child protective services, adding nurses to New Hampshire Hospital, making Medicaid expansion permanent, funding full-day kindergarten, and increasing the budget for the state university system. They argue that the state can spend an additional $45 million since the budget’s revenue estimates are too low.

“It creates an artificial, trumped-up surplus to sell the biggest Republican ruse of all, that slashing taxes for the rich will grow revenues and improve lives for poor, middle-class people,” said Senate Minority Leader Jeff Woodburn.

“I recognize and respect my colleagues who think it’s not enough or some would suggest even never enough, but on the other hand, Mr. President, you know there are people like me who are always very concerned that maybe it’s always too much,” responded Sen. Andy Sanborn, R-Bedford.

On a few amendments, a couple of GOP senators sided with Democrats, but it was not enough for the measure to be adopted. For example, Republican Sens. Sanborn and Ruth Ward of Stoddard voted with Democrats to roll back proposed health care premium increases for state retirees, but it failed on a 12-11 vote. In another 12-11 vote, GOP Sens. Regina Birdsell of Hampstead and Harold French of Franklin voted with Democrats to add $6 million in additional education aid grants to public schools, but that measure also failed.

Heated debate between the two parties occurred, as expected, on the business tax cuts in the budget blueprint. An old debate flared up over abortion policy, though, when an eleventh-hour Republican amendment was introduced to block state and federal funds from going to centers that offer abortion services.

“This is about controlling women’s health choices, plain and simple, and this is about merging church and state,” said Sen. Martha Hennessy, D-Hanover.

Tensions remained high as Sen. Kevin Avard, R-Nashua, raised his voice in response to Hennessy.

“Forcing people to violate their conscience with their tax dollars, that is hateful,” he said. “I challenge anyone in here to tell me in any constitution where I am forced to pay for somebody’s abortion, show it to me.”

Hennessy said the amendment was an attack on her rights, while Republicans argue it’s just codifying what’s already happening.

“Could you imagine the men in this room if we snuck in some amendment about how the government shouldn’t pay for Viagra?” Hennessey said.

The amendment ultimately failed, 17-6. Democrats also tried unsuccessfully to eliminate a reference to the so-called Hyde Amendment that outlaws spending public dollars on abortions, in order to prevent any future cuts to Planned Parenthood.

With the Senate’s approval, the biennium budget is sent to the GOP-led House. Yet, there are some concerns from conservatives who are threatening to oppose the plan because it spends too much. The chamber is likely to call for a conference committee of senators and representatives to compromise on various issues within the budget, despite the House failing to pass their own plan earlier this year.

Red flags that House conservatives were not entirely pleased with the budget were first raised during a Tuesday budget information session.

“I’m opposed to this budget as it currently stands, and I am going to work to defeat it,” said Rep. James McConnell, R-North Swanzey, who is also a member of the House Freedom Caucus.

The House Freedom Caucus helped sink the chamber’s budget this year, making it the first time since at least 1969 that the House failed to produce a spending plan.

Yet, it’s still too early to tell if the caucus will try to defeat the Senate budget. In an interview with New Hampshire Public Radio, Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton, and co-chair of the House Freedom Caucus, said the Senate proposal is an improvement.

“They’ve made some great changes in terms of improvements — cutting the business taxes is a good example, funding the charter schools is another good example, so there are positive steps forward,” he said. “Some of us are still concerned that it spends more than we’re comfortable with and that’s…put us in a stalemate almost. The overall increase in government size is bigger than a number of us are conformable with.”

Hoell sent an email to caucus members after a meeting this week, saying the group is hopeful that their needs will be met in the conference committee.

Republicans only hold a slim majority in the House and a handful of defections could defeat the budget if Democrats also oppose it. They have largely criticized the GOP-budget, but some could side with Republicans out of fear of not getting anything passed.

The budget process needs to be over by June 30 before the start of the next fiscal year. If a budget is not passed by then, lawmakers would need to pass a continuing resolution, which would fund the government at its current levels until a full budget is passed.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

The latest stop in Tom Price’s opioid crisis listening tour brought the health and human services secretary to the New Hampshire State House on Wednesday. He wasn’t alone, though. Always near him was Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Donald Trump. They were joined by Gov. Chris Sununu, state Health and Human Services Commissioner Jeffrey Meyers, and Democratic U.S. Rep. Annie Kuster of New Hampshire, among other treatment providers, law enforcement, first responders, and families who have been impacted by the substance abuse crisis.

The meeting in Concord only lasted about an hour and members of the press were not allowed to be in the Executive Council chambers where the listening session took place. Afterwards, Price and Conway went to Manchester Fire Department to learn about the city’s Safe Station program. Press were also kicked out at first, but were then invited back in.

At a press conference after the listening session, Price said solving the opioid crisis is a priority for the Trump administration and his visit was a chance to see how states are dealing with it at the ground level.

“The Department is all in, the President is all in,” he said. “He has such passion for this issue, because he knows the misery and the suffering that has occurred across this land, and wants to help, help solve it.”

Price points to the recent $3.1 million in funds — with more money on the way — being sent to New Hampshire as evidence of the administration’s commitment to getting more resources out into the field.

Yet, more funds are needed for the Granite State, which has the second-highest overdose deaths per capita in the country. Nearly 500 people have overdosed on drugs in 2016. New Futures, a nonprofit focused on the opioid crisis, released a report Monday that found substance misuse costs the state’s economy about $2.36 billion each year.

Sununu praised the White House for its “tremendous” effort in reaching out to the states to see what they think of certain policies and solutions to combat opioid misuse.

“This administration has provided a great philosophy in that they want to set a foundation and a platform for good policy out of Washington but they look to the states to implement it,” he said. “Unlike the previous administration where Washington was going to implement and control everything, they want the states to be the implementers.”

However, Democrats are blasting the U.S. House of Representatives’ passage of the American Health Care Act, which would make major changes to Medicaid expansion. Democrats argue that the bill would weaken funding for federal programs to battle the drug epidemic.

Just before Price and Conway’s arrival, protesters staged a “die-in,” laying on the floor in the hallways of the State House, holding up signs that said, “Trump lied, I died” and “I died for a billionaire’s caviar.”

Protestors at the #DieIn today ready to welcome @HHSGov Sec Tom Price & reject the #AHCA #nhpolitics #thisisnotnormal #handsoffourhealthcare pic.twitter.com/Gy6w1cYe7c

— Ashley Marcoux (@ashmarx9) May 10, 2017

Democrats held their own press conference while Price and Conway met with New Hampshire leaders, criticizing Sununu for holding a closed-door meeting.

“New Hampshire won’t stand for a plan where premiums skyrocket, benefits shrink, and thousands are booted off [health care] coverage,” said Senate Minority Leader Jeff Woodburn.

Price said Trump is committed “to make certain that every individual has access to the kind of coverage that they want for themselves and for their family.”

“I think it’s important to step back and say is the Medicaid program the most appropriate program for every individual in that economic setting,” he added. “Is there a better way to provide coverage? Is there a better way to provide services? Whatever the answer to that is the president is committed and we’re committed to making certain every single American has a seamless transition.”

He vowed “that nobody falls through the cracks. That no rug is pulled out from anybody and that we make certain that the coverage and the care is available to every single American.”

Sununu said he had “some severe reservations” about the House’s health care bill, but he appreciates “the progress the House made.”

“We have to move that ball forward,” he said. I do have reservations in some areas when you look at the details. But people have to understand this is simply one part of the process. The Senate is going to go through their process. It shows that Congress isn’t stalled, not stagnated. They’re not going to do nothing. I think we’ve had eight years of a lot of do nothing. They’re doing something and they’re standing up for the American people.”

Conway said the opioid epidemic should be a bipartisan issue that Democrats and Republicans solve together.

“We look at this as a non-partisan issue in need of a bipartisan solution,” she said. “And we are working with people on both sides of the aisle in Washington and within each of the states to do exactly that.”

However, there are instances of disagreement between Republicans, especially on the American Health Care Act. It also appears that New Hampshire leaders and the White House aren’t always on the same page.

Several media outlets reported that the Trump administration was contemplating a 95 percent cut for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), which houses the agency’s high-intensity drug trafficking program and drug-free communities support program. Officials dismissed the claims and reaffirmed Trump’s support for ending the opioid crisis. Sununu called the reports “very disconcerting.”

Price and Conway did not mention the national drug czar’s office during their visit. While New Hampshire is one of the hardest hit states of the drug epidemic, it appears an official from the state has not been invited to sit on the President’s Commission on Combatting Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, leaving many to question how committed Trump is to fulfilling his campaign promise.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is chairing the commission, and it was announced Wednesday that Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper of North Carolina, Republican Gov. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, and former Democratic Rep. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island will also serve on the commission. Bertha Madras, a former deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, will also work on the commission, but no one from the Granite State.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

A Democratic member of the Federal Election Commission isn’t going to let President Donald Trump go without providing evidence that there was voter fraud during the 2016 presidential election in New Hampshire.

In yet another letter to Trump, FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub is asking Trump to provide proof of his claim that thousands of Democratic Massachusetts residents were bused to the Granite State on election day to illegally vote against him.

“This allegation of a vast conspiracy, involving thousands of people committing felony criminal acts aimed at stealing the election, has deeply disturbed citizens throughout America,” she wrote in a Wednesday letter. “I have heard from many of them, including proud and patriotic New Englanders who are shocked by the allegation and feel that it impugns their historic role in our democracy.”

She also called on Trump in February to provide evidence for his voter fraud claim.

This latest letter adds fuel to the fire of what’s already been a heated debate between Republicans and Democrats in New Hampshire when it comes to the state’s election laws. In fact, the Senate is close to voting on a major bill that would close several of the state’s voting law loopholes, according to Republicans.

The legend of Massachusetts voters busing into the Granite State to cast a ballot in our elections is not a new tale, but here’s a quick timeline of events that led to this sweeping legislation:

• A few weeks after the election, when Trump defeated Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, he tweeted, “Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California — so why isn’t the media reporting on this? Serious bias — big problem!” Trump won the Electoral College, but lost New Hampshire to Clinton by about 2,700 votes.
• Before Trump’s tweet, and about a week before the election, then-Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Sununu, told radio host Howie Carr that Democrats abuse New Hampshire’s same-day voter registration, and “when Massachusetts elections are not very close, they’re busing them in all over the place.” Politifact rated his claim as “Pants on Fire.”
• This led to backlash from Granite State officials, including the state’s attorney general and secretary of state’s offices, who wanted to quell fears that New Hampshire elections are illegitimate.
• After the election, Sununu said he was not aware of any “specific evidence of voter fraud.”

Yet, it didn’t stop there. Trump kept talking about voter fraud even after his presidential inauguration.

• During a closed-door meeting between Trump, former N.H. Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte, and 10 other senators to discuss U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, Trump reportedly started the meeting by discussing the election and voter fraud.  He claimed that he and Ayotte would have both won in the Granite State if not for the “thousands” of people who were “brought in on buses” from Massachusetts to “illegally” vote in New Hampshire.
• Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to Trump, made the claim again in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.” He said: “This issue of busing voters in to New Hampshire is widely known by anyone who’s worked in New Hampshire politics. It’s very real, it’s very serious.”
• Even recently, in a TIME Magazine interview published Thursday, Trump stood by his claim that three million undocumented people voted in the national election. He said: “Well now if you take a look at the votes, when I say that, I mean mostly they register wrong, in other words, for the votes, they register incorrectly, and or/illegally. And they then vote. You have tremendous numbers of people. In fact I’m forming a committee on it.”

Many Republicans and Democrats are upset that Trump is pushing a false narrative and is making people question the integrity of the democratic voting process. However, his statement perfectly illustrates what his supporters and several Republicans believe is the problem with election laws in New Hampshire: The current laws make it difficult to charge anyone with voter fraud because what’s legal here is usually illegal in another state.

Are there lots of illegal votes in NH? No.

Are there lot of legal votes from people who have no business voting in NH? Yes. #nhpolitics

— Greg Moore (@GregMooreNH) November 28, 2016

Hence, Senate Bill 3, which was introduced by Sen. Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead, to address a lot of those concerns. Of course, the bill is divided on party lines — it’s cheered by Republicans who say they are trying to tighten the process and ensure that those who vote in New Hampshire actually live in New Hampshire and criticized by Democrats who say the bill is a form of voter suppression.

One of the issues it focuses on is the definition of domicile, which varies from state to state, and the New Hampshire Legislature is trying to better define the difference between “domicile” and “residence” in this bill. 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 allows campaign workers, who might be in the state for a month or so, to vote in New Hampshire, even if they plan on leaving after the election.

An incident occurred in the 2008 and 2012 elections when Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, D-Portsmouth, allowed Democratic staffers to live at her home. The staffers used her address to vote in the election, and since they were living in the state for at least three months before the election, the Attorney General ruled that it was legal.

Under the new bill, a person who registers to vote within 30 days of an election or on Election Day must show verification that a New Hampshire address is his or her domicile. That can be done by showing proof of residency at a college or university, driver’s license, utility bill, among other forms. Those who do not show documentation can still register and vote by filling out a domicile affidavit and registration form, and provide the documentation within 10 or 30 days of Election Day, depending on the community. Someone could get charged with voter fraud if they fail to provide a document verifying his or her domicile within that window.

A previous version of the bill called for police officer to knock on doors to verify a voter’s domicile, but that provision was taken out this week. The bill still allows municipal officials to visit those addresses or ask “agents” to do so.

The Senate Election Law Committee recommended Tuesday in favor of the bill by a 3-2 vote on party lines and it now heads to the full Senate for a vote.

Adding to the controversy, the Attorney General’s office recently said investigations into thousands of affidavit voters who cast ballots in New Hampshire without identification during the 2012 and 2014 election cycles have been dropped due to the lack of manpower and money to complete the investigations.

How can the Attorney General and Secretary of State’s office say there is no evidence of voter fraud if they aren’t investigating every potential violation? That’s what Republicans are asking.

Sununu’s budget didn’t fulfill the attorney general’s request for roughly $93,000 annually to hire a full-time elections investigator. A Senate bill would provide about $500,000 to the Attorney General’s office for with focus on elections, lobbying, and campaign finance law. That bill passed the Senate and is now in the House Finance Committee.

“No matter how you change it, there is not a problem in the state of New Hampshire,” said Senate Democratic Leader Jeff Woodburn. “There’s been a ruse of illegal voting, and Trump buses, and all of this business. This is nothing but a concerted national attempt to suppress voting and harass voters.”

“This is not national trend legislation,” Birdsell said this week. “This is homegrown here. It is something that is trying to address what some of our constituents are looking for.”

The debate on this bill, and the discussion of voter fraud in New Hampshire, is far from over.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Although it’s just a budget blueprint, President Donald Trump’s proposal that was released Thursday has already made waves in New Hampshire. It’s hardly a done deal, though, and the president’s budget is usually just a suggestion or a statement of policy they want to see done. Now, the House of Representatives, the body who has the real power of the purse, will draft its plan and the budget process kicks off from there.

Overall, Trump wants to increase defense spending, and in order to offset that bump in funding, he is proposing $54 billion in cuts to other domestic programs. Those cuts are already being criticized in the Granite State because several of the programs he wants to slash would impact the people who rely on or utilize those funds from the federal government.

Here’s what Trump’s budget proposal means for the programs and people in New Hampshire:

MEALS ON WHEELS

The senior nutrition program has become the poster child for the impact of Trump’s budget proposal. Even U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H., was in the state on Monday visiting the Strafford Nutrition Program (SNP) in Somersworth criticizing the president for wanting to slash funding for Meals on Wheels.

“This is not, and should never be, politicized,” she said at a roundtable event. “These programs are for everybody, men and women who have worked and have found themselves either disabled or old or poor or all of the above, who need nourishment, and we have to be there for them.”

Jaime Chagnon, the director of SNP, said she would have to cut 2,500 meals from her program if they lost their federal funding. About 80 percent of their revenue comes from state contracts, which are in large part funded by federal grants, she said.

Yet, Trump’s budget doesn’t specifically call for the elimination of the Meals on Wheels program. It cuts Community Development Block Grants, which fund about 3 percent of the national Meals on Wheels program. The national program relies heavily on donations. At the local level, though, Chagnon said the percentage is likely much higher.

However, Trump’s budget — known as a “skinny budget” — is a first outline, and it’s largely silent on the senior nutrition program. Expect Meals on Wheels to be in the spotlight as more specifics and later versions of the budget come out.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS (CDBG)

As mentioned, Trump’s proposal calls for the elimination of these grants, which provide communities with grants for economic development and housing projects.

The Granite State received $8.7 million in CDBG for a number of programs ranging from Meals on Wheels to upgrading sidewalks.

Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas said last month in his proposed budget for the Queen City that if CDBG were to continue, they would support programs such as the Boys & Girls Club, City Year, and the Queen City Bike Collective.

Those grants have also been used extensively in the North Country. For example, Berlin used a $500,000 CBDG to assist Capone Iron North Wood to begin operations in the city. The city also received three grants for a total of $1.35 million for its Neighborhood Reinvestment Program, which assisted more than 90 homes, including for the elderly, disabled, and low-income, to improve or upgrade their properties.

LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (LIHEAP)

LIHEAP is one of the more far reaching programs in the state that would feel the effects of a Trump budget. The program helps heat the homes of thousands of low-income Granite Staters, nearly 28,000 actually, and received more than $25 million in federal funds for the current fiscal year, according to the New Hampshire Union Leader.

Trump’s budget blueprint called LIHEAP “a lower-impact program and is unable to demonstrate strong performance outcomes.”

The funding is through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which is expected to see a 16.2 percent cut in funds, or $12.6 billion less than last fiscal year. The state Office of Energy and Planning administers LIHEAP and contracts with Community Action Agencies for on-the-ground work.

In the North Country, over 6,000 households in Coos County and northern Grafton and Carroll Counties, received assistance through the program from the Tri-County Community Action Program, according to the Berlin Daily Sun.

NORTHERN BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION (NBRC)

The elimination of this program probably received the most criticism from New Hampshire’s Democratic congressional delegation.

Trump’s budget cuts this commission, which was set up to invest in the economy and infrastructure in the North Country, but also in Maine, Vermont, and New York. From 2010 to 2015, the commission invested $3.3 million in New Hampshire projects.

“The Commission has also provided important funding for treatment and recovery services in the region as we work to combat the heroin, fentanyl, and opioid crisis,” said U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan in a statement. “Eliminating the Northern Border Regional Commission would be harmful to the infrastructure needs and economic development efforts in the region, and I will fight strongly to ensure that these cuts never happen.”

U.S. Rep. Annie Kuster echoed similar sentiments. Even N.H. Senate Democratic Leader Jeff Woodburn from the North Country weighed in on the budget and the elimination of the NBRC.

“We need to make smart investments in order to expand opportunity for all, support businesses throughout our state, and lay the foundation for a new generation of economic growth,” he said in a statement. “I’m very disappointed with the amount of harm that President Trump’s budget proposal will cause to NH’s North Country and urge our Congressional delegation and Governor [Chris] Sununu to oppose the elimination of this vital Commission in the Trump budget.”

NOAA FUNDING

Several environmental officials were concerned that Trump’s budget cuts would end several of their programs that they say are crucial to coastal industries and research.

Programs including the Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve and New Hampshire Sea Grant are at risk of being defunded due to Trump’s proposed 17 percent budget cut to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Conservation and coastal research officials say they are concerned the National Estuary Program, New Hampshire Coastal Program and Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership are also poised to lose funding, according to The Portsmouth Herald.

DEFENSE, VETERANS AFFAIRS

So who is poised to actually benefit from Trump’s proposed budget? Well, if you work in the defense industry or veteran’s affairs, then those areas would see an increase in funds.

Specifically, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs would see a 6 percent bump, or $4.4 billion, and Department of Defense would receive a 10 percent increase, or more than $52 billion.

In New Hampshire, that means defense contractors, like BAE Systems in Nashua or Manchester, and gun manufacturers, such as Sig Sauer, could see more work in the future. Sig Sauer recently won a $580 million, 10-year contract with the U.S. Army to manufacture pistols.

The question remains, though, if these industries see more money, how much of an impact would that have on the state’s economy?

Also, many policy experts say Trump’s budget outline is shifting a lot of funding obligations to the state. If the state doesn’t have the means, they could put that on the cities and towns, with many rural communities, who heavily voted for Trump in November, footing the bill.

“President Trump campaigned on the promise that he would look out for those in rural, economically-disadvantaged areas like the North Country, but instead, his budget proposal stabs them in the back,” Woodburn said. “Instead of supporting efforts to bring new jobs to the North Country, his budget puts corporate special interests ahead of the hard-working people of New Hampshire.”

Everyone will be waiting to see what of Trump’s blueprint ends up in the House’s version of the budget and how Trump supporters react to the potential shift in cost to the communities.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

Monday was supposed to be the calm before the storm, but in New Hampshire politics, the day was muddled with confusion over the legality of towns’ rights to postpone Tuesday’s elections due to the impending blizzard.

The day started with Secretary of State William Gardner saying, “We don’t have snow days in the law for elections.”

Yet, town officials throughout the state were taking matters into their own hands and postponing the annual “second Tuesday in March” elections for later in the week after the snowstorm subsided. Reasons for postponement were mostly due to ensuring the safety of residents and first responders from hazardous road conditions. Some parts of the state are expected to receive between 10 to 20 inches on Tuesday.

The secretary of state’s office maintained its position that by state law, towns are required to hold elections regardless of the snow and expected blizzard conditions. If they don’t, there could be legal consequences. Town officials say a different state law allows them to change the day of the election in an emergency situation.

“I don’t know what the consequences will be,” Paula Penney, elections assistant at the secretary of state’s office, told The Portsmouth Herald. “If they don’t have the election tomorrow, it may end up in superior court. But I don’t know what’s going to happen. I don’t have any indication that (the office’s) position will change.”

The two laws in question are RSA 669:1 and 40:4. RSA 669:1 is the law the secretary of state’s office was citing as requiring towns to hold the election, regardless of the snow. The law states:

“All towns shall hold an election annually for the election of town officers on the second Tuesday in March…”

RSA 40:4 is cited by the towns for giving them the flexibility to change the date of election in the event of an emergency. This law states:

“In the event a weather emergency occurs on or before the date of a deliberative session or voting day of a meeting in a town, which the moderator reasonably believes may cause the roads to be hazardous or unsafe, the moderator may, up to 2 hours prior to the scheduled session, postpone and reschedule the deliberative session or voting day of the meeting to another reasonable date, place, and time certain.”

So which interpretation is right? Some legal experts said it’s not exactly clear if that law refers to voting for races in elections or voting for budget and other town issues at traditional town hall meetings.

John Greabe, a law professor at the University of New Hampshire, told NH Journal that the specific rule would “govern over” the general rule.

“It’s not uncommon for there to be two statutes that seem to be at odds with each other,” he said. “It’s a traditional approach to the conflict of laws where there is a more specific rule and a more general rule. It’s common for courts to go with the more specific rule.”

Cordell Johnston, government affairs council with the New Hampshire Municipal Association, said the organization sides with the towns.

“I don’t think there is any inconsistency in the law,” he told NH Journal. “We believe it’s very clear that they [towns] could move the election.”

He mentioned that a group of municipal lawyers on a list-serv “overwhelmingly” agreed that the moderator has the clear authority to reschedule the election.

With significant confusion surrounding the issue, Gov. Chris Sununu weighed in on debate. He spoke with municipal leaders and Attorney General Joe Foster in a Monday afternoon conference call encouraging them to hold elections, but said the state would not mandate them to do it.

“It’s our understanding that a lot of towns have already made a choice to postpone their elections,” he told reporters. “There are some differing opinions at the state level as to whether that is a valid process for them to take. The best we can do is to strongly recommend that all towns stay open for voting tomorrow. We think that’s a very important part of the process. But given the differing opinions, I don’t think we’re in a position to mandate that towns stay open or change their direction if they choose not to.”

Sununu cautioned town officials that if they postpone Tuesday’s elections, they are doing so “at their risk,” suggesting the town could be open to lawsuits for voter suppression.

“It would create a lot of confusion if one town voted on a school issue and another town did not, and you get into an issue of do you release the results and how is that processed,” he said. “You never want someone to have their vote suppressed, or have someone not be able to participate in the process because of confusion at the local level.”

Johnston said he interpreted Sununu’s message that “the state would not challenge a town’s decision to reschedule,” but an individual voter could.

“What I imagine could happen, although unlikely, a voter who is not happy about how things played out, would go to court and claim that the moderator violated his or her authority in rescheduling the vote,” he said. “But because the law is really clear, I don’t think the challenge will go that far.”

In order to make the interpretation very clear, and to avoid confusion like this in the future, New Hampshire Democratic leaders are planning to introduce emergency legislation this week to ensure that results from any town elections postponed due to snow are enforceable.

Senate Democratic Leader Jeff Woodburn and House Democratic Leader Steve Shurtleff released a statement announcing their plan to introduce legislation Wednesday during the Senate Rules and Enrolled Bills Committee:

“As elected officials, we have a solemn duty to ensure the safety of our citizens and no election should require voters to risk their safety in order to participate. Our election workers and town moderators are well-trained and take the task of facilitating transparent and fair elections seriously. We should trust them to make the best decision for their communities and for the safety of their people. That’s why we will attempt to introduce emergency legislation at this week’s Senate Rules Committee meeting to ensure that results from any elections postponed due to public safety concerns are enforceable and so that our local officials can make the right decision for their communities without fear of a legal challenge.”

Sununu agreed that the Legislature should take action to resolve the conflicts in state law, but it’s unclear if he will support the Democrats’ bill when it is introduced.

Is your local election and town meeting postponed? Check out the rolling list here as town officials make the decision.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

It’s not often where there is a war of words between a governor and a mayor of neighboring state. Yet, that’s what happened last week between New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu and Mayor Daniel Rivera of Lawrence, Mass., when discussing who’s to blame for the Northeast’s growing opioid crisis.

“It’s coming from Lawrence,” Sununu said Wednesday at the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce breakfast. “Eighty-five percent of the fentanyl in this state is coming straight out of Lawrence, Massachusetts.”

He also pointed to Lawrence again in an interview later that day with Boston Herald Radio, saying the city’s status as a “sanctuary city” is causing problems for New Hampshire.

Sununu said he had a meeting with other New England governors when they met in Washington D.C. for the National Governors Association annual winter meetings.

“I sat down with [Massachusetts Gov.] Charlie Baker and all the governors from the New England regions and said we’re going to cross borders, you better get ready,” Sununu said. “I’m working with the DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration] in Bedford, working with the DEA in Boston, our state police, their state police.”

Sununu then vowed that “we’re going in.”

“We’re going to get tough on these guys, and I want to scare every dealer that wants to come across that border,” he said. “We’re not giving dealers nine months on parole and probation anymore. We’re putting them away for the five, 10 and 15 years that they deserve.”

Sununu’s “tough on drugs” rhetoric makes sense — albeit an interesting political move to pick a battle with a town in another state. He’s the first Republican governor in 12 years and the opioid crisis is still rampant in New Hampshire. He campaigned on the epidemic being the number one priority the state faces and depending on what he does to curb the crisis in his two-year term, could be a factor in his 2018 reelection campaign.

Despite several media reports about the subsequent back-and-forth between Sununu and Rivera, there is some legitimacy in Sununu’s claim about Lawrence being a hot bed of activity for heroin and fentanyl.

Most of the heroin coming to New England originates in Colombia and travels through Mexico, according to a 2013 report from The New York Times. Despite an increase in the number of seizures along the southern U.S. border, enough is still getting through to major distribution centers, including Philadelphia and New York, which then makes its way into northern New England, “often through Lowell, Lawerence, and Holyoke, Mass.”

According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary, most heroin supplies in the New England region are brought in from New York along the vast interstate highway system, naming I-95 and I-93 as the major routes for New Hampshire’s heroin trafficking routes. The report also named Lawrence as a main distribution center for northern New England states.

“Massachusetts also serves as a staging area or interim transportation point for heroin being transported north,” the report states. “Lawrence and Lowell, north of Boston, are distribution centers for northern New England and Canada. Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont are supplied with heroin chiefly by drug groups in northeastern Massachusetts, particularly in Lawrence and Lowell.”

Western Massachusetts is one of the staging areas for distribution in Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire because drug dealers from those states who want the product have to drive to Massachusetts to get it because drug penalties in Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire are stricter in the three northern New England states.

Because Lawrence sits on the I-93 highway, police have said many drug deals occur at fast-food restaurants off the highway exits.

It is so widely known that Lawrence is a main distributor for the opioid crisis, that even Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey said it to the Times in 2016.

“Massachusetts is the epicenter for the heroin/fentanyl trade,” she said. “From Lawrence, it’s being trafficked and sold all over the New England states.”

For example, undercover detectives followed a car on a heroin buying mission from Manchester to Lawrence and back on Sept. 15, 2015, which resulted in one arrest.

Still, despite these reports and former statements that show Lawrence is a main distributor of heroin and fentanyl for New England, Rivera took offense that Sununu called out his city.

“Just like the President is finding out that health care is complicated, I think that the governor is going to find out that this is a complicated issue,” Rivera said in a hastily scheduled press conference on Thursday. “I’m not sure that he meant to threaten the sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but he did.”

One of the major problems Rivera had was with Sununu’s claim that 85 percent of the fentanyl entering New Hampshire came from Lawrence.

“I would ask you guys to ask him where he got that number from,” he charged reporters. “I don’t know if it’s a true number. I think the problem is if you think like ‘oh you snuff out what’s happening in Lawrence, it will all go away.’ I know he’s only been on the job 60 days, but the reality is it’s like water, it will find another place to go.”

Rivera and Sununu eventually spoke on Thursday afternoon, and Sununu released a statement after the call.

“The Mayor and his local law enforcement personnel have been doing a good job on this issue, but we must recognize this is a cross-border problem that requires cross-border solutions,” Sununu said. “It has no geographic boundaries and it remains incumbent upon all of us to come together and work collaboratively across our borders along with federal, state and local law enforcement.”

Sununu’s office has not offered any evidence of his “85-percent” claim, but regardless, Lawrence’s role in the opioid crisis cannot be disputed.

Baker, the Massachusetts governor, weighed in on the controversy, and said, “I do view this as a problem that affects us all and I think singling out a single community or a single state is not accurate.”

New Hampshire Senate Democratic Leader Jeff Woodburn offered his two cents.

“Instead of antagonizing key regional partners in our collective fight to combat the devastating effects of the opioid crisis, Governor Sununu should be fighting for our state’s successful Medicaid expansion program which has helped over 100,000 Granite Staters gain access to mental health and substance abuse treatment,” he said in a statement. “New Hampshire needs steady and serious leadership from the Governor’s office that focuses on a holistic approach to solving this public health crisis, not reckless, cavalier comments.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

As expected, it didn’t take long for Democrats in New Hampshire to point out what proposals they didn’t like in Gov. Chris Sununu’s budget speech last week.

“I am encouraged by statements of Governor Sununu in support of full-day kindergarten and funding for the developmentally disabled, but as we all know, the devil is in the details,” said House Democratic Leader Steve Shurtleff in a statement. “The Governor’s budget address made no mention of the successful NH Health Protection Program, leaving serious unanswered questions for the 50,000 Granite Staters who rely on the program for their health care coverage.”

But the more divisive statements came from the Senate Democratic Caucus and New Hampshire Democratic Party (NHDP). While they applauded Sununu for keeping several initiatives put in place by former Gov. Maggie Hassan, they criticized him for not fully funding the Alcohol Fund to combat the opioid crisis.

“And in the midst of a substance abuse crisis, we need to find out why Governor Sununu chose not to fully fund the Alcohol Fund, which supports our effort to combat this crisis,” said Senate Minority Leader Jeff Woodburn in a statement.

NHDP Chairman Ray Buckley echoed Woodburn’s sentiments saying he was “disheartened to see that the governor did not fully fund the state’s alcohol fund, which would provide key resources to combat this epidemic.”

The Alcohol Abuse Prevention and Treatment Fund was created in 2000 by the Legislature, and it’s a mechanism that takes 5 percent of the gross profits from the sale of alcohol to support education, prevention, treatment, and recovery programs for alcohol and drugs. The fund has only been fully financed one time since its inception, which was in the 2003-2004 biennium — the first year it began. In his budget speech, Sununu proposed increasing the funds to 3.4 percent, double the 1.7 percent rate the previous budget had set.

In each budget after that, the governor or Legislature transferred the revenue to the general fund and only appropriated a small amount to the Alcohol Fund, which means Republican Gov. Craig Benson and Democratic Govs. John Lynch and Maggie Hassan suspended funding during their terms.

In the most recent budget, for the 2016-2017 budget biennium, Hassan and the House proposed suspending the funding formula. Hassan proposed giving the fund $9.6 million over the two-year period, but the Republican-controlled House dropped that figure to $3.6 million. Senators proposed bringing the formula back and lowering the cap to 1.7 percent, which would give the fund $6.7 million.

If the fund was fully financed for the whole biennium, it would have received approximately $19 million, still nearly $10 million less than what Hassan suggested. After the Senate put forward its recommendation for the budget, the NHDP called their budget “unbalanced and partisan” with “irresponsible gimmicks.”

It’s interesting that the NHDP would criticize Sununu for not fully funding the Alcohol Fund, when previous Democratic governors did not fully fund it either.

“We haven’t had a Democratic governor who has fought as hard as Sununu is fighting for it [the Alcohol Fund] right now,” said former state Rep. Joe Hannon, R-Lee, who made his mark in the Legislature by focusing on the opioid crisis.

“No one has taken the leadership on this, and the battle will be in the House and Senate Finance Committees,” he told NH Journal. “I’m always happy when the governor speaks about how he is addressing substance abuse treatment. He gets it, and that’s something I haven’t seen in awhile from leadership in the state.”

New Futures, a nonprofit group looking to curb substance abuse in the state, is a fervent supporter of fully funding the Alcohol Fund at 5 percent. They believe the money from the non-lapsing, flexible fund could be used for creative and innovative solutions to stop the opioid epidemic.

“We are encouraged by the fact that Gov. Sununu has increased the funding for the Alcohol Fund by doubling the current amount,” said Linda Paquette, president and CEO of New Futures. “However, we anxiously await the release of House Bill 2 in order to clarify the support in the budget for addressing New Hampshire’s substance abuse epidemic.”

Paquette said she was “very curious” what Sununu meant when he talked about “incentives” with the Alcohol Fund.

“First, I propose we double the Alcohol Fund, increasing these important resources by more than $3 million and creating incentives to ensure that those funds are truly spent,” he said in his Thursday speech.

Pacquette said she is hopeful that the Alcohol Fund will be a priority for the Republican-controlled State House because the funds are “not restricted.” New Hampshire is expected to receive federal money from grants and the 21st Century Cures Act, legislation approved by Congress and former President Barack Obama in December 2016, which gives $6.3 billion in funding to circumvent the opioid crisis and enhance medical research and development.

“The Alcohol Fund can be used to fill gaps where grant money and federal funds are restricted for certain uses,” Paquette told NH Journal. “It can be used for supporting recovery housing and investing in early childcare as a substance abuse prevention strategy. He [Sununu] clearly has made the opioid crisis a priority of his administration.”

Sununu presented his budget to the House and Senate Finance Committee in a Tuesday joint committee meeting. The House Finance Committee will take a look at his budget first and put forward recommendations to the full House later in the spring. After passage in the House, the Senate Finance Committee will review that budget and put it up for a vote to the full Senate, before returning to the governor’s desk for his signature or veto.

“We’re going to double that fund and get the money where we can have a lot of impact,” he said in the meeting. “Not just in the high-density areas, but really all across the state. None of our communities have been immune to that.”

The Senate Finance Committee recommended passage of Senate Bill 196 on Tuesday, which was amended to increase the Alcohol Fund to the 3.4 percent rate proposed by Sununu. If the House changes the formula or suspends it in its budget recommendations, this bill could override it and fund it at the rate Sununu proposed.

“This is a sound proposal that I and a majority of the Senate Finance Committee supported today by recommending a bill to do just that,” said Senate Finance Chair Gary Daniels, R-Milford, in a statement. “We have established a number of initiatives that serve to stem substance abuse, including the heroin crisis, and I know we can do more with the funding Governor Sununu has proposed as part of his budget.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Gov. Chris Sununu is quickly making education reform a priority during his two-year term. Just take a look at his Thursday budget speech.

“This budget and this administration recognizes local control in public education as the touchstone of policymaking, and that state government’s role in shaping education policy should be focused strictly on benefitting students and their families,” he said. “A major goal of this budget is to expand educational opportunity and choice for kids and their families.”

In his 2018-2019 biennium budget, Sununu focused on four areas of education reform that he wants to accomplish: full-day kindergarten, charter schools, higher education, and school building aid.

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

Sununu’s proposal includes $9 million a year for full-day kindergarten. He said the funds, which would be awarded in addition to education adequacy grants, would target communities that need it most.

After his speech, Democrats sought clarity on how it would be determined which communities received funding.

“We also do not know from his presentation which communities will get full-day kindergarten and which ones won’t…” said New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley in a statement.

Sununu said the formula would be based on a community’s property wealth, the number of students on subsidized lunch programs, and the number of English as a second language students.

“So I am proud today to be the first governor to deliver a real full-day kindergarten program for communities across the state,” he said.

Some Democrats, including gubernatorial nominee Colin van Ostern, were in favor of requiring all school districts to offer full-day kindergarten. Sununu’s budget leaves the decision up to individual cities and towns, but if they opt for full-day kindergarten, they’ll receive more funds.

Regardless if a school district offers half-day or full-day kindergarten, they only receive 50 percent of the state’s per-pupil grant compared to students in other grades. Sununu’s proposal would give the neediest communities an opportunity for additional funds to make full-day kindergarten a possibility.

CHARTER SCHOOLS

In his speech, Sununu called for increasing charter school funding by $15 million.

“And in addition to fully funding the adequacy formula, funding for charter school is stabilized and enhanced in this budget by linking funding to the state’s average per-pupil expenditure,” he said. “This will increase funding for our charter schools by $15 million, helping eliminate uncertainty and volatility for administrators, teachers and parents.”

This is probably one of the more contentious proposals in his budget, and it will be interesting to see if that amount changes as it moves through the budget process in the Legislature.

All of New Hampshire’s 25 charter schools, except for one, rely mostly on state and federal funding, and all but one are not supported by local property taxes. In the Granite State, per-pupil expenditures for charter schools are about $6,500, which is lower than traditional public schools, which averages about $14,900 for the 2015-2016 academic year.

Sununu is a fervent school choice advocate and he’s hoping the Legislature passes charter school-friendly bills during the legislative session. Democrats claim charter schools take away state money that could go to improve traditional public schools, and they lack equal proportions of disabled or special needs students, who are then forced into the traditional public school system.

Senate Majority Leader Jeff Woodburn told NH1 News that diverting public school funding to charter schools “is the wrong direction. It doesn’t make our state stronger or our kids better.”

HIGHER EDUCATION

It’s often a criticism of the Granite State that the population is aging and young people are leaving . The million dollar question is how does the state plan on encouraging them to stay?

Higher education advocates see increased funding to the state’s community college and university system as a key investment into the future workforce of New Hampshire.

Sununu said he agrees, but university officials and higher education activists remain skeptical.

“Our higher ed system is a critical part of ensuring New Hampshire students have an opportunity to learn beyond their high school years and enter the New Hampshire workforce with real-world skills,” Sununu said in his speech. “My budget approaches post-secondary education strictly in terms of students and outcomes. The university and community college system of New Hampshire are key to these efforts, and we’ll continue to make investments in our partnership.”

He proposes a “significant increase” to the operating budget of the community college system, to the tune of $10 million for capital infrastructure investments.

However, it’s not immediately clear where those funds are coming from. A few months ago, New Hampshire’s Community College system asked lawmakers for about $49 million for 2018 and $52.5 million for 2019, an increase from about $44 million in the current budget.

In Sununu’s budget, it appears that the community college system’s proposed budget is the same amount of funding as in the current budget. He could pull the funds from infrastructure funds, but it wasn’t exactly clear where he would do that.

University System of New Hampshire (USNH) officials were not thrilled that they didn’t see an increase in their budget either. Sununu’s proposal would provide $81 million a year to the university system — the same level as the current budget. USNH asked for $88.5 million in 2018 and $93.5 million in 2019.

Without an increase in funding, it’s likely tuition will once again increase for the next academic school year at USNH colleges by no more than 2.5 percent for in-state students. The actual figure will be known later this spring after trustees set the rate.

In a statement, USNH “expressed deep disappointment” that the governor’s budget did not provide additional funding, which would have allowed the system to freeze or lower tuition for in-state students.

“Keeping our public, four-year colleges and universities affordable is not only critical for hard-working New Hampshire families, but also for the many businesses that depend on highly skilled talent to grow, thrive and succeed,” USNH Chancellor Todd Leach said in a statement.

Full time in-state tuition at UNH is $14,410 for the 2016-17 academic year. Room and board varies depending on the type of housing and meal plan, but costs range between $10,000 to $14,000 a year.

USNH receives the lowest state funding per capita of any university system in the county and tuition costs for New Hampshire students are some of the highest in the nation, which leads to students also having some of the highest student loan debt in the country after graduation.

Rep. Wayne Burton, D-Durham, and a former college administrator, criticized Sununu’s “cold shouldering of USNH.

“I’m deeply disappointed that Gov. Sununu, though professing the need for an educated workforce, shortchanged the principle player in that effort, our state university system,” Burton told the Fosters Daily Democrat.

Instead of increasing funds to the university system, Sununu proposed a new $5 million-a-year scholarship fund to assist high school students to attend colleges, universities or workforce training programs in the Granite State.

“We have to understand that not every student travels the same workforce path, and we need to build a system that provides flexibility to work within their lifestyle,” he said. “This scholarship program is designed, not to help 10, or 20, or even a 100 students, but at least 1,000 students each year, and we’ll open workforce gateways like never before.”

He said the Governor’s Scholarship Fund would be administered by a proposed commission and would be based, partially, on need.

SCHOOL BUILDING AID

The state is expected to end the current two-year budget with an $80 million surplus, and most of that money will be going to one-time expenses to fix roads and bridges, and provide school building aid through the “Infrastructure Revitalization Fund.”

“For the first time in a long time we’re going to give a boost to school building aid by granting dollars directly to communities to rebuild our classroom infrastructure,” Sununu said. “Specifically, schools with health and safety issues in towns that might not be able to otherwise address things like asbestos, lead paint, or other critical safety issues and these are where our school building aid will be targeted and funded.”

It’s unclear exactly how much of the $80 million surplus would be available at the end of the current fiscal year, and how it would it be allocated to cities and towns, but Republicans applauded the proposal during the governor’s speech.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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