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

Democrats Fight Against Voting Reform, Fetal Homicide Bills Come Up Short in N.H. House

It wasn’t a good day for Democrats in the New Hampshire House. Lawmakers who were opposed to bills like election law reform and fetal homicide legislation saw that their efforts were futile in convincing a Republican-led chamber to defeat them.

Thursday marked the final deadline for the House to act on legislation that originated in the Senate before conference committees are set up on bills to reconcile any differences between the two chambers. Naturally, some of the most controversial bills were saved for this day and most of them passed the House despite protests and hard campaigning from Democrats.

The House passed Senate Bill 3, a bill tightening the identification requirements for people registering to vote, by a 191-162 vote. Only two Democrats voted for the bill and nine Republicans opposed it.

“I commend the support of the House in strengthening the residency requirements for voters in New Hampshire as there is nothing more sacred as a citizen of this state and this nation than the right to cast a ballot in a free and open election,” said bill sponsor Sen. Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead. “This legislation does nothing more than ask a resident to provide proof that they live where they say they do and provides an additional layer of protections increasing the integrity of elections in the state of New Hampshire.”

This was one of the most hotly debated bills of the legislative session. Proponents say it closes a “domicile loophole” where people are allowed to vote in the state without being required to prove it. Opponents believe it’s a GOP bill to suppress voters, especially young people.

“Today’s vote in support of SB 3 was a partisan sabotage of the election process that will do nothing but confuse and intimidate new voters,” said House Minority Leader Steve Shurtleff. “This legislation adds over 350 words to the registration form that new voters will be required to read, and swear to understand, with the pressure of a growing line behind them at the polls on Election Day.”

The bill heads back to the Senate, which is expected to concur with small changes made by the House. If they approve of it, the bill will go to Gov. Chris Sununu’s desk where he is expected to sign it into law.

Democrats accused that the bill further perpetuates President Donald Trump’s claims that there is rampant voter fraud in the United States.

“This legislation was clearly designed to placate those who buy into President Trump’s discredited assertion that fraud cost him the popular vote in New Hampshire,” Shurtleff said. “Leaders from both parties denounced those assertions, and as we know from the reports released following every single New Hampshire election, voter fraud is not an issue in our state.”

SB 3 also has the backing of Secretary of State William Gardner, a Democrat. He said he doesn’t believe the bill places undue burdens on any voter. He was recently asked to sit on Trump’s voter fraud commission.

The bill also garnered interest from outside groups that spent money in the state to convince residents to contact their legislator to oppose the bill.

“As host of the first-in-the-nation primary, New Hampshire has the obligation to ensure our system is beyond reproach,” Sununu said in a statement. “This bill does exactly that and as such, I support SB 3 and commend the House of Representatives for their actions today.”

Democrats were also not happy about the passage of Senate Bill 66, legislation that defines a fetus at 20 weeks and beyond as a person for purposes of criminal prosecution of murder or other violent crimes.It contains an exemption for abortion. The bill passed 186-170.

Democrats tried several times during the session to table the bill, but those attempts failed. The bill was originally retained in the House Criminal Justice Committee a couple weeks again and lawmakers expected to work on it over the next few months. In a surprise move last week, Republicans reconsidered the bill and voted it ought to pass to the full House.

“Today, the House of Representatives passed a critical fix that allows prosecution of individuals who criminally end the life of a viable unborn baby,” Sununu said. “It provides security and addresses injustice for women who may have been in abusive situations that resulted in the death of a fetus.”

The bill will also go back to the Senate to concur on a House amendment and then on to Sununu’s desk, if approved.

There was a bright spot for Democrats when the House overwhelmingly passed Senate Bill 191 to fund full-day kindergarten in the state. The final vote was 231 to 100.

Approximately $1,100 per pupil would be sent to school districts for the program with the funds coming through revenues from Keno, the electronic bingo game, which is currently illegal in New Hampshire.

“The House of Representatives deserves high praise for moving full-day kindergarten forward and recognizing that this is a priority for many families in both considering the quality of a community’s public education and in their decision-making process when choosing a place to raise their children,” Sununu said.

The bill heads back to the Senate, which has historically rejected Keno. Democrats blasted the Senate budget for not funding full-day kindergarten in its proposal, but it’s not clear if tying Keno revenues to the program will deter it in the Senate.

“This bill is a long-overdue recognition of those benefits, and a signal to working families and the business community that we understand our obligation to offer all New Hampshire children the opportunity for a high quality education,” Shurtleff said. “Support of full day public kindergarten is a top priority for House Democrats, and I am pleased that the Republican majority has joined us in recognizing the benefit of this investment.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

Senate Passes State Budget, But There Could Be Trouble Ahead in the House

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.

Progressive Outside Groups Weigh In on New Hampshire Voting Rights Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

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

A Look Into the Voter Fraud, Election Law Debate in New Hampshire

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.

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.

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