#

House Speaker Sherman Packard said he did nothing wrong in his handling of the case of Troy Merner, the former state House member charged with illegal voting and lying about his residency. And, he told reporters Wednesday, he is done talking about the topic.

Packard (R-Londonderry) met with a small group of reporters to clear the air, set the record straight, and end the discussion about what he did and did not do when he first learned Merner did not live in his Lancaster district.

“We had to let the process play out since it was under investigation by the (New Hampshire Department of Justice,)” Packard said. “I never talked to Troy Merner the whole time about his residency.”

Saying it would be the last time he planned to talk about Merner, Packard often sounded defensive during the meeting with NHPR, the Union Leader, and NHJournal, saying he could not have taken action when his office learned last December that Merner’s residency was under investigation by the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office.

“Do what? What would you have me do? Get in the middle of an investigation? That could be criminal. Which is what it turned out to be,” Packard said. “If I had gotten involved in it and screwed up the investigation, you guys would probably be jumping all over me for ‘Why did you get involved’… I lose no matter what the hell I do.”

The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office charged Merner, 63, last month on counts of wrongful voting, theft by deception, and unsworn falsification following its investigation. Merner is scheduled to be arraigned on Thursday, Dec. 28 in Coos County Superior Court. 

Packard’s meeting on Wednesday was an attempt to put an end to the critical news stories that dogged his office since the news broke.

“We tried to put this to bed, and every time we try and put it to bed, somebody puts a report out or something of that nature and blows the whole thing up again,” Packard said.

Packard blamed the media and partisan politics for giving life to the controversy and not anything he did or did not do.

“Would this [interest in the Merner story] have happened if we or the other party had a 50-vote majority? Probably not. Let’s be realistic; there’s a lot of politics involved in this right now,” Packard said.

According to documents so far released in the case, the Attorney General’s Office emailed Terry Pfaff — Chief Operating Officer of the New Hampshire legislature — on Dec. 6, 2022, one day before the House Organization Day. The email alerted House authorities to questions about Merner’s living situation and the ongoing investigation. A Packard staffer contacted Merner soon after receiving that email, and Merner denied he was no longer a Lancaster resident.

At that point, according to Packard, he decided to wait for the attorney general.

“We didn’t jump into any type of investigation; we took the man at his word. We had no reason not to, regardless of what the investigation said, because it wasn’t finished,” Packard said. 

Merner, a member of the Lancaster select board, allegedly moved out of Lancaster before he was elected to the House last November. According to court records, Merner considered his Lancaster office, post office box, and intent to eventually move back enough to establish his residency in the district despite the fact he was actually living in Carroll with his wife.

Deputy Speaker Rep. Steve Smith (R-Charlestown) played wingman to Packard at Wednesday’s press conference, explaining that no one made a formal complaint for Packard to act on and brought proof that Merner was not a Lancaster resident to the speaker.

“Anybody could have brought a complaint, and nobody did,” Smith said.

Without a complaint, Smith said that Packard could not act, adding that the Speaker’s Office does not generally investigate alleged misdeeds, nor does it conduct surveillance on members.

“The Speaker’s Office has a chief of staff, a deputy chief of staff, and … a communications director. We’re not going to deploy them to stake people out,” Smith said. “We don’t have staff or resources for that based on a rumor.”

Merner finally resigned from the House in September aw the attorney general’s investigation neared conclusion. At that point, the Department of Justice provided Packard with proof Merner was not a Lancaster resident. Packard followed up on that information by pushing Merner to step down.

“Once proof was given to us by the DOJ, we acted immediately,” Packard said.

Even if Packard got involved, past House precedent showed nothing would have happened, Packard and Smith argued. They pointed to a similar controversy from 1990, when it was learned Democratic Rep. Cynthia McGovern did not live in her Portsmouth district but instead lived in Hampton. 

Then-Speaker Steve Shurtleff (D-Penacook) appointed a committee to investigate McGovern’s residency, which took years to bring a resolution ousting McGovern to the floor. Despite it being a clear case of a representative living outside their district, the House voted down a 1992 resolution to boot McGovern from her seat.

“If we did investigate, what would have happened? It would have been really hard to find any conclusion other than the 1992 committee report that saw something just like this,” Smith said.

Is Packard worried about accusations from Democrats that he mishandled the Merner situation or the impact of this incident on his speakership going forward?

“I’ve been in politics a long time. I can’t control what everybody thinks,” Packard said.

House Speaker Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) said Republican Rep. Troy Merner lied to him when confronted about his residency last year.

Feeling heat from Democrats after state Attorney General John Formella announced voter fraud and theft charges on Tuesday against Merner, Packard issued a statement Wednesday laying out his version of the controversy.

Packard acknowledged the Department of Justice told his office last December that Merner was accused of living outside his Lancaster, N.H. district. But Packard said he did not have verified information and could not take action. According to Packard’s statement, the Speaker’s Office conducted an investigation that stalled when Merner continued to lie about his residence.

“Upon being informed of the DOJ communication, the Speaker’s Office initiated a review of the matter, which included calling and interviewing Merner to confront him about the allegations in the Department of Justice communication,” Packard said.

“At that time, Merner continued to attest that his domicile was in Lancaster at the apartment he rented on Elm Street. The review did not obtain any new information other than what was contained in the information the Department of Justice provided; therefore, the matter was considered inconclusive pending further investigation/findings by the Department of Justice or other findings that may come through other processes or sources.”

Democrats said House Republican leaders, clinging to a 201-198 majority, didn’t want to know the truth about Merner.

“Given the closely divided partisan makeup of the House this term, it is of grave concern that Rep. Merner’s residency violations were overlooked both in Lancaster and in Concord while he continued to hold elected office,” House Democratic Leader Rep. Matt Wilhelm (D-Manchester) said in a statement.

Merner was elected to represent Lancaster, Dalton, North Umberland, and Stratford in November, months after he moved out of the district and sold his Lancaster home. The Attorney General’s Office received a complaint about Merner from a Lancaster resident a week after the November election and sent an investigator to speak to the representative.

Investigator Anna Brewer-Croteau found Merner living in a home in the town of Carroll, well outside his district. Wearing boxers and a t-shirt and eating cereal, Merner acknowledged to the investigator that he lived outside the district.

In the affidavit released Tuesday by Formella’s office, Merner maintained an office in town and slept there “multiple nights a week.” He followed that up by claiming other people do the same thing.

“(Merner) told (Brewer-Croteau) that he knows of other people who vote in Lancaster and are not domiciled there. (Merner) denied to identify these people,” the affidavit states.

As well as being Lancaster’s state representative, Merner also served on the town’s Board of Selectmen. He told Brewer-Croteau he had no plans to run for reelection.

Brewer-Croteau’s report was conveyed to General Court Chief Operating Officer Terry Pfaff on Dec. 6, 2o22.

Packard insisted he and his fellow GOP leaders in the House didn’t have enough to go on at the time.

“The information was not conclusive in nature and made no final determination about Merner’s domicile. The information also contained Merner’s account that the allegations were unfounded and that the investigation was ongoing,” Packard said.

Packard claimed he never got an official complaint about Merner’s living situation, nor did he get any confirmation from Formella about Merner’s residency until September. Throughout Merner’s time in the House, he submitted mileage reimbursement forms for his Lancaster address and maintained official ties to Lancaster. 

“He continued to serve on the Lancaster Board of Selectmen, which further legitimized his attestations,” Packard said.

After Merner was caught voting in the March 2023 Lancaster election, Formella’s office started asking about Merner’s office. During that investigation, it was learned that Merner did not, in fact, sleep at his Lancaster office multiple times a week. According to the affidavit, neighbors told investigators he did not sleep there at all. 

Packard never got a formal notice about the March voting complaint, nor did he get one about Merner’s admission in May that he did not live in Lancaster. However, once Formella’s investigation wrapped up, Packard said he took immediate steps to deal with Merner.

“When the Speaker’s Office was made aware of the conclusions made by the Department of Justice in September 2023, rapid action was taken to force Merner to vacate his seat,” Packard said.

Merner resigned from the Lancaster Select Board in October. He is charged with wrongful voting, a class B felony carrying a sentence of up to 7 years in prison and a fine of up to $4,000, and multiple other charges.

Merner is due to be arraigned on Dec. 28.

A national Democratic organization that works to win state legislative elections is targeting Concord with the goal of wresting control from the Granite State GOP. But despite its money and aggressive rhetoric, local Republicans say they aren’t worried.

“Good luck with that,” said New Hampshire GOP chairman Steve Stepanek, a former member of the House himself.

According to a report in the Daily Beast, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) is targeting legislatures in New Hampshire, Michigan, and Minnesota.

“We know what we’re up against, but we are making a play to undercut GOP power in the Michigan House and Senate, the Minnesota Senate, and the New Hampshire House and Senate,” DLCC President Jessica Post said on a conference call with reporters Tuesday.

And while Democrats pushing the plan are angry the Democratic National Committee has refused to fund their efforts, President Joe Biden came through with a direct fundraising appeal on the DLCC’s behalf to help fill their war chest.

“State legislatures are the key to stopping Republican abortion bans, attacks on L.G.B.T.Q.+ rights, bills that undercut our democracy by making it harder for people to vote,” Biden wrote in an email to the DLCC mailing list. “Not just that, state legislatures are essential — I mean it, essential — to lowering prices for American families and building an economy that works for everyone.”

And, the DNC says, it is spending on federal races in New Hampshire and other swing states which will help drive up turnout for every Democrat on the ticket.

State Rep. Matt Wilhelm, D-Manchester, who may be making a play to lead the House Democratic Caucus, touted the state party’s campaign to take control in Concord. He said at a recent party gathering that the team behind the Democrats’ fall push has put together a data-driven organization focused on winning the House and Senate.

“We have built an unprecedented campaign,” Wilhelm said.

But despite the big talk — and big money– House Speaker Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) told NHJournal he feels very good about his party’s prospects to hold both the House and Senate.

“Their chances of flipping the legislature are extremely thin. How anybody could think they could flip the House or Senate with the disastrous fiscal policies Democrats have imposed at the federal level,” Packard said. “And if the Democrats did take over here, the terrible fiscal policies of Washington, D.C. would come to Concord. Let me tell you, that’s not what the voters of New Hampshire want.”

As for resources, Packard says Republicans will have the money they need “to get out the message about what Democrats would do if they take over.

“And that stunt in Rockingham County– where I live –and their claim that it was a printer’s mistake? That’s beyond laughable. It was a trick and they got caught. Where did the printer get the name of the ‘Rockingham Board of Elections?’ It’s a typical Democratic stunt, trying to fool the voters.”

State Rep. Ross Berry (R-Manchester), one of the members working on the House campaign efforts, said state Democrats need the out-of-state cash and all the help they can get, because the Democratic Party is not a winning organization in the Granite State.

“It is not surprising that New Hampshire House Democrats will once again benefit from large out-of-state contributions and D.C. support. In their last report one couple in California gave them $40,000,” Berry said.

“If this was a race of New Hampshire money only, they wouldn’t have two pennies to rub together,” he noted. “The Committee to Elect House Republicans has a record number of donors (over 950), virtually all of whom are from New Hampshire and over three times the number of donors as the House Democrats. Sadly, extremist liberals from New York and California are more than willing to finance the lies and half-truths of New Hampshire House Democrats, but we weathered their storm in 2020 and we will do it again in 2022.”

Another asset for GOP legislators? Having popular GOP Gov. Chris Sununu at the top of the ticket. Polls consistently show he is popular with both Republicans and independents, and he is credited with helping his party flip the state House and Senate in 2020, even as Joe Biden was beating President Donald Trump in New Hampshire by about eight points.

With Biden’s job approval numbers deeply underwater among Granite State voters, he is unlikely to help Democrats improve their performance over two years ago.

Still, Democratic Party state chair Raymond Buckley sees a blue wave coming, despite recent polling that puts Republicans on top when it comes to the economy, crime, and border security. The national funding could be just what Granite State Democrats need to buck the trends.

“Granite State Democrats more than doubled our voter turnout in this year’s Primary Election over the last midterm when a Democrat controlled the White House,” Buckley said in a recent email to his fellow Democrats. “Even with a limited number of contested primary races, over 90,000 Democrats turned out and voted, as opposed to 2014’s 40,000. There is so much at stake this November, and Granite State Democrats have shown time and time again that we are fired up and are doing what it takes to win.”

Both House Democratic Leader Rep. David Cote (D-Nashua) and Senate Leader Donna Soucy (D-Manchester) declined to comment for this story.

The political website CNalysis, one of the few that analyzes state legislature races, reports the New Hampshire State House “tilts Republican” and predicts Republicans are likely to hold onto their majority.

And Packard said he sees a strong showing for the GOP as voters worry about inflation, soaring grocery prices and high energy costs — all under the leadership of Biden and the Democrats.

“People are hurting like hell right now. And if Democrats ran things in New Hampshire and Washington, they would be hurting even more,” Packard said.

Most Granite Staters may have moved past the “masks and lockdowns” phase of COVID-19, but state Democrats are still pursuing their months-old lawsuit targeting state House Republican leadership over pandemic policies. And in their latest filing, Democrats have raised the rhetorical stakes, insinuating that Republicans are responsible for former House Minority Leader Renny Cushing’s death.

Long-standing House rules require members to attend sessions in person in order to participate. Since February 2021, Democrats have been in court attempting to force Speaker Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) and GOP leadership to allow members to conduct business — including casting votes — remotely due to fears of COVID-19. “They still want to do everything by Zoom,” Packard to NHJournal. “It just doesn’t make any sense.”

The lawsuit, originally filed by Cushing and six other Democratic legislators, has repeatedly been shot down in court in the face of expansive accommodations by House leadership. For example, during the height of the pandemic, House sessions were held at the New Hampshire Sportsplex in Bedford, a 50,000-square-foot facility. Before that, members met at UNH’s Whittemore Center.

In March, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston denied New Hampshire Democrats an injunction against Packard. House Minority Leader Rep. David Cote (D-Nashua) responded by saying he would continue the lawsuit.

Cote, 61, lives with cerebral palsy among other health issues and, despite holding the title of Assistant Minority Leader and now Minority Leader, he has not been to Concord for a vote in more than two years.

Packard successfully argued that, as speaker. he enjoys “legislative immunity” and is exempt from following the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was the original basis for the lawsuit’s appeal for accommodation

The new complaint, filed in the United States District Court in Concord, notes that two of the original plaintiffs, Cushing and Rep. Katherine Rogers (D-Concord) have since died. Both Cushing and Rogers were diagnosed with cancer.

While the lawsuit does not say where or how Cushing contracted COVID-19, it claims the virus was the complicating factor that resulted in his death. Cushing, suffering from stage four prostate cancer, had been responding well to innovative cancer treatments. There was hope that, with further treatments, he would be able to recover and return to his duties full-time until he got COVID this year, Democrats claimed in the filing.

“Despite being fully vaccinated, his health took an almost immediate turn for the worse, and he was never able to recover well enough to resume the immunology treatments at Mass General [Hospital] due to the serious impact of COVID-19. The untreated cancer complicated by COVID-19 caused his death shortly thereafter,” the lawsuit states.

Even as Cushing battled cancer, and fought to get remote access, he continued to show up in Concord for votes and other legislative business, according to the lawsuit. Rogers, who suffered from degenerative joint disease, also came to the House to conduct business. The lawsuit also blames her death on the GOP policy.

The lawsuit also contends that since the majority of the legislators seeking remote access were Democrats, the Republican Speaker was engaged in partisan politics, not protecting the rules of the House.

“Motions to explicitly allow remote attendance have repeatedly been decided on a partisan basis,” the lawsuit states. “In essence the Defendants have deliberately created an extraordinary dilemma for the disabled—they can either place themselves and their families at an extreme risk of death, or they can forgo participation in democratic institutions, thus leaving their constituents unrepresented.

“This is really not fundamentally different from pointing a gun to the heads of the Individual Plaintiffs to block them from entering the House. Given the ready availability of measures to provide reasonable accommodations, the refusal to do so is not only of an extraordinary character but shocks the conscience.”

Packard says what is really shocking is that Democrats would use such inflammatory rhetoric, particularly on an issue that has been largely resolved. “It’s disappointing they would make an insinuation like this about Renny Cushing and Kathy Rogers. It is unbelievable to me they are choosing to go down this path.”

Packard said the latest filing “has a lot of inaccuracies and statements that just aren’t true,” but he is waiting to hear from the lawyers before elaborating further.

“We’ll be meeting with the lawers later this week to go over the filing in full and decide what our next step should be,” Packard said.

On Monday, House Minority Leader Renny Cushing (D-Hampton) asked a federal court to rush a ruling on House Democrats’ lawsuit to block a return to regular session in the State House chamber.

On Tuesday, Democrats crowded into Congress, maskless, to cheer on President Biden’s State of the Union speech.

Granite State Republicans took note.

“I saw a headline this morning that the [U.S.] Capitol’s attending physician notified Congress that masks are no longer required ahead of Biden’s State of the Union address,” New Hampshire Speaker of the House Sherm Packard (R-Londonderry) told New Hampshire Journal Tuesday afternoon. “So we’re talking about putting hundreds of people — members of Congress, Supreme Court justices, cabinet officials, and all the guests — packing them all into a room together, and Democrats say that’s all right. But we can’t go back to the [N.H. House] chamber?

“The Democrats keep saying ‘listen to the science.’ Well, we’re the ones listening to the science and the latest CDC guidelines. They aren’t,” Packard added.

The House Democrats’ lawsuit seeks remote options for legislators unwilling to return to in-person work. Since the start of the pandemic, House members have met in sports complexes, the University of New Hampshire and the convention center at the Manchester DoubleTree by Hilton.

Lawyers representing Cushing filed a motion on Monday in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston seeking an expedited ruling in Cushing’s lawsuit against Packard. Cushing wants legislators to be able to log on for the House session remotely. Packard has rejected this request and, thus far, has prevailed.

The appeal was heard in the federal appeals court in September, and no ruling has yet been made. Since September, however, Gov. Chis Sununu has effectively called for an end to pandemic restrictions, and the Centers for Disease Controls have adjusted the masking requirements.

The New Hampshire House is now set for its first session in Representatives Hall on March 10, the first time that House members have gathered in Concord since the start of the pandemic.

Cushing wants the federal appeals court to issue a ruling before the state of the session on March 10, claiming members have been risking their health for months because of Packard’s refusal to allow remote access to lawmakers.

“Some of the Plaintiffs have chosen to risk death by attending committee meetings and House sessions. Others have heeded the advice of the CDC and their doctors and chosen to not spend hours inside with unmasked, unvaccinated people. None of the Plaintiffs should have ever had to make a choice between the risk of death and their duty to their constituents. None of them should have to expose themselves to the extraordinarily dangerous conditions in Representatives Hall,” the motions filed Monday states.

Cushing did not respond to a request for comment on Tuesday. Packard has said the return to Representatives Hall in Concord will not be a problem.

“We have managed smartly throughout the pandemic with many risk-mitigation measures in place to ensure the people’s business continues to get done,” Packard said. “We’re now in a different phase of the pandemic, and without some return to normalcy, we risk long-lasting damage to this historic institution and its traditions.”

According to Cushing, holding the session in the State House will mean many members of the legislature will not be able to take part due to health concerns, and their constituents will be denied their representation. This despite a year of widely-available vaccinations and boosters, in a state with one of the lowest rates of hospitalization and death in the nation.

“You’d think, with the Biden White House and the Congress going maskless and the CDC’s new guidance, that Democrats would be ready to move on,” Packard said. “Because it’s time. It’s time to get back to the normal way of doing things. It’s been two years. We can’t be cowering in a corner and afraid of going out and doing anything. We’ve got to get back to normal life.”

After last week’s opening House session of the 2022 season, Speaker of the House Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) spoke to New Hampshire Journal about events at the Doubletree in Manchester. Packard defended the new district map approved by the Republican-led House and predicted vaccine mandates and the COVID pandemic in general are likely to play a big role in the coming 2022 election.

NH Journal: 

Overall, what were your goals for this first session of the House.”

Packard:

My goal was to get through safely and not have any incidences of sickness. We’ve had two years now. Every time we’ve met, we’ve never had a case. And so I’m hoping and praying that that continues. 

We sent out tests to every member prior to the first few days of the session and asked them to check themselves before they came. So I’m hoping that’s what they use the test kits for. But we also had like twenty machines in there going the whole time, to clean the air. So that was my first thing, to try and make it as safe as possible. 

(Over the weekend, the New Hampshire House Communications team sent out an email to members informing them that at least two people at the Jan. 5 and Jan. 6 House Sessions tested positive for COVID-19. Members and people who attend are being asked to watch for symptoms.)

NH Journal:

On the redistricting issue, do you agree with people who say that this was a good map for Republicans and one that Republicans should rally around and support?

Packard:

I think it’s a fair map. I think it’s a very fair map. We were very careful when we picked the Redistricting Committee as to who we put on it. And I thought on both sides we put people who were very knowledgeable. You gotta remember too … that the redistricting committee went to every single county in the state, including Coos county, and had a public hearing.

If you really look at the map, the 1st District is much more condensed because of the population, where we’ve got 55 percent of the population in two counties. So, it’s much more condensed than the Northern counties and the other counties that have smaller populations. So, it’s going to be a much larger area than the other districts, strictly because of the population.

NH Journal:

Many people were concerned about the bill to ban businesses from being able, if they chose to, have a vaccine mandate for their own employees. There’s a lot of passion surrounding that issue and some Republicans were adamant about it. And yet it got tabled by a pretty large margin. Was that smart politics from the Republican leadership that knew this was a loser issue and killed it quickly? Or was this an ideological vote in the sense that both Democrats and small-government Republicans agreed that the state shouldn’t be interfering in what a business chooses to do?

Packard:

I’m not sure it had anything to do with any particular philosophy on either side. We started out with over 40 bills that had to do with COVID, in some form, whether it be the mandates, the vaccines, or anything else. We whittled that down to about 20 bills. So we’ve got approximately 20 bills sitting in our committees right now that are going to be dealing with this issue. So our goal is to have fair, open hearings on all those bills and come up with the best policy we can. And that’s why I think you’ll find it if you talk to most representatives … I mean, something’s going to pass the legislature and hit the governor’s desk, and that’s what we’re going to be working on over the next couple of months.

NH Journal:

And what do you anticipate hitting the governor’s desk? Is it going to be some restriction on what private businesses can do when it comes to vaccines? 

Packard:

Well, my personal feeling is I’m against the state mandating a mandate. We’ve always been against that. And I feel it is important that we need to protect the workers, but shouldn’t be telling businesses what they can and cannot do. But we need to protect the workers against being fired or laid off because they truly believe that this vaccine is not safe. And many people I talked to believe it’s not safe. I’m not a doctor, and I’m not going to make any determination whether it is or not. I’ve had my shots and I’ve had a booster. 

So, that’s what we’ve got to work out. I would anticipate we’ll have four or five bills that go forward to hit the government’s desk in some form … I truly believe out of the 20 bills we’ve got we will have probably four, I wouldn’t say more than six, land on the governor’s desk that will probably cover all the [COVID] issues that we’re talking about. 

NH Journal:

 As of today, 2022 looks like it’s going to be a good year for Republicans. Do you believe that issues like trying to get in the COVID vaccine fight and the fight over anti-vax versus mandates, etc., is a good issue for Republicans in 2022? Or is it the kind of issue that would actually slow down your potential progress? 

Packard:

I think society today is so conflicted as to the vaccine itself, whether it’s safe or it isn’t safe. I mean, there are some pretty ludicrous statements out there on both sides. And I’m certainly not a doctor, but I think this is going be an issue until this pandemic, is put to bed and at some point is gone. 

 Moving forward, I think it will depend on how events transpire, whether we actually can get rid of it by summertime. I think only time will tell how this is really going to affect the elections. 

I mean, the Democrats have filed some pretty crazy bills too. There was one in there that had to do with, if you were on government assistance, more or less welfare, and you got elected to the State House, they get you more money. There are some pretty crazy bills that have been filed by our Democratic colleagues. So, once I think the public sees some of the crazy stuff, they’re going to realize that they don’t want (the Democrats) leading the state. 

NH Journal:

There’s been a lot of talk about a leadership vacuum in the Democratic House caucus, ongoing struggles between the progressive and traditional Democrats. Are you able to find partners across the aisle to negotiate with and work with, to try to pull more bipartisan legislation forward? Or are you just not interested in doing that? Or is it hard to find people across the aisle who have the ability to bring votes with them to work with as was common in legislatures 10 or 15 years ago? 

Packard:

Oh, I absolutely believe there’s still the hope that we can work together on a lot of legislation. If you look at the history, as long as I’ve been here, 80 to 85 percent of the bills we work on are usually bipartisan in some form. But nobody ever hears about them because they are bipartisan, there’s no conflict. The other 15 to 20 percent are the ones that make all the headlines and make all the news and make all the hubbub.

So, I truly believe that there are still a lot of bipartisan bills out there and a lot of bipartisanship in the committees too. There are a few committees you might consider partisan, like the Election Law Committee. But many of the committees out there, Public Works, Transportation, Fish and Game, all those are fair, bipartisan committees.

So, it depends on the subject matter, but I truly believe that in many cases, the parties will be able to work together going forward.