Category Archives: NH Politics

May 03 2015
Leave a comment
NH Politics

…and speaking of Libertarians and other local nutjobs…

Susanthebruce has noted the odd ruminations and actions of some of the Free Staters and wing-nut/tea bagger factions on the right this week.  First, there’s JR Hoell, state representative, Republican, of Hudson who as we have it on the downlow, actually had to fight for his seat this last session because some determined progressives decided to give him a run for his money. And now we show you one example of why progressives shouldn’t let up but instead fight relentlessly to unseat people like Hoell:

In Susan’s twitter feed:

Hoell calls himself NH_Braveheart.  Yes, you read it right.  The guy who one session famously put forward a piece of legislation that still had the watermark from the infamous one size fits all states bill-mill, ALEC.  Hoell was too clueless to at least remove the ALEC marking before introducing legislation and pretending that he originated it out of his own head.

Hoell, who comforted the grieving families and community-members after the tragic Newtown Connecticut shooting by repeating shallow PR lines from the NRA and thus placing blame on the victims and minimizing the tragedy.

Hoell, who looking like the ass he apparently is willing to be for the gun lobby, said the right-wing darling, Scott Brown was not actually right-wing enough and he’d incite an “armed rebellion” if Scott were elected to the New Hampshire senate.  Scott was of course defeated to relief of everyone, despite the opportunity many saw to put Hoell out of his misery once and for all.

JR Hoell

JR Hoell. Imagine this man with a gun.

Hoell, who bragged of his practice of registering domain names using the names of state politicians or even those seeking office.  At least one state rep candidate in 2014 has complained to the secretary of state’s office about this practice and how it was used as a means to harass and slander her by publishing misleading or downright lies about her on a page dressed up to appear as her campaign page.  No charges were filed.

Hoell, who introduced legislation attempting to ban state enforcement of federal firearms regulations (constitutionally impossible) that was proposed by another outside organization.

Hoell who, out of concern for the “excessive paperwork” of some companies, proposed with another state legislator, to ban employee lunch breaks across the board in New Hampshire.  Let’s say that again in case you didn’t get it the first time:

They proposed to remove the requirement of work places to allow for at least a half-hour lunch break when an employee works seven hours or more (as the law now requires in NH).  Hoell and his twenty-year old legislative cohort didn’t have an opinion on the required fifteen-minute break after four hours, but we’d assume they’d see that as an unnecessary burden to companies as well.

Hoell, who works hard to restrict a woman’s right to choose, including participating in and supporting pro-life groups at every opportunity, even supporting the supreme court attack on the buffer zone law meant to keep religious zealots from harassing patients entering or leaving women’s health clinics (which for the majority of care do not perform abortions, but the zealots don’t care; a harlot is a harlot to them).

Tagged , ,
May 03 2015
Leave a comment
Labor and Worker Justice, NH Politics

Libertarian Based Uber Driver Services Pushed into Manchester by Democrats??

Jon Hopwood gives a very thorough analysis of the Uber “ride sharing” program as it pushes its way across the country, leaving a trail of injuries, assaults, rapes and even complaints of price gouging.  As Jon Hopwood notes and as is supported by this Wa-Po article, former Obama advisor David Plouffe has thrown his hat into the ring of cash opportunity by accepting a position as their PR chief.  We’ve been told that Uber was also used by NH Democratic leadership to shuttle party dignitaries  back and forth to the Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner last October.

Its troubling that Democrats support the Uber “ride sharing” company even though Uber’s business model mimics a popular trend of companies skirting employment law by declaring their workforce comprises “independent contractors“.  This practice, popular among unethical business owners and especially among libertarians, shifts the burden of business expenses and losses from the business owner directly onto the worker.  Also called misclassification this practice has already caused the erosion of living wages and protections for workers in many industries such as construction, IT and many service industries.  In 2014, as this report from the Boston Globe states, a class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Boston Uber drivers claiming that their classification as independent contractors amounts to fraud, the drivers also claimed that Uber demanded a portion of all tips as well, contrary to Massachusetts law.

As traditional supporters of labor and workers, that the Democratic leadership in New Hampshire would choose to support and even hire this very anti-worker and anti-consumer company speaks volumes.  That Garth Corriveau, a Manchester alderman and darling of the Democratic leadership, would be pushing Uber onto Manchester despite many of the well documented problems it poses and its threat to further eroding regulations to protect workers should cause good people to stop and think.  Does the Democratic leadership in New Hampshire really care about workers? Many at the state level have vowed to assist labor in working to stop the erosion of worker’s protections and the fraud of misclassification.  With their leadership treating the issue so cavalierly, can we be confident that they will in fact defend labor?  Will they work to rid New Hampshire of the economic and social scourge of misclassification?  Some things to think about.  Now onto Jon Hopwood’s look at Uber and its efforts to destroy regulations of drivers in Manchester and other cities to gain a foothold on the market:

Uber Über Manchester: Ride-Sharing Company Lobbies For Special Treatment

Alderman Garth Corriveau (l.) & BOMA Chair Dan O'Neil
Alderman Garth Corriveau (l.) & BOMA Chair Dan O’Neil
Jon Hopwood

MANCHESTER, NH — The controversial ride-sharing company Uber has brought its confrontational management style to Manchester. Buoyed by a lobbying effort marshaled nationally by former Obama presidential campaign major domo David Plouffe, Uber is trying to justify its Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged management philosophy as a harbinger of 21st Century High Tech new millennialism rather than a throwback to the dog-eat-dog, the public-be-damned social Darwinism of the Gilded Age.

Manchester is home to the Manchester-Boston Regional Airport (MHT), New England’s fourth busiest airport. Approximately 2.5 million passengers used MHT in 2013, making it a major market for the livery services that a ride-sharing company like Uber can provide.

App or Transportation Company?

The major question being asked in Manchester, as well across the nation: Is Uber a tech company selling an app, or a transportation company?

During a December 19th, 2014 appearance on the Girard at Large radio show, Ward 6 Alderman Garth Corriveau — Uber’s paladin on the Queen City Board of Mayor and Alderman (BOMA) — made the argument that Uber was a tech company peddling an app, though under questioning, he did concede that it was a transportation services company.

The crux of Corriveau’s argument was that Uber drivers were independent contractors and, unlike taxi cab companies, Uber did not own the fleet. Ride-share drivers provide their own vehicles. The Democrat Corriveau agreed with ultra-conservative Republican radio show host Rich Girard that the market should regulate Uber.

While Uber’s stance that its drivers are independent contactors isn’t questioned by Corriveau, it has been by some of the company’s drivers and by federal judges.

Independent Contractors or Employees?

In California, Uber drivers disenchanted with the company have sued the company on the grounds that they’re employees entitled to minimum wage, reimbursement for expenses and other benefits. Skeptical that Uber’s drivers are independent contractors, a federal judge in the 9th Circuit declared while adjudicating a lawsuit pitting Uber against its so-called “independent contractors” that they may, indeed, have to be treated as employees.

Uber’s contention that is is merely an app (software program), a view shared by Alderman Corriveau, has not been embraced by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen.

“The idea that Uber is simply a software platform,” Chen said, “ I don’t find that a very persuasive argument.”

It is important for the members of Manchester’s BOMA (aside from Corriveau) to note that Uber uses the “independent contractor” argument to deflect liability for accidents and corporate responsibility for discrimination practiced by its drivers.

When a national group representing the disabled attacked Uber over complaints that its drivers discriminated against the blind, the company dismissed the allegations on the grounds that it can’t control what its drivers do because they’re independent contractors. Uber rejected a request by the group to negotiate a solution to the problem of its drivers refusing to service the blind and, in one instance, mistreating a blind-person’s guide dog.

Taxi cab operators are forbidden by federal law from discriminating against the disabled, regardless of whether cabbies legally are considered independent contractors.

Background Checks

Uber has had problems with its background checks of drivers. Without a regulation requiring the use of a sophisticated background checking system, Uber and other ride-sharing companies can eschew more thorough (and thus more expensive) background checks in favor of cheaper, less thorough checks, such as those services that glean info from online government databases. The updating of those databases often is spotty.

Uber failed to perform background checks on at least one of its drivers in Chicago.

Uber, Lyft and Sidecar — two other ride-sharing companies in the Chicago market – use different background check services, raising the specter of “gaps” in the researching of the criminal backgrounds of potential ride-share drivers. Without a regulation on background checks mandating the scope of the coverage, no one can be sure how thorough or up-to-date the search is.

Background checks can be cursory and create a static picture in time, i.e., one that is not updated after the initial check. Taxi cab companies in California use “Live Scan”, a dynamic service that combs databases and updates information about new offenses, informing the cab company when a driver has incurred a violation.

Incidentally, Live Scan was NOT mandated by California’s state regulatory authority for Uber or other ride-sharing companies. Uber had launched an intense lobbying effort on the California Public Utilities Commission, and the lack of a mandate for Live Scan may be a result. The background checks for Uber drivers in California likely will be less stringent than that of cab drivers.

In response to problems with Uber and the other ride-sharing companies, Chicago regulators proposed the standardization of regulations on background checks and a mandate requiring the name and photo of drivers on ride-share company’s apps and web sites, akin to the “licenses” posted in taxis.

Safety and the Insurance Gap

The Uber app poses a safety issue, akin to the problem of texting by drivers. Uber drivers use a dashboard mounted app akin to a GPS that – along with the cutthroat nature of the taxi business – might distract them.

The app is always on and Uber drivers, competing against each other and traditional “hail” taxis, are constantly monitoring it in the fierce competition for fares. There is concern that the distraction of driver monitoring of the Uber app may cause accidents and that accidents that occur before or after a driver ferries a passenger will not be covered by insurance.

Compounding the problem is Uber’s use of a donut hole defense to deny responsibility for accidents that occur when the driver is not actually transporting a fare, most notably in the death of a San Francisco girl killed by one of its drivers. Unlike a traditional, regulated taxi company, Uber claims that its insurance only kicks in when the driver picks up a fare; while a driver is waiting for passengers, driving to a passenger, and after discharging a passenger, Uber claims it bearsd no liability for the actions of its drivers. In contrast, cabbies working for traditional taxi services are covered at all times.)

Uber’s insurance coverage paradigm has created a “gap” in coverage. This gap may provide a ride-share driver’s auto insurer with the grounds to deny coverage for those accidents Uber refuses to cover, as the insurer may consider them actually working for Uber at the time of the accident.

Because of the uniqueness of the ride-sharing model, insurance companies increasingly are refusing coverage to drivers.

To Regulate or Not to Regulate

That Uber drivers not ferrying a passenger, and thus not covered by Uber’s commercial general liability insurance, likely are distracted by the pressure of monitoring Uber’s app, raises questions over safety and an “insurance gap” that only regulators like Manchester’s BOMA can answer.

In response to these problems, Uber was classified as a a transportation company by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in September 2013 because it performs like a telephone dispatch taxi service. Creating a new category of livery service called “Transportation Network Company” (TNC) for Uber and its ride-sharing kin that provide online apps to book rides, the CPUC became the first state regulator to recognize ride-sharing as an official transportation service.

The new regs were akin to those governing the provision of limousine services. They covered background checks, drug testing, liability insurance and driver training.

In November 2014, the CPUC issued more stringent regulations on insurance coverage, tackling the issue of the gap in insurance coverage. The CPUC mandated that there were three “periods” in the provision of ride-sharing services: Period One, when the TNC’s app is open and the TNC driver is waiting for a fare, called a “match” of the driver and the passenger; Period Two, when the match has been accepted but the driver has not yet picked up the passenger; and Period Three, when the driver transports the passenger on a trip, from the time the client enters the vehicle and until they exit it.

For the first period, the regs mandate a minimum of coverage of $100,000 for one person and $300,000 for two or more people, plus $50,000 for property damage. For the second and third periods, a minimum of $1 million in primary commercial liability insurance coverage is required. The coverage can be provided by the TNC in whole or in partnership with the driver.

The CPUC regulations, which also cover such areas as licensing, vehicle inspection, and providing service at airports, provide a template for the BOMA for regulating TNCs in Manchester.

Jon’s article was originally published in the Examiner, we use it here in full with his permission.

Tagged , , ,
Apr 26 2015
Leave a comment
NH Politics

NH State House Watch

NH State House Watch, the American Friends Service Committee

State House Watch April 17
2015 Issue 14

Big news:  budgets, guns, casinos, and voting rights

Last week the Senate Finance Committee continued to hear agency presentations on the budget, the House Ways and Means Committee voted 11 to 10 to authorize two gambling casinos, and the NH Supreme Court heard oral arguments on voting rights.  Next week we’ll see additional deliberations on the budget, a vote on casino gambling by the full House, more deliberations on voting procedures, and yet another vote on legislation to weaken collective bargaining (i.e. right-to-work-for-less).  Read on, or click on the links, to get the details that follow, including the topics of discussion for meetings of Senate Finance.

The Budget

NH Voices of Faith will conduct vigils during every Finance Committee meeting.  Please contact Maggie or join the Facebook group to sign up for a shift.

But first, please take note that the Senate Finance Committee will hold a public hearing on the state budget on Tuesday, May 5, starting at 3 pm, in Representatives Hall at the State House.  This is the one formal opportunity for you, the public, to tell the members what you think about budgets for homeless services, mental health, energy conservation, state employee pay raises, why we should not reduce business taxes or privatize the Sununu Center, and more.

NH Voices of Faith will conduct a prayer service by the State House steps at 1:30 pm on May 5.  Everyone is welcome to participate.

Voting Rights at the Supreme Court

The NH Supreme Court heard arguments on a bill passed in 2012 that attempts to tie voter registration to motor vehicle registration. The legal debate is over whether there can be a relationship between the definition of “domicile” for voting purposes and “residency” for the purpose of automobile registration and driver licensing.  As the Concord Monitor reported,

“Originally brought against the state by the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, the case centers on the question of whether such language is overly confusing and potentially unconstitutional. The lawyers challenging the state have argued that this language could amount to a ‘poll tax’ in the form of fees associated with driver’s licenses and motor vehicle registration, and that it would deter otherwise eligible voters from voting.
The Court has not said when it will issue a decision, but the outcome of this case is expected to impact other proposed voter bills in the legislature this session.”

One Casino, Two Casino

When the House Ways and Means Committee met on Tuesday to consider SB 113, State House watchers knew the vote would be 11-10.  The question on everyone’s mind was whether Rep. Paul Henle would side with backers or opponents of the 2-casino bill, which had already cleared the Senate.

Rep. Henle surprised opponents of expanded gambling with an amendment that delays licensing of the second casino until the first one has been licensed and a performance audit completed.  Casino supporters jumped on board with the amendment, Rep. Henle jumped on board with the casino crowd, and the bill came out of committee with an 11-10 OTP/A (ought to pass as amended) recommendation.

Speaker Shawn Jasper, who has opposed expanded gambling in previous sessions, said, “I don’t think we would be realizing any revenue very quickly, so it doesn’t solve any budget problems.”  WMUR’s Adam Sexton reported “It was initially believed that a vote would take place in two weeks, but Jasper said he doesn’t want to expose lawmakers to two weeks’ worth of calls from gambling lobbyists.”

The casino bill will be on the House agenda on Wednesday, April 29.  If it passes, it will go to the Finance Committee for review.  While casinos have been popular with Senators for years, a casino bill has never passed the House.

Governor Hassan still says she supports a single casino, but she doesn’t think the market will support a second casino. The NH Union Leader editorialized  today, “No governor can simply assert what the market is or will be, whether the topic is casinos or cattle.  If one casino is allowed, the market will demand more, and New Hampshire will be forever changed. The only way to prevent that is to prevent that first casino.”  We agree (this time) with the editor. High stakes gambling will change NH forever, and not for the better. (More on SB 113 in the House Regular Calendar section.)

We’ll talk more about gambling and state revenue with Representative Susan Almy on our next “State House Watch” radio show.

Coming Up Next Week in the House

The House will be in session on Wednesday, April 29 starting at 10:00 AM.

On the Consent Calendar

SB 92, establishing a committee to study public access to political campaign information. The bill was amended in committee to make it identical to HB 304, which had already passed the House. The committee will study the merits of an online campaign finance reporting system and a clearinghouse of information for voters. The committee voted 18-0 that the bill pass as amended. This is the bill championed by Open Democracy.

On the Regular Calendar

SB 116, repealing the license requirement for carrying a concealed pistol or revolver.  If this bill passes, any non-felon resident can buy a gun, load it up, and carry it concealed on their person whether they know how to use it or not.  However, one could still apply for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, which would enable concealed gun-toting in states that do require such a permit and enable gun-toters from other states to carry a concealed firearm here.  The bill extends the license renewal period for a permit to carry a concealed revolver or pistol from 4 years to 5 years. State revenue would be reduced due to a drop in permit applications, but no one seems to know how many people currently apply each year for a concealed carry permit. Committee recommends OTP/A 10-6.

SB 113, relative to video lottery and table gaming. This is the two-casino bill described above.  In the minority report, Rep. David Hess wrote,

Yes a casino will bring some revenue to the state (albeit much less than predicted), but at what cost? The charitable gaming rooms will most likely cease to exist. Crime may increase. The social costs and more importantly the impact on our citizens who become problem and pathological gamblers and the negative impacts on our local businesses are too high a price to pay. Finally, the potential for undue influence on the integrity of our political process and government from just one licensee will be enormous. More than $2,000,000,000 in cash will have to pass through a casino each year to generate the revenue projected by gambling interests. That is more than all of the general fund expenditures throughout the state in a year. Put another way, a single casino will be the largest taxpayer to our state – sending more money to the state than the next largest 25 taxpayers combined! Can anyone doubt that the gambling industry will have incredible influence on future legislatures? And there is no turning back if this bill passes. Once casinos are in place, they will be here forever. That will change the culture and the brand of New Hampshire. Forever. And not for the better.

Coming Up Next Week in the Senate

The Senate session scheduled for April 23 was cancelled so that members could attend the funeral for Michael Downing.  He was the Rockingham County Sheriff, and served three terms in the NH House and two in the NH Senate. Our condolences to his family.

The Senate will be in session on Thursday, April 30, starting at 10 AM, and including all the bills that were on last week’s calendar.

On the Consent Calendar

HB 407, establishing a committee to study the classifications of military vehicles and equipment that may be purchased by the state and its political subdivisions. The bill was amended to add a separate committee to study honorary legislation, e.g. the bill to designate the red-tailed hawk as the state raptor or the one to name the LOB lobby after George Roberts. Committee recommends OTP/A on a vote of 5-0.

On the Regular Calendar

HB 411, prohibiting the payment of subminimum wages to persons with disabilities.

HB 151, establishing a committee to study end of life decisions.

HB 658, prohibiting collective bargaining agreements that require employees to join a labor union. This version of the so-called “right to work” bill exempts police and firefighter’s unions.

HB 423, designating the bobcat as the New Hampshire state wildcat.

Coming up in Senate Committees

Contact Maggie to sign up for a NH Voices of Faith vigil shift.

Monday, April 27

Finance, Room 103, SH
Agency Presentations on the budget as passed by the House
9:00 AM  Dept. of Resources and Economic Development
10:00 AM Dept. of Environmental Services
11:00 AM  Lottery Commission, Racing and Charitable Gaming Commission
1:00 PM  Dept. of Education
2:00 PM  Veterans Home
2:30 PM  Office of Veterans Services
3:00 PM Public Utilities Commission
3:30 PM   LCHIP

Tuesday, April 28

Finance, Room 103, SH
Agency Presentation on the budget as passed by the House
2:00 PM  Community College System

Ways and Means, Room 103, SH
Revenue Presentations
9:00 AM  Dept. of Revenue Administration
10:00 AM  Lottery Commission
10:30 AM  Insurance Dept.
11:00 AM  Dept. of Safety
11:30 AM  Liquor Commission

Friday, May 1

Finance, Room 103, SH
Agency Presentations on the budget as passed by the House
1:00 PM  Homeland Security
2:00 PM   Long-Term Care Services

Monday, May 4

Finance, Room 103, SH
Agency Presentations continue
9:00 AM  Dept. of Health and Human Services:  Division of Community Based Care Services (including BEAS): Elderly and Adult, Behavioral Health and Substance Abuse, Developmental Services, the New Hampshire Hospital, and the Glencliff Home.
1:00 PM  Dept. of Administrative Services
2:30 PM  Fish and Game

Tuesday, May 5

Finance, Representatives Hall
Public Hearing on HB 1-A,  the budget bill, and HB 2, the budget “trailer” bill.
3:00 PM to 5:00 PM
5:00 to 6:00 PM – break
6:00 PM – 8:00 PM
(Two years ago the committee held a similar hearing, also scheduled to end at 8 pm, but the members kept going until 10 pm to enable more people to testify.)

Coming up in House Committees

Tuesday, April 28

Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Room 302, LOB
10:00 AM Executive session includes SB 105, relative to child resistant packaging for tobacco products and establishing a committee to study revising the indoor smoking act. The child resistant packaging would be required for liquid nicotine containers used in products like E-Cigarettes or Advanced Personal Vaporizers or Vape Pens. Given that nicotine is a drug that can cause overdose, the child resistant packaging seems like a good idea. The study committee would consider revising the indoor smoking act to include e-cigarettes and vaping.

1:15 PM subcommittee work session on bills including SB 219, relative to breastfeeding. This bill requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to women who are breastfeeding. It also exempts a nursing mother from jury duty.

Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs, Room 205, LOB
10:00 AM Executive session includes SB 135, relative to lead poisoning in children, and SB 169, the bill that expands restrictions on the use of electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards. The bill’s sponsor has admitted that it will be difficult if not impossible to enforce. We view it as another attempt to marginalize and demean low income people.

Transportation, Room 203, LOB
11:00 AM Executive session includes SB 62, relative to driver’s licenses for persons without a permanent address.

Wednesday, April 29

Election Law, Room 308, LOB
1:00 PM or immediately following the House session, executive session on SB 179, the bill that would stipulate that a voter must be a resident of NH for 30 days before registering to vote. That the determining factors include business pursuits, employment, income sources, and motor vehicle registration implies that those who are not employed and do not own property would have a harder time establishing domicile.  We cry foul on this attempt to limit voter participation.

State Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs, Room 303, LOB
10:00 AM  Continued public hearing on SCR 1, recognizing the contribution of Bhutanese refugees to New Hampshire, and requesting the United States government to work diligently on resolving the Bhutanese refugee crisis, reaching an agreement to allow the option of repatriation, and promoting human rights and democracy in Bhutan.

Events Coming Up 

Sunday, April 26

Dr. Gershon Baskin, an Israeli peace activist currently affiliated with the Palestinian-Israeli Peace NGO Forum, will speak on “The Chances for Israeli/Palestinian Peace Post-Israeli Election” at 3S Artspaces in Portsmouth at 5 pm.  The event is sponsored by the World Affairs Council of NH and Kids4Peace.  The event is free but tickets should be reserved via the 3S Artspaces website.

Friday, May 1

Rally for Immigrants and Workers Rights – This year’s rally will be at Market Square in Portsmouth at 5 PM.  You can find more information here.

NHCA Community Conversations on NH Budget – NH Citizens Alliance is holding discussions with Jeff McLynch of the NH Fiscal Policy Institute to help us understand the state budget debate.  Each event will feature a presentation, followed by questions and comments. Light refreshments will be provided. These gatherings will last from 1 1/2 to 2 hours. Please be sure to record your selection time and location.  Sign up here.

•    Manchester – Monday April 27 at 5:30 PM – Manchester City Library, 405 Pine Street, Winchell Room.
•    Keene – Tuesday April 28 at 5:30 PM – Keene Public Library, 60 Winter Street.
•    Franklin – Tuesday May 12 at 5:30 PM – Franklin Public Library, 310 Central Street.

Also coming up in May

When Opportunity Stops Knocking  – New Hampshire’s Kids and the American Dream

Join a statewide conversation to share ideas with neighbors, hear the latest research, and inform the presidential primary campaigns about the increasing barriers our state’s children face in achieving their dreams.

NH Listens, a project of the Carsey School of Public Policy at UNH, is hosting 12 local conversations around the state. For more information and registration here.

Wednesday May 6 –   Berlin, Laconia, Nashua
Thursday, May 7 –  Manchester, Pittsfield, Plymouth
Tuesday May 12 – Keene, Lancaster, Portsmouth
Wednesday May 13 – Concord, West Lebanon, Rochester

We encourage those concerned about the “opportunity gap” faced by children to consider research by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.  In a paper they wrote last fall, they concluded that “wealth inequality has considerably increased at the top over the last three decades.  By our estimates almost all of the increase is due to the rise of the share of wealth owned by the 0.1% richest families, from 7% in 1978 to 22% in 2012.”  The key factors driving the wealth gap, they said, is a surge in labor income among those at the tippy top and a decline in savings for those in the middle class.  That led the authors to a set of recommendations.  First and perhaps most obvious, they recommended progressive income taxes and estate taxes.

“Yet tax policy is not the only channel,” Saez and Zucman wrote.  “Other policies can directly support middle class incomes—such as access to quality and affordable education, health benefits, cost controls, minimum wage policies, or more generally policies shifting bargaining power away from shareholders and management toward workers.”

To those giving important attention to the “opportunity gap” affecting children, we encourage attention to the inequality gap affecting their parents.  And that has to include policies that shift bargaining power toward workers and away from shareholders/management and the owners of capital.

Next week on “State House Watch/White House Watch” Radio

Our first guest next week will be Representative Susan Almy, a member of the Ways and Means Committee.  For the second half hour, we’ll be talking with Bethany Carson of Grassroots Leadership about her recent report, “Payoff: How Congress Ensures Private Prison Profit with an Immigrant Detention Quota.”  You can hear us on Monday from 5 to 6 pm and Tuesday from 8 to 9 am at 94.7 FM in the Concord area and at wnhnfm.org anywhere you can get an internet signal.  You can also download podcasts of past shows, including last week’s with Kate Frey from New Futures and Olivia’s interview with William Hartung.

Governing Under the Influence

There were 19 Republican would-be Presidents in the state last weekend, and Hillary Clinton made her first official campaign stop Monday and Tuesday.  If you met any of them, we’d love to know what you said and what they said so we can post a bird dog report on our GUI web site.  We also organized a 3-day speaking tour with Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who has gone from State Department insider to foreign policy critic.  (Arnie will soon have an article recounting Col. Wilkerson’s message.)  Next week Carly Fiorina and Donald Trump return to New Hampshire, and Martin O’Malley follows the week after.  Bookmark our candidate calendar and return often to find out where the candidates will be.

-Arnie Alpert and Maggie Fogarty

PS – Don’t forget to “like” us on Facebook.  Search for “American Friends Service Committee-NH” to “like” us.  After all, we are your Friends.

AFSC’s New Hampshire “State House Watch” newsletter is published to bring you information about matters being discussed in Concord including housing, the death penalty, immigration, and labor rights.  We also follow the state budget and tax system, voting rights, corrections policy, and more.  Click here for back issues.

The AFSC is a Quaker organization supported by people of many faiths who care about peace, social justice, humanitarian service, and nonviolent change.  Arnie Alpert and Maggie Fogarty direct the New Hampshire Program, publish the newsletter, and co-host the “State House Watch” radio show on WNHN-FM.  Susan Bruce helps with research and writing.  Addy Simwerayi produces the radio show.  We also thank Eric Zulaski for help with proofreading.

“State House Watch” is made possible in part by a grant from the Anne Slade Frey Charitable Trust.

Your donations make our work possible.  Click the “DONATE NOW” button on our web page to send a secure donation to support the work of the AFSC’s New Hampshire Program.  Thanks!
American Friends Service Committee
4 Park Street
Concord, NH 03301
http://afsc.org
Apr 19 2015
Leave a comment
NH Politics

Interview with Maureen Mann, Candidate for NH State Rep Rockingham 32 in Special Election for May 19th

by Kathryn Talbert

I met with Maureen Mann this Tuesday at her house in Deerfield. She is running for state representative, Rockingham, District 32, Candia, Deerfield, Nottingwood, Northwood. We had a discussion about her past experience in the state house, why she wants to run now and some of the skills and passions she would bring with her to Concord if elected.

Nestled in a small house in Deerfield, Maureen lives with her husband, a retired machinist and electrician and two dogs. Taking advantage of the sunny spring weather we sat at a table in a three-season room that obviously serves as an office and study for the Manns.

What made you decide to run?

Maureen started by informing me that she had lost in November 2014 to Brian Dobson who resigned on the first day to work for Frank Guinta.

“I was so concerned when this guy resigned on the first day, it has cost the four towns together over $20,000 to run a special election. And this is from Republicans who are always talking about wasteful spending! So I decided to run.”

According to your bio you have served in the legislature before correct?

“I have been elected three times, the first one was in a special election to fill a resignation and then I was elected twice beyond that.”

When you were serving in the past, what were the issues that came up for you then?

“I came into the legislature with the idea that the state’s rep’s job is to represent the people of the district. I did not come into this job with all kinds of ideas of what I should do. But right down to it I’m a Democrat, I believe in basic Democratic values.

What I’m proudest of is that most of the legislation that I introduced was at the request of my constituents. One of the areas I worked on was trying to give local communities more control over their local resources. I introduced legislation dealing with the dam on Dennis Pond in Northwood and I got Pleasant Lake in Deerfield classified as a Class A lake, which means in an emergency it could be used for town water.

I’ve worked with small businesses to help them get representation of local products in New Hampshire. Now that the Hooksett rest- stops are open, you can see the stores there sell only New Hampshire products; that’s what I was working for.

I was the prime sponsor of a bill for labeling GMOs. A local scientist in Deerfield really started educating me on GMO’s and transparency in labeling. When I was elected in 2012 I was the prime sponsor on legislation for labeling GMO’s. The issue will be introduced again in the upcoming session.

I also was involved in campaign finance reform and transparency in donations. I don’t know if you know about the article about the campaign financing of my opponent? My opponent has huge amounts of money coming from sources outside the state. What do they expect from her in return for this money?”

Tell more about your work on transparency and campaign finance reform.

“Well there are two different issues here; one was campaign finance. As a state rep, I have to disclose every donation in detail. And if I am a certain type of PAC, I don’t have to disclose anything; I don’t have to disclose who my donors are, where the money came from. So the question is, should these types of PACs have to disclose where the money is coming from?

Now you’re looking at people in the NH legislature are getting paid $100 a year. If people running for state senate for example, are raising $50,000 for campaigns, what does all this money mean?  My donors for the most part are the residents in the four towns in my district.

The other bill was related to “model bills”. If I am prime sponsor, should I have to say, ‘This is the source of the bill and this is the agenda of that source, whether it is left or right.’ So basically I believe in transparency, about funding, about campaigns, even about meetings…”

What was it that you liked the most about serving?

“I liked the constituent services. The other thing was I was in the Public Works and Highways committee. One year we do the building budgets and the other the highway plan. I really enjoyed working with infrastructure. I’m interested in infrastructure and safety.

I think that also gets into making our state attractive to people and businesses to come here. Infrastructure development is important, do we have good roads? And also communication infrastructure that always comes up when companies say why should we move here? And not only that, but to retain our own young people.”

Yes what do you think we need to do make New Hampshire an attractive destination for young families?

“We need good communication infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, quality education and a good general qualify of life to offer.”

Tell me more about communication infrastructure?

“We’re not going to attract business without safe roads and businesses and without their employees having to sit in traffic for hours. We are not going to attract business without high speed internet. We are not going to be able to attract young people and families to New Hampshire and retain our own young people without infrastructure.

NH students already have the highest debt load in the country and we have the second most expensive state university system in the country. We need to fund quality education. Education is expensive, the fact is, and wherever you end up going to college is usually where you end up staying.”

What do we do to attract business to New Hampshire?

“What Republicans keep saying is, “Oh we have to cut taxes.”
But when you talk to businesses, they say “No that’s not on our agenda.”

We hear Republicans say a lot about the tax burden of business, do you agree that New Hampshire puts a high tax burden on business in this state and what could we change?

“New Hampshire has the eighth friendliest business environment in the country but I think the Business Enterprise Tax could be looked at.”

Let’s look at your opponent, Yvonne-Dean Bailey. One of the comments that I saw was in a Concord Monitor article of February 17th, where she says “past lawmakers have been writing blank checks” What do you think of that, is that true about New Hampshire lawmakers and can you answer to that?

“It depends. If you think that the state has no responsibility for the poorest among us, for those with disabilities, for education, for seniors, for veterans, then perhaps you think the state is writing blank checks, because you don’t believe that is the state’s obligation.

Otherwise I say, give me one specific example of these ‘blank checks’. It’s easy to use buzzwords and to generalize. How about providing a real example of profligate state spending and then I will take the criticism more seriously. I certainly think there could efficiencies in departments, of course there could be efficiencies in our households too. I bet every household could be more efficient, every government, every company could more ‘efficient’. But why don’t we start looking at certain inefficiencies instead of making general statements.”

Yvonne-Dean Bailey, she also said, “Our state adopted Common Core Standards”
Did the state adopt Common Core standards?

“That’s interesting, because I know individual towns are able to opt in or opt out. These four towns have all opted in. School boards, teachers and people who make those decisions decided to have Common Core. I am familiar with basically what it is, I know that it’s a not a curriculum.

It is a framework which local teachers can fill in in a way which is most appropriate for their students. But Common Core doesn’t tell you how to teach it, or that you have to have this method. People see it as something handed down from government and forcing schools to have something lock and step with the government. That’s not true. That state does not require any community to adopt Common Core, every community has the right to opt out.

Also, with Common Core you have to have assessments to provide results. We have always had assessment and any half way decent teacher uses assessment to figure out, ‘Am I teaching the students effectively? What do I do to achieve this?’ “Am I being effective in what I’m doing? Am I effectively teaching this and if not should I try a different way?”

You’ve got twenty-five kids in a classroom, they are not all the same and they don’t all learn the same. A teacher deals with all those kids and comes up with a way to assess those kids. One of the things I’m adamantly opposed to is tying teacher’s salaries to test results.”

You were a teacher yourself right?

“Yes, I taught at Medford High School in Medford, Massachusetts for over thirty years. I’ve taught kids whose parents were faculty at Tufts and some who were living in cars. Kids with difficult economic circumstances verses a kid with a secure home environment will test differently. Teachers are doing the best they can and trying to deal with the needs of their students and to tie those teacher’s salaries to those kids’ performance on test scores is a system that doesn’t understand the realities of public education.”

Your opponent also retweeted a claim that you “don’t support school choice”

“I believe in public education. I had a good education myself, I was a public school teacher. I believe public education is the answer for so many children to get from where they are to where they want to go. I voted against public funding for non-public schools.

My opponent went to parochial school and to a very expensive and high quality private school. It’s wonderful that she’s fortunate to have those opportunities. But for the average student, a private school tuition is at an average of $40,000 a year and a voucher is for less than $2,000. That is not going take a kid living in poverty into an elite prep school.”

Do you support the Affordable Care Act because your opponent has expressed that she does not.

“39,000 New Hampshire residents, often working one or two jobs to make ends meet now have health insurance. I think it’s outrageous that they [the GOP] want to take it away from them.

So this current budget does not refund Medicaid expansion because people say the state will have to pay 10%. But the fact is that it’s far more expensive for people to not have access to healthcare such as regular check-ups. You are preventing problems that cause people without insurance to wait and then flood emergency rooms and take up space in hospitals that the taxpayer will have to reimburse. It’s as if those who are against the ACA believe that they or none of their families will ever fall on hard times.”

Would you take people’s guns away or do you want people to not be able to have guns?

“I am not opposed to the second amendment, that’s a ludicrous thing to say, it’s like saying I don’t support the constitution, but I have no problem with background checks.”

Maureen at home with her two dogs Crispin and Olive.

Why do you think the voters should come out and support you on May 19th?

“I have a proven record of support for my constituent’s needs. I have a proven record of being accessible to my constituents. I have a proven record of service to these four towns.”

For more information about Maureen Mann:

Maureen Mann for State Rep Rockingham 32

see her on Facebook at: Maureen Mann – NH House of Representatives

Some citizen-video on Vine

Maureen Mann’s Act Blue page

Some of Maureen’s editorials published in The Forum
Cuts to the Department of Transportation
The Real Cost of Public Education
Cuts to DHS Hurt All of Us: Part One
Cuts to DHS Hurt All of Us: Part Two

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Apr 16 2015
Leave a comment
NH Politics

NH GOP Kicks NH Rebellion to the Curb

As reported by WMUR News, the NH GOP leadership has booted the non-partisan “NH Rebellion” from their rah-rah camp being held at the Crown Plaza Hotel in Nashua this weekend.

Expected to pull in some GOP heavy-weights, the GOP leadership apparently didn’t like how the Mayday pact went after their defeated darling Scott Brown in the last election.  Apparently, contrary to Lessig’s assumption, the Mayday pact’s contribution to the Upper Valley moderate Republican Jim Rubens and Bedford libertarian group Stark360 didn’t win them any love with GOP leader Jennifer Horn.

One of the organizers told WMUR that the Executive Director for the NH GOP was “very, very sorry” for the misunderstanding and said they refunded NH Rebellion their $500 table fee.  Apparently though, Jennifer Horn wasn’t “very, very sorry” saying to WMUR, “This summit is an event for Republican activists to hear from our potential presidential candidates, not a platform for the self-absorbed antics of a liberal Harvard professor. Professor Lessig and his friends are free to protest off the hotel premises with every other liberal group,”

Ouch, that’s gotta sting!

Possibly if Ray Buckley and others among the NH Democratic leadership could take some notes? Just imagine not having a Democratic house caucus full of Free Stater libertarians.

Tagged ,
Apr 11 2015
Leave a comment
Economics, NH Politics

The House Budget and Priorities of the Current NH GOP…

In considering the horribly extremist budget proposed by the New Hampshire house of Representatives, which will make dramatic cuts in social programs, cause further stress of already overworked state departments, push more people on the unemployment line with induced lay-offs, one has to wonder, what is on the minds of the New Hampshire GOPers?

Because apparently, its not the health and welfare of the people of New Hampshire that concerns the GOP in the House.  As seen in Carl Gibson’s well researched outline for Thinkprogress, the suffering proposed by the GOP will be broad and expansive.

At least for working regular working folks.  With reductions to the business profits tax and other tax burdens levied almost exclusively on the privileged, the priorities of the New Hampshire GOP seem clearly centered on giving the wealthy and comfortable a bit more wealth and comfort — and funding that on the backs of the working people and the most vulnerable in the state.

So while homeless shelters close and people cringe under bridges, while addicts scratch their arms and panhandle the streets for another hit because they couldn’t get a bed at the rehab center, while terrified children wait for mental health services in hospital emergency wards, while corrections officers are demanded to shoulder more hours without rest and other human atrocities occur, the GOPers tell their constituents to look at the shiny thing as susanthebruce finds:

Why NH Can’t Have Nice Things

From the April 10 NH House Calendar: SB 101, prohibiting the state from requiring implementation of common core standards. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.

Rep. Glenn Cordelli for the Majority of Education. Common core has been a divisive and confusing issue for local districts and in the state. This bill states clearly that the common core standards are not required to be implemented in any school district. 
Vote 11-9.
Rep. Barbara E. Shaw for the Minority of Education. No law in New Hampshire requires school districts to adopt the common core standards, nor has it been mandated by the department of education. Therefore, SB 101 is unnecessary.This is a perfect illustration of the current NH legislature.

Indeed it is a perfect illustration of a legislature, majority GOP, that is more interested in worshiping loopy ideology that is serviced by hyper-funded, corporate pamphleteers than addressing the needs of the citizens of New Hampshire.

Tagged , ,
Apr 10 2015
Leave a comment
NH Politics

For ‘Rick’ of Granite Grok

We’re posting this piece here for Rick who responded with such offense at our piece highlighting Jeb Bradley’s support of what we called “gun-nuts”.  As shown in the article below, possibly Rick and his friends are right; we do need to keep ourselves armed at all times and of course, anyone who wants to should be able to be armed at all times, without any permission from anyone, not even a basic screening for mental health and ability to follow logic.

Because again, how else will we act when we’re challenged or harassed? Leaving the situation? Responding with reason?  Deciding not to engage? No way!  Which is why we need MOAR GUNZ!

Man Always Carries Gun In Case He Needs To Escalate Situation

TEMPE, AZ—Stressing the importance of being prepared for any circumstance that may occur, local man James Donner told reporters Monday he carries a gun on his person at all times in case he ever needs to escalate a situation. “I never leave home without my Glock, because you just don’t know when someone might mouth off to you in a bar and leave you with no choice but to turn a minor altercation into a tense life-or-death scenario,” said Donner, noting that he keeps his loaded weapon in a hip holster should the need arise for him to respond quickly, and with deadly force, when he is angered by a perceived slight. “Look, I hope to God no one ever tries to hit on my wife while I’m within earshot, but in the real world, things like this do happen. Sometimes you only have a split second to react and make things exponentially more dangerous.” At press time, sources confirmed Donner was pulling up next to a Honda Civic that had cut him off in traffic several blocks earlier.

From: Man Always Carries Gun in Case He Needs to Escalate Situation

Also: We’re sure Jeb Bradley has far greater reasoning skills than the above, we’re not so sure about those among the extremist gun “rights” crowd in New Hampshire.  Which is of course, our cause for concern.

Feb 12 2015
3 Comments
NH Politics, Public Health

Jeb Bradley Does it Again!

View image on Twitter

Love-making gun nutter style. These are the priorities of the gun-nuts; their own “right” to worship and caress their guns anywhere at anytime, the public’s safety be damned.

Jeb Bradley shows us once again that he’s always looking out for his own political skin at the expense of the safety of the people of his district.

In this particular instance, Senator Bradley introduced the bill SB 116 to remove all restrictions to carrying a concealed weapon.  We recall very clearly that Senator Bradley was for Northern Pass awhile back as well; that is until the people that will be most effected by it started an embarrassing ruckus.  Obviously the Senator need a reminder that the majority of constituents, including gun owners support some regulation of concealed carry.

Does Jeb Bradley need this minority constituency? Is he so deaf, dumb and blind that he can’t see that the majority of people aren’t badgering him about carrying a concealed weapon because well, they have lives to lead and they elected Jeb to make good decisions on their behalf.  Unfortunately, once again, he’s failed.

This bill, if passed by the full house will open up all citizens of New Hampshire and visitors to the possibility of a lethal attack by an unhinged person legally carrying a loaded handgun.  A loaded handgun, we might add, that no one will have the opportunity to be forewarned about, that no one will have the opportunity or option to get away from; a loaded handgun that within seconds could kill anyone and possibly even multiple persons.

Now that the bill has passed the Senate, we’ll try our best to follow its path and publish information here.  Another hearing in the house will be held on this bill and we urge everyone come out against this.

Zandra-Rice Hawkins of Granite State Progress, a state-wide citizen’s political group had this to say:

“Requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon has worked well for New Hampshire for more than 90 years. These licenses are very easy and quick to obtain and do not place an unreasonable burden on law abiding citizens. SB 116 is a radical piece of legislation that jeopardizes public safety. New Hampshire does not require people to have a specific reason to conceal carry but does require that the applicant be a suitable person. This common sense law allows local police departments to deny a license when there is reason to believe a person is a danger to themselves or others. New Hampshire is one of 46 states that currently require a license to carry concealed weapons and we should not weaken our public safety laws now.”

More information on gun laws and concealed carry can be found at Granite State Progress.org

Video below, (go ahead, be bored to death) of Representative John Burt proving to someone, somewhere his manly man-hood by shooting a semi-automatic rifle at a target.  Because its his SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT OMG!

This is what Senator Jeb Bradley has lowered himself to.

Tagged , , ,
Feb 12 2015
Leave a comment
NH Politics, War on Women

Detailed Updates on NH Bills that Should Concern Good Women and Men

We’ll attempt to keep track of bills of concern as they pass or are not passed through the full New Hampshire house or committees and post that information here.

Most bills are voted on in the house by “voice vote” which means that there is no actual roll-call.  Unless its clear that there is difficulty in determining support or non-support through volume of voice-call outs, then a roll-call may be requested by a representative for further clarification and accuracy.  This is time consuming of course so often unless a vote is close, its not necessary (a few shouts over a full cacophony is pretty easy to judge).

But the roll-call is also used as an accounting method of record for political purposes as well.  How a rep votes on a bill can often be influenced by roll-call demands.  A rep who feels a particular way or feels that they must protect their relationship with a certain constituency may waver on whether to support a bill if their name is attached to their resulting vote.  Often they know a vote may come back to haunt them.  Conversely, many reps want their vote recorded and known as a badge of their loyalty to an issue or constituency.

Either way, usually bland or non-contentious bills don’t get a roll call, but when I roll-call occurs we will publish a link (provided by the NH General Court website) to the roll-call list.  This enables you the voter, to see where your representative voted on an issue and most importantly, to see who is blocking an issue near and dear to you.

For more information on how a bill becomes law, please refer to the link here, How a Bill Becomes Law
For even more information, please refer to the downloadable .pdf file of the booklet given to new representatives and available upon request to the public, Legislative Handbook.  There’s a list at the end of the publication of other resources about how the legislative process operates in New Hampshire.

So without further ado, let us continue:

HB 194 was defeated in the full house.   It was first in the Judiciary Committee where it was voted as “Inexpedient to Legislate” (ITL) which means the committee sees the bill as not fit to be put into law for whatever reason.  Don’t expect this issue to die — this is a perennial favorite of the anti-choice folks and is proposed every session in one form or another.

So a “yea” vote meant agreement with the committee recommendation of “ITL” and a “nay” vote meant support for the bill and against the committees recommendation.

Roll call results HB 194

HB 168 – relative to removing no-fault divorce in proceedings where either party may have minor children.   Voted with House Children and Family Law as ITL by voice vote.  Bill effectively killed.

HB 560 – relative to determining the fetus as a person in criminal cases  – still in committee, House Justice and Public Safety, refer to the list linked on the committee name title and call or email reps to let them know to stop this bill.  Another perennial favorite that will probably be proposed next session if it fails.

HB 403 – relative to buffer zones around women’s health clinics  – still in committee, House Judiciary Committee A bad bill designed by the anti-choicers who wish to have the “right” to harass women as they enter reproductive care clinics.

HB – 654 –  relative to removing funding for domestic violence intervention services — still in committee, House Finance Commitee  UPDATE!  News has it that this bill has just left the Judiciary Committee with a vote of 24-1 of ITL.  Will be up for a vote next week before the full house.  The battle is not won yet! Call and email your rep to let them know they must kill this bill!

Some other bills we failed to cover at length:

HB 677 –  UPDATE! The Judiciary Committee voted 14-3 to effectively “kill” this bill as ITL, the bill goes to the house for a full house vote on Wednesday.  Call your reps and let them know to vote to KILL this misleading bill that will endanger people’s lives! 

While the language of the summary reads thusly: “prohibiting the use of public funds for abortion services”  This language is intentionally misleading.  Since the Henry Hyde bill passed in the late 80’s that restricted all government funding from abortion services, those services have not been covered by public monies.  Yet the anti-women, anti-choice crowd continues to tell the public that in fact public funds are covering abortions.  This is patently false.

What public funds do cover are important healthcare services provided by Planned Parenthood to all women regardless of income or social status.  These services are vital to the health of not only the women themselves, but to their families and to their potential offspring.  Such services that Planned Parenthood provides to women and men nationwide are:

– screenings for sexually transmitted diseases
– sex education and information to couples and individuals
– general welfare and health check-ups for women, related to the health of their reproductive systems, such as cancer screenings for both breast, cervical and uterine cancers and other diseases.  Diseases of the reproductive organs can spread through the community and most importantly throw families into disarray and poverty if not found and treated quickly.
– providing important data and statistical information on populations at risk such as sex workers, homeless folks and people in extreme poverty
– providing education for and the means for birth control and family planning for couples and individuals
– providing sometimes first intervention in cases of rape or domestic violence and providing proper referrals and support in the community

But the people that wish to defund Planned Parenthood don’t care about these facts and the crucial role Planned Parenthood performs in communities.  All they care about is imposing their fanatical religious views of the world onto everyone else by every means possible, if even that means legislative trickery and public dishonesty.

This bill is currently in executive session in the House Judiciary Committee, we urge people to get in touch with the members of this committee via, telephone or email to let them know to stop this attack on women’s health.

HB 207 – relative to “defining probable cause or reasonable ground for the purpose of arrest without a warrant”  –

Those who work hard against domestic violence and advocate for victims say this bill sets a dangerous limit on the amount of process required of an officer in cases where they may be called on a domestic violence issue.  Currently, if an officer determines by their own standards of judgment that domestic violence has occurred, the officer can make an immediate arrest to remove the potential offender from the victim.

That is currently how the law works in domestic violence cases, allowing officers to override the commonly occurring denials of the victim (they deny abuse for fear of catching more from the abuser later).  In many cases across the country, when evidence of abuse seems to have taken place in a home where a call was made, the police may hesitate to make an arrest.  Thus, in many cases, once the police leave, the abuser then continues the abuse, often escalating it due to the victim calling for police intervention.  Many times this has resulted in the death of a victim who police leave with the abuser instead of making an arrest based on the victims statements or appearance alone.

While there is a disturbing increase in the number of arrests made by officers under very shaky grounds of reasonable suspicion, the domestic violence aspect of reasonable suspicion must be held at a different standard considering the circumstances of the crime.

We see this bill as wrong-headed and possibly in the interest of redefining legal boundaries for police interacting with the public and determining arrests, as the bill exists now, the language would effectively undo years of protection for victims of domestic violence.

We recommend that this bill be voted down or ITL until such time as the sponsors can come up with a suitable means to protect victims of domestic violence and respect the role the law enforcement can often play in saving lives.

The bill is currently in the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee

NH 367 – relative to redefining physical assault.  This bill removes pertinent language that defines assault as “unprivileged physical contact” and replaces that language with a longer descriptive that leaves out the idea of “unprivileged” entirely and replaces it with “nature of the contact is such that the actor knows or a reasonable person should know that the other person will regard the contact as offensive, threatening, or provocative”

The New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic Violence pointed out that this language would then exclude by the nature of the language, assault upon children, especially “grooming” behavior:

This bill attempts to amend New Hampshire’s simple assault law. Currently, law enforcement can use the crime of “simple assault” to charge abusers in dating situations who assault their victims. Simple assault is also the crime that routinely allows victims of domestic violence to qualify for a restraining order.  If enacted, this bill would make it more difficult for victims of domestic violence to receive the protection they need under the law.

 Under HB 367 if an abuser pinches, pushes, slaps, or spits on a victim but does not leave a visible injury, a law enforcement officer will have to determine whether a reasonable person would find that conduct offensive, threatening or provocative before arresting the offender. This complicates and potentially delays an arrest and civil relief in cases that pose imminent danger to victims.

 This bill would also legalize seemingly innocuous grooming behavior by sex offenders. For example, if a man goes to a City park and tickles small children he does not know, the children might not find this conduct “offensive”, “threatening” or “provocative.” Note: there was a case of this in Concord. 

http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/5862056-95/police-man-alledegly-caught-tickling-children-in-concord-park 

We urge folks to consider the potential bad effects of this bill.  Again, a bill that seems driven more by ideology than good thinking.  We also wonder who in fact the sponsors of this bill meant to protect with this change.  In our culture where certain individuals, namely women and children, had little defense against unwanted advances and “teasing” behavior that usually leads to assault, this bill seems to move our society back a step to the time when victims of this behavior were given short shrift if they complained.  Again, who does this bill protect? We’re concerned.

This bill currently still sits in the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, please urge the members of that committee to vote this bad bill ITL.

 

Feb 05 2015
1 Comment
Free Speech/Free Press, Law, National Politics, NH Politics

ACTION ALERT: Show Up Friday 13th and Tell Legislators “Pass the Resolution!”

ACTION ALERT:

A hearing at the will be happening on Friday, February 13, in Room 210 at the LOB (Legislative Office Building – behind the State House).

Show up and support HCR-2, [House Concurrent Resolution 2] the move to get Citizen’s United overturned.  You can sign up to testify as to why you think, as a citizen, this resolution and considering an amendment is important.  You also can stand by and stare down a politician.  Your presence speaks volumes!

Also: A constitutional amendment is the ONLY way to overturn the Citizen’s United decision!

HCR-2  asks the New Hampshire state legislature to bring forth a resolution to Congress to have convention as explained in Article V of the US Constitution to consider adopting an amendment differentiates personhood from corporate existence. Article V in the constitution reads as follows:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Therefore, the move is on to get New Hampshire on the list of states to comprise the two-thirds necessary for a convention.  The convention would convene for no other purpose than to consider the adopting of an amendment to clarify that corporations cannot claim “personhood”.

The body of HCR-2 reads as follows:

ANALYSIS

This bill applies to Congress for a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution for the purpose of proposing amendments to the United States Constitution in order to address concerns raised by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), and related cases.

15-0135

05/09

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Fifteen

A RESOLUTION applying to Congress to hold a convention for amendments.

Whereas, the government of the United States is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; and

Whereas, George Washington, the first President of the United States, stated in his 1796 farewell address that, “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government”; and

Whereas, it was the stated intention of the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America that the Congress of the United States of America should be “dependent on the people alone.” (James Madison, Federalist 52); and

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” which has consistently been interpreted to allow the several states to establish their own laws governing the financing of elections; and

Whereas, the United States Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), removed restrictions on amounts of independent political spending and established a de-facto imposition on the several states denying them the ability to establish their own laws governing the financing of elections; and

Whereas, the current state of federal elections has become such that tremendous power is given to monied legal entities, which have supplanted the will of the people by undermining our ability to choose our political leadership, write our own laws, and determine the fate of our state; and

Whereas, natural persons are endowed with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while incorporated legal entities exist only under the revocable authority established by the people through Congress and the several state legislatures; and

Whereas, the Congress of the United States has thus far failed to address the multitude of problems created by the United States Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010); and

Whereas, it is in the self-interest of the Congress of the United States not to address the issues raised by the ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010); and

Whereas, Article V of the United States Constitution requires the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states for the purpose of proposing amendments to the United States Constitution; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the legislature of the state of New Hampshire hereby applies to the United States Congress to hold a convention, as stipulated by Article V of the United States Constitution, for the purpose of proposing amendments to the United States Constitution in order to address concerns raised by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), and related cases, including events occurring long before or afterward or for a substantially similar purpose, and desires that said convention should be so limited, and

That delegates to such a convention from New Hampshire shall propose no amendments which do not have a primary goal of addressing the grievances listed herein, and the delegates to said convention from New Hampshire shall be comprised equally from individuals currently elected to state and local office, or be selected by election in each Congressional district for the purpose of serving as delegates, though all individuals elected or appointed to federal office, now or in the past, be prohibited from serving as delegates to the Convention, and the legislature intends to retain the ability to define the power of its delegates within the limits expressed above; and

That the state of New Hampshire intends that this be a continuing application considered together with applications calling for a convention currently pending in several other states, and all other passed, pending, and future applications, until such time as two-thirds of the several states have applied for a convention and said convention is convened by Congress; and

That the clerk of the New Hampshire house of representatives transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, each member of the New Hampshire congressional delegation, and the presiding officers of each legislative body of each of the several states, requesting the cooperation of the several states in issuing an application compelling Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution.

***************************

Sponsors of the bill are:

Rep. Tim Smith, Hillsborough 17
Rep. Robert Theberge, Coos 3
Rep. Linda Massimilla, Graf 1
 Moveon.org is also having an online petition drive which they will also present to the state legislators.  Please sign the petition as well as a citizen of New Hampshire who is concerned about how the Citizen’s United Supreme Court decision is effecting the political discourse in this country.

Also, for more information on the original Citizen’s United decision and its effects, please refer to the following articles:

Citizens United vs. FEC – Open Secrets.org – a lot of good links and basic information, updated with new analysis on what the decision has done to the political process.

Citizen’s United Supreme Court Decision An excellent detailed analysis of the decision and its meaning and effects from the League of Women Voters of Minnesota with many good links.

Money Unlimited In-depth article in the New Yorker from 2012 on Justice John Robert’s work to get Citizen’s United the victory it sought.

State’s legislatures and local governments that have passed a resolution and sent it to Congress are listed on United for the People,org’s List of Local and State Resolutions

Tagged , , , , , ,
← Older posts
Newer posts →