Two hundred years ago next month, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry--signatory to the Declaration of Independence and future Vice President--had an idea. The idea was that, rather than drawing electoral districts to represent communities, districts could be drawn to maximize his party's chances of winning more of them. He did that, and the Boston Gazzette described the phenomenon--Gerrymandering--with a visual aide:
Observations about the proposed new NH Executive Council district map (by Rep. Lucy Weber, I'm told) led to a follow-up by Granite State Progress:
Full size of this image:http://static.ow.ly/photos/ori... (h/t Caitlin Rollo)
... O'Brien declared that gay couples are "seeking to destroy the very society that we have." He said they are seeking "an ever-growing government that has to compensate for the damage that they would do to our families."
He referred to the period since the 2009 legalization of gay marriage in New Hampshire as "the age of loss of values and loss of common sense."
... He talked about gay couples bringing their "private behavior and choices" (read sex) "to the public square."
He referred to gay marriage as among recent "attacks" on New Hampshire families.
When you hear such ugly language from protesters, it's easy to dismiss it as out-of-touch hyperbole. But coming from the powerful leader of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, it is something else entirely.
Read O'Brien's words closely and consider what he's really saying: The couples - nearly 2,000 to date - who have taken advantage of New Hampshire's gay marriage law are out to "destroy" society. Their marriages represent a "lack of values" and "lack of common sense." Their love and commitment are somehow (how?) a danger to their children and the children of straight couples.
And, really, it's not just gay couples and gay parents swept up into O'Brien's apocalyptic rhetoric. Surely it would not be far-fetched for a single parent - an unmarried father or a divorced mother or a single adoptive parent - to feel insulted and worried by a calculus that says only certain types of families are legitimate and worthy of the government's approval.
The people O'Brien is so casually insulting are our friends and neighbors, our sons and daughters - and their sons and daughters. More important, they are O'Brien's constituents.
For a leading state politician to conjure two classes of citizens - those with proper families and those who would "destroy" society not through violence but through a pledge of love and monogamy - is breathtaking.
(Humorous Seinfeld reference in this otherwise humorless effort to kill the lunch break - promoted by Mike Hoefer)
Hello Blue Hampshire community, I'm Joaquin Guerra with Change Nation, a project of the Campaign for Community Change. On Friday, we launched a campaign against Rep. Hoell's bill that would repeal lunch breaks for NH workers. Here's our post on it cross posted at Change Nation:http://bit.ly/xRa6wf
Just when you thought that the attacks on working people couldn't get any worse, another Republican has come along to prove that point wrong. Meet New Hampshire Republican State Representative J.R. Hoell, who has filed a bill to repeal lunch breaks for people in New Hampshire. Seriously? No lunch breaks?
As Pat Garofalo at Think Progress noted:
"The bill's sponsor, state representative J.R. Hoell, argued that companies failing to provide lunch breaks would be shamed over social media, thus rendering the law unnecessary. 'If they are not letting people have lunch, they could put it out though the news media, though social media. I don't think that abusive behavior would continue, the way communications are today,' he said."
We don't know why Rep. Hoell's has a lack of respect for hard-working people, but he is right about the power of social media stopping "abusive" behavior like his bill.
That's why we're asking people to text LUNCH to 69866.
We need to show lawmakers all across the country that there isn't an appetite for laws like this because if this bill passes in NH, it won't be long before other Republicans file the same bill in other states.
Text LUNCH to 69866 and then share it on Facebook and Twitter by clicking on the left.
Last spring, GOP Rep. Susan Emerson accused House Speaker Bill O'Brien of yelling and swearing at her when he objected to her House budget bill amendments.
He was three inches from my face and started screaming at me that he had forbidden a Republican to put any amendments in. ... The Sergeant at Arms from the Senate, who is a retired state trooper, came and stood next to me because he thought O’Brien was going to hit me.
In an interview with Kevin Landrigan last month, O'Brien flatly denied the altercation ever took place and said she made it all up.
“There were no loud voices, no abuse, no bullying. We were having a conversation, and I made clear to her the House was not going to adopt any of her amendments,” O’Brien said.
Writing in the Concord Monitor, Matthew Spolar points out state GOP lawmakers' support for local control by government falls away when they disagree with actions taken by the local governments.
Examples of the proposed dictates and mandates on local governments are varied and far-reaching. They range from prohibiting towns from hiring a lobbyist, to specifying the amount of time students must devote to math and English, to requiring towns to put money raised from land development taxes into their general fund, to requiring towns and cities to adopt specific regulations for hawkers and peddlers.
The rationalizations by Republican lawmakers are almost amusing.
"I don't like telling towns what to do," Sen. Jim Forsythe of Strafford said last week. "But when they're imposing restrictions on the townspeople, I think it's okay for the state to step in in that case."
[Rep. JR Hoell] said he doesn't believe his bills impacting school districts "run against the local control at all."
"If what is being taught in a public education forum is contrary to the beliefs of a group of parents, those parents have the right to raise an objection to that," he said.
Mark Joyce, executive director of the New Hampshire School Administrators Association, states the obvious.
"The legislative majority has always said local control is very important," Joyce said. "If that is of value, then it seems contradictory to impose so many requirements on the communities themselves.
The Washington Press Club Foundation's annual Congressional Dinner has been politely described as "two hours worth of politicians who don't know how to joke trying to make jokes." Sen. Jeanne Shaheen was an exception to that rule when she cracked wise at the event this week.
New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen told the crowd of lawmakers and reporters that the white birch tree was the state tree of New Hampshire. She even offered a PowerPoint slide of said tree.
Then this: "What you didn't know - this tree beat Rick Perry in New Hampshire. It also beat him in a debate."
But Shaheen's best one-liner was at Newt Gingrich's expense. The senator explained that New Hampshire's state amphibian shares a name with the Republican presidential candidate, but - unlike Gingrich - the spotted newt "actually mates for life."
With little fanfare, the House Special Committee on Redistricting approved a redistricting plan for the five Executive Council districts this week.
The most dramatic change in the new map is in District Two, currently held by Councilor Dan St. Hilaire. Here's Rep. Lucy Weber's description:
District Two now resembles a dragon that has swallowed a medium sized mammal. This most tortuous of districts starts at the Connecticut River with Charlestown and Walpole, curves south to include Keene east to Marlborough to Dublin, then curves north only to bulge out again around the Concord area, from whence it zigzags east in a line a single town wide until it reaches the seacoast and curves south again to end at Portsmouth.
The newly drawn district should be a safe Democratic seat with the addition of Democratic strongholds Keene (D+19), Durham (D+21), Dover (D+11) and Portsmouth (D+18). The district would become six points more Democratic than it is today.
The primary Republican beneficiary of this gerrymandering is Councilor Chris Sununu. His District Three loses Durham, Dover and Portsmouth and gains Hudson (R+4), Pelham (R+8) and Raymond (R+5). The proposed district would be five points more Republican than it is currently.
District Four, which becomes an open seat with the retirement of Councilor Ray Wieczorek, would be slightly more friendly for a Democratic challenger. The district, anchored by Manchester, trades Hudson (R+4), Pelham (R+8), Raymond (R+5) and Litchfield (R+9) for Goffstown (R+6), Bow (EVEN) and Pembroke (EVEN).
House Bill 1607 and Senate Bill 372 would create a school voucher program granting tax credits to businesses funding scholarships for students to attend private schools, religious schools or home schools.
The Carsey Institute reports that, based on the latest WMUR Granite State Poll, New Hampshire voters are virtually universal in their opposition to this attack on the state's public schools.
The survey found there was very little support among New Hampshire voters for using state funds to help students attend private school. Public school parents were very satisfied with their local schools and were even more opposed than all voters to using state money to help students attend private schools.
55 percent of all voters oppose using state funds to help students attend private schools compared to only 23 percent who support it. They oppose using tax credits to help students attend private schools by a 41 percent to 27 percent margin. The opposition is bipartisan. Republicans oppose both measures by 43 percent to 36 percent and 36 percent to 30 percent margins respectively.
Supporters assert that New Hampshire public schools are failing and parents are demanding alternatives — but someone apparently forgot to tell parents.
68 percent of public school parents saying that they are extremely satisfied (six percent), very satisfied (31 percent) or somewhat satisfied (31 percent) with the quality of education in their local schools — more than double the 30 percent who express some level of dissatisfaction.
The WMUR Granite State Poll was conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, which interviewed 527 New Hampshire adults between January 25 and February 2, 2012. The margin of error is +/- 4.3 percent.
Full of Tea Party zeal after voting to repeal lunch hours for all employees, the House Labor Committee took up a new right-to-work bill over the loud objections of the nearly 400 workers and community members who filled Reps Hall for today's hearing.
As Speaker O'Brien did last fall, Labor Committee chairman Gary Daniels invited political candidates to stump on the floor of the House in return for their endorsement of right-to-work. Gubernatorial candidates Ovid Lamontagne and Kevin Smith did the honors.
Never mind that both business owners and labor leaders think it's time to move on from the contentious battle over right-to-work that shook the Legislature last year.
As Mark MacKenzie, president of the New Hampshire AFL-CIO testified:
"We have lower poverty levels, higher graduation rates, and higher wages than any right-to-work state. We have negotiated thousands of successful collective bargaining agreements. This law is not broken. There is no need for right-to-work."
"This is not something that New Hampshire needs. It's certainly not something that anyone operating a business in New Hampshire wants."
And we can't forget about Robert Lynch, staunch Libertarian and celebrated author, who used his fifteen minutes at the microphone to promote both right-to-work and his new book, "Guardrails, God and Santa Claus", on the importance of freedom.
The overarching arguments haven't changed much from last year. Opponents say that right-to-work will take away workers' rights and lower their wages. (A new report from EPI economist Gordon Lafer bears out those conclusions.)
Proponents, on the other hand, will try to sell you something: either a book, or a candidate, or a complete fallacy about what our economy needs and how it works.
It was just two months ago that the House failed to override Gov. Lynch's veto of right-to-work legislation and the union busting law went down to defeat.
Today, the House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services Committee meets to hear testimony on House Bill 1677, a similar bill that would prohibit collective bargaining agreements from requiring non-union employees to pay union fees and would eliminate the requirement that public unions represent non-union members.
House Speaker Bill O'Brien continues to pursue his white whale and has, once again, made the anti-union legislation his highest priority. He claims passage would grow our economy and attract manufacturers -- despite all evidence to the contrary. New Hampshire AFL-CIO President Mark MacKenzie disagrees.
“We should be talking about the condition of our secondary roads, our crumbling schools and bridges and expanding I-93, to finish that project,” he said. “We should be investing in New Hampshire and its infrastructure so we can be the kind of state we want to be and provide opportunities going forward. That’s what our focus should be.” [Union Leader, February 8, 2012]
Protect New Hampshire Families has organized a Grassroots Lobby Day to push back against this politically-motivated attack on New Hampshire's middle class. The fun starts with a pre-hearing briefing at noon at America Votes in Room 302 at 4 Park Street in Concord.
The latest WMUR Granite State Poll surveyed Granite State adults on several high profile issues being debated in the legislature. The results show an electorate at odds with two of the key initiatives being promoted by the House Republican leadership.
Opposition to repeal of same-sex marriage is overwhelming
New Hampshire adults oppose repeal of same-sex marriage by a 59 percent to 32 percent margin. Among those who feel strongly about the issue, opponents of repeal outnumber supporters by a 2-to-1 margin with 48 percent strongly opposing repeal compared to just 23 percent who strongly support it. These figures have remained remarkably constant over the past year in earlier surveys from WMUR and Voter Consumer Research.
Support for a constitutional amendment to prohibit a state income tax is far short of the required two-thirds majority
New Hampshire voters are evenly divided on a a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit a state tax on income. 39 percent of those surveyed said they would vote for the amendment, 41 percent would oppose it. The House-passed amendment requires Senate approval before being presented to the voters. A two-thirds majority vote would then be required to amend the state constitution.
Granite Staters support voter photo ID legislation
One Republican issue that does appear to have broad support is requiring voters to present photo identification in order to vote. 68 percent expressed support for a voter ID law compared to 24 percent who oppose it. The support crosses partisan lines with majorities among Republicans (87 to 10 percent), Independents (69 to 22 percent) and Democrats (52 to 37 percent ).
The Granite State Poll is sponsored by WMUR-TV and conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. 527 New Hampshire adults were interviewed between January 25 and February 2, 2012 for the survey, which has a +/- 4.3 percent margin of error.
(Congratulations, Dean! - part moved below the fold - promoted by William Tucker)
It's hard to believe I'm now in my sixth year of writing about and engaging with New Hampshire politics online.
Whether it was my first effort in tracking the Hodes-Bass race, the work I've done here co-founding, building, and managing this progressive state blogging community, or my recent foray into Twitter and expanding the online left, the goal in mind is always to see what can be done to promote the kind of public servants New Hampshire deserves.
This past year has been brutal. No visitor to this site needs a reminder of that. On a personal level, I am most struck by the hostility that has been shown toward the children of our state, but of course, the damage the Republican Free Stater-Tea Party supermajority in Concord has done and still plans to do affects not just children but everyone in New Hampshire.
The 2012 election in the Granite State is so critical to our future it has driven me to do something I've never done before. The bar I set for myself for joining a campaign is high: 1) it must be a race that will make a real difference, 2) there must be a path to victory, and 3) I must believe in and share the candidate's values. In this case there was no question that all three conditions were filled, and then some.
Former State Senator Jackie Cilley has formally announced her candidacy to be the Democratic Nominee for Governor's race this fall.
Jackie served in the State Senate for 4 years. Since then she as been making sure that Democrats around NH know what has been happening via her many visits around the state and her well received legislative update email newsletter.
With a number of NH Citizens claiming the 2nd biggest issue facing NH to be O'Brien's radical right agenda (see Tuck's diary below), it is great to have a 2nd Democrat in the race to bring our parties message to the main streets and backroads of NH.
When asked to name the most important problem facing the state, 39 percent of New Hampshire adults expressed concerns about jobs and the economy. And the second most identified problem? The Republican state legislature!
That's right, in the latest WMUR Granite State Poll, ten percent of New Hampshire adults identified GOP lawmakers as their biggest concern, more than those who named the state budget, health care, taxes or education quality. And the number is growing. In October, six percent of the respondents identified Republicans in the legislature as the state's most important problem.
In other news, the survey confirmed that Gov. John Lynch is very popular (with a 68 percent approval rating and a +52 percent net favorability rating) and that most of us don't know enough about the potential gubernatorial candidates to have an opinion about any of them.
The WMUR Granite State Poll was conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, which interviewed 527 New Hampshire adults between January 25 and February 2, 2012. The margin of error is +/- 4.3 percent.
Defending New Hampshire Public Education, led by Bill Duncan, is doing a superb job of tracking and publicizing the Republican effort to dismantle New Hampshire's public schools. The latest DNHPE email update identifies over 20 anti-public education bills on the agenda for the 2012 session of the New Hampshire legislature. I've included an excerpt and abridged version of the list below.
If you're upset by these radical, ideological bills that would decimate a public school system that is one of the best in the nation, I urge you to spend some time on the DNHPE web site and to subscribe to the email updates — and to make some noise.
At his February 2 press conference in the Legislative Office Building, the House Majority Leader, Rep. DJ Bettencourt (R-Salem), framed the Republican legislative agenda as jobs and education, confirming that New Hampshire's public schools are in the central focus of this legislative session.
A review of the bills working their way through the Legislature confirms that this could be the most anti-public education Legislature New Hampshire has ever seen. Three destructive bills are scheduled for votes on the House floor on Wednesday 2/8/12: HB 1692 to abolish the University System office and HB 1413 and HB 1517 which opt NH out of No Child Left Behind, at a cost to New Hampshire Public Schools of $61 million per year.
