The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to make recommendations for a bill that would require parental notification for minors seeking abortions. Two measures to repeal the state’s equal marriage law that went into effect in 2010 are also on the schedule. Republican leadership positions on these controversial social issues is mixed.

House Bill 329 would require doctors to notify the parents or guardians of unemancipated minors before performing an abortion. While Republican leaders have given the green light to this bill, they are encouraging a hold on the gay marriage repeal bills (House Bills 437 and 443) until the 2012 session.

Parental Notification

The committee held a public hearing Monday on parental notification, sponsored by Rep. Kathleen Souza (R-Manchester). The bill would make non-notification a misdemeanor crime. It also creates an exception for medical emergencies, along with a way for a pregnant minor to seek a waiver from notification through the courts.

In 2007, the Democratic-controlled Legislature repealed a similar 2003 law after a lengthy court fight. A federal judge had struck down the law as unconstitutional because it did not include an exception in case the health of the mother was at stake.

“One of the problems facing society today is the lack of parental involvement on many levels, said Majority Leader Rep. D.J. Bettencourt (R-Salem) in a letter to the Judiciary Committee. “Young girls who cannot so much as be given an aspirin by the school nurse without parental permission must have their parents involved in such a crucial medical procedure, especially when it involves the long term physical and mental health of their child.”

Opponents of notification requirements argue that in some abusive households, notification itself can endanger the life or well-being of the pregnant child.

The most recent WMUR Granite State Poll, released in early February, found that 57 percent of New Hampshire residents favor some sort of law that would require minors to notify a parent before getting an abortion. Thirty-four percent oppose a parental consent bill, and 10 percent are neutral.

Equal Marriage

Both of the equal marriage repeal bills — HB 437, sponsored by Rep. David Bates (R-Windham), and HB 443, sponsored by Rep. Leo Pepino (R-Manchester) — would also repeal the state’s civil union statutes.

The premise of House Bill 437 is based in part on the assertion that marriage is older than politics, itself. “The vast majority of children are conceived by acts of passion between men and women — sometimes unintentionally,” the bill states. “Because of this biological reality, New Hampshire has a unique, distinct, and compelling interest” in promoting heterosexual marriages, “so as to increase the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by both of their natural parents. No other domestic relationship presents the same level of state interest.” The bill also states that “marriage is the primary social institution” that promotes the love, care and support of children by their parents.

The Judiciary Committee held lengthy public hearings on the gay marriage repeal bills on Feb 17. Estimated turnout ranged from 600 to 800 people, many of whom opposed the repeal measures. The findings of the WMUR Granite State Poll on the whole showed support for gay marriage among Granite Staters: 62 percent oppose repeal, 29 percent support it, and 9 percent are neutral.

Lew Feldstein, co-chair of the recently formed organization Standing Up for New Hampshire Families, which opposes gay marriage repeal, said last month that “the state, like the rest of the country, is moving toward equality – not away from it. Taking away the option to marry does not square with our values.”

The committee can opt to retain the gay marriage repeal bills in committee until the 2012 session. In January, Republican leaders said that repealing gay marriage was not on their priority list for 2011.

>> Executive session of the House Judiciary Committee for HB 329, HB 437 and HB 443, Legislative Office Building, Room 208, beginning at 1 p.m. If votes are not completed Tuesday, the session will be continued to Thursday, March 3.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord, with contributions from Hilary Niles.

Will the gay marriage law of 2009 be repealed? Will medical marijuana get a closer look? Will parental notification for teenage abortions be restored?

These are a few policy questions that lawmakers will consider when the 2011 legislative session opens Jan. 5. In our latest installment of previewing proposed bills, we look at three hot-button bills that will likely garner headlines — including here at Front Door Politics — in the next few months.

Medical Marijuana

As we reported last month, there’s another bid in the works to legalize medical marijuana after a similar bill was narrowly defeated in 2009 (you can read our extensive explainer post here). 

Sponsored by Rep. Evalyn Merrick (D-Lancaster), who was the prime sponsor of the 2009 effort, the newly proposed House bill has bipartisan support from two important Republicans: Rep. Jennifer Coffey of Andover, Vice-Chair of the Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee, and Rep. Elaine Swinford of Center Barnstead, Chair of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

This is no guarantee the proposal will make it any further than the 2009 effort, but the support of Coffey and Swinford will likely lead to another serious debate.

Parental Notification

First, some history: The 2003 “parental notification law” passed by the Legislature was among the most restrictive in the country. It required teenage girls to notify their parents of a pending abortion, with no medical exception. The measure was fought all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court, which heard the case in 2005. In early 2006, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned an Appeal Court ruling that struck the entire law down, saying instead that the law needed to include an exception for medical emergencies.

Eventually, the court battle became moot. In 2007, the Legislature became the first state to repeal parental notification when it passed (and Gov. John Lynch signed) House Bill 184.

A 2008 Republican proposal would have restored the notification law with a medical exemption and the added possibility of a judicial waiver. But Senate Bill 302 did not pass.

This year, a restoration of the parental notification law has been proposed by Rep. Kathleen Souza (R-Manchester). It is not known yet if that bill will contain the same exemptions as the 2008 proposal.

Gay Marriage

Three new bills sponsored by 12 Republican House and Senate members would repeal the state’s equal marriage law, which passed in 2009 and went into effect Jan. 1, 2010.

One proposal by Rep. Leo Pepino (R-Manchester) would establish “that marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” It’s not known whether the final language of the bill will negate the more the 3,000 gay marriages that have taken place in New Hampshire so far, or if it would also invalidate civil unions.

Pepino told the Portsmouth Herald earlier this month that, while Republican leaders will focus on the budget, repeal supporters will get the bill passed this spring — and that the votes are there to easily override Gov. Lynch’s probably veto. But in the same Herald story, former Democratic Rep. Jim Splaine of Portsmouth said the veto override votes will not be there as the effort to repeal the law will lead to major backlash.

On Deck

We won’t have a Daily Dispatch for tomorrow on New Year’s Eve. But we will return on Monday with a preview of the busy week ahead as the House and Senate open their sessions on Wednesday and Gov. John Lynch is inaugurated for an historical fourth term on Thursday.

We wish you a safe and happy New Year!

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

Gay marriage was the only clear winner among these debates, as the Legislature’s spring vote to legalize same-sex marriage took effect Jan. 1. The death penalty was nearly outlawed and remains under scrutiny by a special study commission. And Granite State legislators narrowly approved a statewide medical marijuana program—only to have it vetoed by Gov. John Lynch.

But these scores are far from settled, as evidenced in the new round of bills up for debate in Concord’s 2010 legislative session, which officially kicks off on Wednesday, Jan. 6. Both the House and Senate will meet every Wednesday until June, and they’ll be busy. So far, 819 bills have been proposed to create, repeal or otherwise change New Hampshire’s laws.

gay marriage

Last June, New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage, and about 200 gay couples were already registered to marry before the new law took effect on Jan. 1.

That’s the same date that House Bill 1590 would retroactively take effect if it’s approved. Sponsored by Rep. Alfred Baldasaro (R-Londonderry), the legislation would repeal the legalization of gay marriage, effectively nullifying the vows taken while the bill is debated.

When gay marriage was legalized in New Hampshire, the civil unions created for same-sex couples just two years earlier were incorporated into the new law. As it stands, current civil unions will automatically become legal marriages on Jan. 1, 2011, and there will be no such thing as “civil unions” after that.

In repealing the same-sex marriage statute, HB 1590 would also effectively reinstate civil unions, according to Rep. Jordan Ulery (R-Hudson). He stresses that, for his part at least, the legislation has nothing to do with discrimination against same-sex couples.

“I don’t care what you do in your bedroom, it’s none of my business,” he says. Ulery takes issue with use of the word “marriage,” which he believes lays the foundation of society by encouraging heterosexual couples to create families, “literally,” he says.

Ulery concedes that same-sex couples can form families in other ways, such as through adoption, artificial insemination or surrogate birth parents. “Certainly they can care for and love a child,” he says, “but there are certain times in your life when someone had to say, ‘You’re feeling this way because.’” If two men are raising a little girl, he says, “A guy has never felt that way, regardless of what his sexual orientation is.”

voters’ veto

In both California and Maine, voter referendums have reversed lawmakers’ actions and undone gay marriage. New Hampshire has no such mechanism, however. The state’s Constitution allows only the Legislature to “suspend,” or veto, a law.

Rep. Laurie Boyce (R-Alton) would like to change that with Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 25. It would allow citizens to veto specific laws through statewide votes, provided sufficient signatures are gathered in support of a veto ballot question. If passed, CACR 25 itself would require a statewide ballot vote, as does any constitutional amendment.

Boyce could not be reached for comment, and it’s unclear whether her legislation was motivated by a desire to veto gay marriage. But gay marriage opponents would almost certainly start gathering signatures if the measure is approved.  Any law on the books would be subject to the voters’ referendum. The N.H. Legislature has historically resisted similar initiatives.

marijuana

Before a bill becomes a law, it’s the governor who holds veto power. Back in July, Gov. John Lynch used that power to stop HB 648, which would have legalized the use of medical marijuana through a regulated statewide program. Sponsored by Rep. Evalyn Merrick (D-Lancaster), the bill enjoyed solid support in the House, but the Senate remained two votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override the governor’s veto. No medical marijuana bills are proposed in 2010.

Instead, Rep. Calvin Pratt (R-Goffstown) has sponsored House Bill 1652 to legalize one ounce or less of marijuana for people over age 21. He argues that since the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, pot has been wrongly classified in the same group as drugs like heroin and has been denied legitimate agricultural, industrial or recreational uses.

Today, cannabis remains a Schedule I drug along with LSD, PCP and ecstasy, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Pratt believes marijuana should receive legal treatment on par with alcohol.

“We need to … point out the failure of our current policy,” Pratt says. The bill itself claims that decades of law enforcement have failed to prevent people from using the drug. “We keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome,” Pratt says, “and that’s how you measure insanity.”

By legalizing marijuana use for the majority of the population, he surmises, the energy and resources of police, courts and penal systems can be spent more effectively enforcing the ban for minors.

Money is also a factor. “Rather than spending millions of taxpayer dollars arresting marijuana users, the state of New Hampshire should instead generate millions of dollars by taxing and regulating marijuana,” the bill states. Part of this revenue could then be earmarked “to prevent and treat the abuse of marijuana, tobacco, alcohol and other drugs.”

Given that Gov. Lynch vetoed a medical marijuana bill only months ago, it’s not likely that a bill legalizing pot will make it past his desk. Pratt admits that it actually has a “less than 50-50” chance at succeeding.

But, the legislative process teases out people’s legitimate concerns and builds clarity on how to address potential problems, Pratt says. For now, he’s happy just to keep the conversation going.

death penalty

The death penalty is another ongoing conversation. Of five related bills considered in 2009, House Bill 520, sponsored by Rep. Jim Splaine (D-Portsmouth), was the only one to pass. It created a special commission to study the death penalty in New Hampshire.

A public hearing was held on Dec. 4 to compare the cost of prosecution for life sentences versus execution. Several more points remain to be addressed, including whether the death penalty is “consistent with evolving societal standards of decency”; if prosecution for capital punishment cases is discriminatory in any way; if the crimes that make convicted perpetrators eligible for the death penalty should be maintained, expanded or narrowed; and whether alternatives to the death penalty would sufficiently address both penal interests and the desires of victims’ families.

More information on the commission can be found at www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/committees/2009. The commission’s final report is due by Dec. 1, 2010, and the next public hearing is scheduled for Feb. 5 at the State House in Concord.

budget

If social issues continue to be big news in 2010, they’ll likely pale in comparison to headlines about the state budget and its shortfalls.

New Hampshire operates on a two-year budget cycle, meaning that plans for how to raise and spend all of the state’s money must be approved every two years—the same cycle on which representatives and senators are elected. We’re entering the second year of this two-year term, and the $11.6 billion budget that narrowly passed last June is facing several challenges from the recession, lawmakers and, possibly, the courts.

According to Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester), who sits on the House Local and Regulated Revenues Committee, six-month revenues (July through December) will be about $50 million below projections. About half of that shortfall comes from lower than expected business taxes.

This gap could more than double in the second half of the fiscal year, Vaillancourt says, since the first half of the year typically only accounts for 42 to 43 percent of overall funding. If that holds true, it could put the state up to $118 million in the red by June.

That figure is almost matched by the contested surplus funds of the NH Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association. The JUA is a private, statewide insurance pool created with the help of the N.H. Insurance Department in 1978 for doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers.

Last year, faced with a major budget deficit in the midst of the national economic crisis, the N.H. Legislature laid claim to $110 million of the JUA’s surplus funds. Policyholders sued, saying that the funds, collected from their premium payments, were not the state’s to claim. A Superior Court judge sided with the plaintiffs and froze the money. The state has appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which is still in deliberation.

In the meantime, $110 million is missing from the state’s operating budget, and State Treasurer Cathy Provencher doesn’t know if she’ll get it back.

New Hampshire could be left with three choices, Provencher told the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy in a December interview. “It’s the same thing in our homes,” she said of budget shortfalls. “You have to cut. You have to … get more income. Or you have to borrow,” she said. “And I don’t think borrowing is going to be a viable option.”

Part of the income solution last spring was to broaden or increase a handful of taxes and fees. In all, more than 30 new sources of revenue were created. The three most hotly contested at the time will face formal legislative challenges this year: applying the meals and rooms tax to campsites, bumping that tax from 8 to 9 percent, and subjecting Limited Liability Companies to the 5 percent interest and dividends tax that other businesses pay.

Several bills sponsored by Herbert Richardson (R-Lancaster), Sen. Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro), Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester), and Rep. David Hess (R-Hooksett) will attempt to undo those charges in a variety of ways.

The so-called LLC tax drew a particular outcry, and a series of public hearings on the matter is being held throughout the state by the Dept. of Revenue Administration. The next public sessions are scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 5 at 1 p.m. at White Mountain Community College in Berlin; Thursday, Jan. 7 at 6 p.m. at Plymouth State University’s Hyde Hall; and Saturday, Jan. 9 at 10 a.m. at Kennett High School Auditorium in Conway. More information on the hearings and proposed rules can be found at www.nh.gov/revenue/laws/proposed.htm.

gambling

Another controversial option for raising revenue is expanded gambling—an initiative that hasn’t yet succeeded in the Legislature, but which may have gained some traction in the governor’s office.

In July, Gov. Lynch established a gaming study commission by executive order, which will continue to meet monthly until delivering its final report in May 2010. An interim report was released in December, focusing in part on the financial and social cost-benefit ratio of new gaming ventures, from full-fledged casino resorts to video slot machines.

The report also explores the implications of potential “first-mover” status if New Hampshire were to lead its neighbors in expanding casino gambling. It may enjoy a temporary boost in revenue, but the move could also trigger a sort of casino boom in New England. Increased social costs along with potential market saturation could both reduce revenue and raise social costs in the long-term.

“No matter what the Legislature decides,” the report states, “revenues from expanded gaming alone will not eliminate long-term fiscal challenges facing the state.”

More information on the commission, including minutes from past meetings, can be found at www.nh.gov/gsc. The commission’s Web site states that UNH’s Carsey Institute will develop and implement a plan for public dialogue sessions about the issue in January, February and March.

retirement system

Part of the state’s structural deficit, as identified by the N.H. Center for Public Policy Studies, is funding of the state’s retirement system. And that system is facing some budget problems of its own, largely due to loss of investment income with the current recession.

A handful of bills approved last year—such as one that temporarily lowers the state’s match of employer contributions—helped balance the state’s books. But the decreased state match simply passed costs down to towns whose budgets are also in peril.

Several bills this year aim to limit benefits the $5 billion retirement trust fund pays out to state employees. House Bill 1576 (Rep. John DeJoie, D-Concord) would no longer allow active employees to receive their retirement allowance while they’re working. House Bill 1530 (Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare) redefines “earnable compensation” as only base pay. Holiday, vacation or sick pay, overtime and military differential pay, among other sources of income, would no longer help workers accrue retirement compensation.

On the other hand, House Bill 1512 (Rep. Janet Wall, D+R-Madbury) increases the annual amount of the supplemental allowance that judicial retirees may receive, doubling it from $50,000 to $100,000. Still other legislation (Rep. Charles Weed, D-Keene) would open the retirement umbrella to cover educational support personnel. House Bill 1428 (Rep. Patricia McMahon, D-North Sutton) would extend benefits for a surviving spouse, even when that person remarries.

health care

This year also brings an abundance of attempts to reform, revise and otherwise re-write the statewide health care system and health insurance policies.

They range from Sen. Bradley’s bill to allow the purchase of health insurance policies from out-of-state companies to Rep. William O’Brien’s (R-Mont Vernon) House Bill 1585, allowing health insurance policies to be sold without mandated coverage. Prohibiting the denial of coverage for preexisting conditions is also on the table with House Bill 1597 (Rep. David Hess, R-Hooksett).

Of course, it’s still unclear how any national health care reform, if passed, will affect New Hampshire.

weekly updates resume

Front Door Politics is thrilled to resume weekly reporting with this extended Year Ahead preview. Our weekly updates will explore issues like child support, transportation, broadband infrastructure, consumer protections and more.

Got your eye on a particular topic, or have a lead you’d like us to follow? Drop us a line. We love hearing from readers, and we’re here to find out what you want to know.

In this case, “religious freedom” means that while any organized religious entity is welcome to marry same-sex couples, others are not required by law to do so. House Bill 310 affirms the right of religious entities to not participate in a marriage ceremony that violates its beliefs. But it doesn’t go far enough for Gov. Lynch.

He threatened to veto House Bill 436, redefining marriage as between two people regardless of gender, unless stronger language was added to House Bill 73—the only one of the trio still eligible for amendment at the time Lynch gave his position on the issue. A Committee of Conference from the House and Senate was formed to hammer out a compromise to satisfy both chambers and get Lynch to sign all three bills together.

“It’s not new,” says Rep. Jim Splaine (D-Portsmouth), who sponsored House Bill 436, which he refers to as the marriage equality law. “Religions indeed do have the right in America to be able to discriminate in almost any way they want.” He points to the Catholic Church’s authority to ex-communicate a member for any reason, and confirms that religious groups can even legally refuse to marry an interracial couple.

Splaine thinks a lot of people don’t understand the full scope of American religious freedoms. “What would happen if we had laws preventing such discrimination and yet they wanted to discriminate? Would we ban them?” he asks rhetorically. “Of course not. That’s what they do in other countries,” he answers. One should be able to associate with others who share the same faith, Splaine says.

“The best way to protect our church’s freedom to marry us,” said Rep. David Pierce (D-Etna) in Wednesday’s House debate, is to protect the freedom of other churches that won’t. His testimony included the story of his daughter’s baptism being denied at the church where he and his same-sex partner had been active for years. While heartbroken, they decided to simply find another church that would accept them fully.

Despite such conviction, others remain skeptical. Several House Republicans objected to both the wording of the amendment and the process of the Committee of Conference that crafted it. One word, in particular, does not sit well with them.

As amended, HB 73 gives religions “exclusive” control over who may marry within their faiths. This could be interpreted to trump state law, according to Rep. Robert Rowe (R-Amherst). And that could unintentionally open the door to marriages that are otherwise illegal, including polygamy, says Rep. William O’Brien (R-Mont Vernon).

O’Brien is also concerned about being out-of-step with federal law, pointing out a potentially crippling consequence for the New Hampshire Retirement System. He says the fund would be in danger of losing its tax-exempt status if it does not distribute benefits according to federal Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as strictly heterosexual.

According to O’Brien, this complication is identified in a 2008 report from the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress that provides analytical support to the U.S. House and Senate. “The drafters of HB 436 recognized this as a problem,” O’Brien says, citing a clause in that bill exempting the state retirement fund from recognizing same-sex marriages in their distribution of benefits.

But that’s no solution, O’Brien says, because if the retirement system doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages in order to meet federal tax-exempt requirements, it will be in violation of state law, instead. Either way, he predicts, the fund will face a lawsuit from a same-sex spouse who is denied benefits and/or lose its tax-exempt status.

This potentiality, he suspects, was behind Gov. Lynch’s comments at the signing ceremony. Having hedged for months about his position on gay marriage, many were surprised when Lynch said that New Hampshire was simply making legal something that ought to be recognized the whole country over. Repealing DOMA, O’Brien figures, would eliminate this very costly potential problem for New Hampshire.

O’Brien is clear that on principle, he does not condone same-sex marriage. “I think it’s disastrous for families and children,” he says. “But if you’re going to do it,” he says, “at least don’t do it in a way that causes problems.”

In perhaps the most impassioned and lengthy testimony of the day, Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester) expressed his own concerns about the extent of discriminatory rights afforded to religions in HB 73. But he implored the House to “pass this very bad bill,” nonetheless. Not doing so would effectively kill the marriage equality bill on Gov. Lynch’s desk—an alternative that is worse than bad, he said.

The House did pass it, 198 to 176. In a press conference following the vote, the openly gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson called on supporters to next move on to transgender equality.

Splaine agrees with Robinson, and says that in the meantime he’ll be working to ensure smooth implementation of the new marriage laws when they take effect on Jan. 1, 2010.

Is it OK for religions to discriminate?
Share your thoughts below.

And remember, our online learning center and a complete list of proposed laws for 2009 is available here at Front Door Politics: from the State House to your house.

Next week marks the midway point in the 2009 legislative session, and only bills that are still afloat by Friday will have a chance at becoming law.

The official term is “Crossover,” and the official day this year is Thursday, April 9.  Bills that have passed their originating chamber (the House or Senate, wherever they were introduced) by the end of that day cross over into the opposite chamber for another round of public hearings, committee recommendations and full votes.  Whatever is voted down by then is simply gone, until a future session when someone may reintroduce the same ideas.

Crossover is basically a giant deadline for the Legislature, because it implies that the House and Senate must have voted on all of the bills that their members introduced—close to 1000 in all this year.

Crossover is also an important gauge, because by this point it’s at least half-clear which bills have a shot and which are out of the running.  A bill’s true fate is still left to the other chamber and, ultimately, the governor.  But now is a good time to reflect back on what’s happened so far.

surprise, surprise, surprise

And there have been some surprises.  Three, in particular, came from the House just last week when a majority of its members voted to approve the use of medical marijuana (HB 648), legalize gay marriage (HB 436), and repeal the death penalty (HB 556).

Gov. John Lynch has stated outright that he would veto a repeal of the death penalty, and it’s widely reported that he “has concerns” about medical use of marijuana.  And while he does support civil unions for same-sex couples, it’s noted that the governor has not supported equality of marriage for homosexuals in the past.

His signature may not come into play at all, though.  The N.H. Senate is traditionally more conservative than the House, sot the fate of all three bills is uncertain at best in that chamber.  And unless a bill passes both the House and Senate, it never gets to the governor’s desk to be either vetoed, signed into law, or allowed to become law without signature.

To override a veto, a bill must pass another chamber vote with a two-thirds majority.  In this case, both the bills to repeal the death penalty and legalize same-sex marriage passed by very slim margins (by 19 and 7 votes, respectively) that would not come close to standing up to a veto.  The medical marijuana bill passed with a stronger majority (96 votes), but it would take as many as 32 additional votes to reach a veto-proof margin.

Repealing the death penalty may not survive this session, but House Bill 520, establishing a commission to study the death penalty in New Hampshire, may have a chance.  The bill was amended after considerable discussion with the attorney general resulted in adding that post to the commission roster. Members of the N.H. Police Association and Mental Health Council were also added, and the specific scope of what the commission is to study were slightly changed.  All these amendments were approved by the bill’s prime sponsor, Rep. James Splaine (D-Portsmouth).

A separate bill related to capital punishment was a bit of a surprise in itself.  House Bill 37 would have required death by firing squad for anyone found guilty of using a firearm to kill someone during the commission of a felony.  Sponsored by Delmar Burridge (D-Keene), the move was defeated by the House.

gambling still alive

Also shot down was House Bill 461 to establish a state-owned casino to fund public education, House Bill 593 to commission destination resort casinos expand gambling options at current gaming facilities.  Even the supporters of these bills acknowledged in their House reports that neither were ready for passage, but they didn’t want to dismiss them both outright.  By retaining the bills, they argued, the entire issue of gambling could be kept on the table.  Voting them down, they felt, would wipe out a true discussion.  But wiped out they were, with only 35 and 72 votes in favor, respectively (out of about 370).

The Senate Ways & Means Committee had a split response to two fairly similar bills it considered. Senate Bill 169, which would establish up to six state-run video gaming facilities, was not recommended for passage.  But Senate Bill 179, which would create two video gaming facilities in the North Country and allow video gaming at existing facilities, got a thumbs up.  However, neither have received their vote.  Both were laid on the table by the full Senate for further consideration, so the gambling discussion remains alive and well in the Granite State, so far.

And remember, our online learning center and a complete list of proposed laws for 2009 is available here at Front Door Politics: from the State House to your house.

The first order of business, of course, is the budget. New Hampshire’s budget operates on a biennial cycle, meaning it is set and approved every two years. The state government is already in dire straights to balance the current 2008-09 budget (the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009), which, as of Thanksgiving, was an estimated $250 million short of revenue projections.

About 70 percent of that shortfall should be made up through executive orders by Gov. John Lynch to save money in several administrative realms, including reduction of overtime and limiting consulting contracts.

But the governor is also asking all state employees to defer their 5.5 percent pay increase, which is due to take effect on Jan. 1. This will require collective bargaining to procure employee consent, and an agreement had not been reached as of last weekend.

All departments and state agencies have also been asked to reduce their own budgets, resulting, for example, in the two-month suspension of jury trials this winter.

Now, in addition, the N.H. Legislature will be working with the governor’s office on the primary job intended for this session: to set and approve projected revenue and spending for the 2010-11 fiscal biennium—hardly an enviable task, given the number and scope of uncertainties ahead.

short-term sense, long-term dollars

The financial hardships that leave residents and infrastructure in need are the same hardships that government agencies face in providing for these needs. It’s a double bind that tightens as the same factors increase needs on the one hand and reduce the capacity for services on the other. The irony is that if the economy were in better shape and fewer people needed such services, then the state would actually be in a much better position to provide them.

“One thing I would like to see us not do is make short-term cuts that will create significant long-term costs,” says Teri Norelli, the seven-term House member representing Newington and Portsmouth, who was elected by her fellow Democrats in December to her second term as Speaker of the House.

Norelli cites a September study by the Department of Health and Human Services as a prime example of quick budget saving measures that could produce long-term budget strains. The report, which refers to a “broken system” of mental health services, calls for four areas for investment in state-wide mental health programs.

Rather than seeing this ambitious 10-year plan as an added budget cost, the task force that authored the report frames the strategy as a way of decreasing undue stress on other agencies that are currently paying for the failures of DHHS. Costly emergency room visits, prolonged stays at the state psychiatric hospital and incarceration in the state prison system, the study asserts, are a few examples of the overflow from DHHS that occurs when people with mental illness do not receive adequate treatment in time.

But, such a long view can seem like a luxury in the midst of a crisis. Maintaining this dual short- and long-term vision for the state will take strong leadership, creative problem-solving and, above all, extensive cooperation among elected officials and across all departments.

capital projects and transportation spending

Section 1 of the state’s two-year budget is devoted to capital costs across almost all departments. Such expenses include investments in land acquisition; building maintenance, repair and construction; pollution monitoring and remediation; dam removal; and so forth. This infrastructure spending is set and approved during the first part of the legislative term. In this case, the 2009 session will set the capital budget for the 2010-11 biennium.

Proposed funding for a Hampton Beach “makeover” is a prime example. Local business owners have asked the state for $18 million in redevelopment money that would pay for a new seashell stage, two pavilions, new bath houses and a new visitor center. The Department of Resources and Economic Development reportedly considers the project its “number-one priority,” but shortfalls may not allow for complete funding all in one year.

The 10-year transportation plan, otherwise known as Section 2 of the biannual budget, includes all highway spending and allotments for the departments of Safety and Transportation. It will not be hammered out until 2010—but don’t expect it to be off the radar until then. According to Norelli, a legislative study committee met over the summer and fall to look at funding of the highway system.

“At least one bill to raise the gas tax” came out of the report, Norelli said. So, expect a healthy debate on at least some aspects of transportation funding, even in this first year of the term.

gamble or tax? tax or gamble?

Capital costs are paid for by a combination of dollars from the federal government, the state’s general fund and other sources. The general fund, in turn, is made up of revenue from various fees, liquor sales, Medicare enhancement and a host of taxes, the total of which comprises the vast majority of the fund.

Even if significant spending reductions are achieved, these revenue sources will probably not be enough to cover expenses, due to a “structural deficit” in the state’s budget, according to a report by the N.H. Center for Public Policy Studies. Well before the economic meltdown, the center advised that either revenue would have to be increased or spending would have to be cut in order to close the growing gap in the state’s budget.

As with every year, the 2009 list of bills to be considered—1,008 in all—includes some legislation that would create new income streams for the state, primarily through new or increased taxes or through new or expanded gambling initiatives.

The contribution to the state’s general fund from gambling (mostly dog and simulcast horse racing) has largely crawled to a stop in recent years, accounting for less than 1 percent of the general fund as of 2005. Just this month, racing’s slowdown was demonstrated by the closing of the greyhound track in Hinsdale. Therefore, new gambling propositions—such as a state-owned casino in the North Country—may not even be worth the ante.

Another couple of bills would introduce new lottery tickets to benefit homeless veterans programs or the veterans’ council. But recent nationwide declines in lottery sales may not bode well for programs funded by the tickets. On the other hand, they don’t call it gambling for nothing.

On the tax front, a dizzying array of options have been proposed, the most broad-reaching being the controversial proposition of a state income tax and various adjustments to the property tax structure. (Even renters are indirectly affected by property taxes, as they cause landlords to increase rents.)

Although Gov. Lynch has repeatedly stated that he would veto any new broad-based income tax, several bills will be up for debate that seek just that. Nearly all of them are tied to education funding in one way or another. One would establish a flat rate education income tax. Another more vaguely titled bill would create “a state income tax to adequately fund public education,” and a third would provide that “all revenues raised by a state income tax shall be dedicated to funding public education.”

Meanwhile, proposals related to property taxes mostly focus on tax relief. They range from eliminating the so-called “view tax” from determination of market value for tax assessment purposes, to a bill that would allow towns to give a tax credit to property owners over age 60 in exchange for volunteer services. Another would give credit to taxpayers with household income below a certain level, and still another would establish an income-based property tax limit.

But one property tax bill would actually create revenue by establishing “tangible personal property inventory and use taxes.” Another would simply establish a committee to study property tax exemptions and credits.

Another debate on tax relief will come from a bill to reduce the business enterprise and business profits taxes. Various forms of tax credits for veterans are also on the table, as is a handful of tobacco-related legislation. One bill would increase the tobacco tax, while another—this one regarding tobacco sales in state liquor stores—would decrease it. A bill that would increase the beer tax is also brewing.

life, marriage, death

Although most legislation is tied to the state budget in one way or another, some debates at the State House revolve more around personal values than cash worth.

Prominent New Hampshire abortion legislation that was appealed all the way to the federal Supreme Court will again emerge in the capitol this year. Up for debate: requirements of parental notification for abortions performed on minors and proof of counseling for young women under age 15 seeking an abortion. Another bill would prohibit the Department of Health and Human Services from entering into a contract with Planned Parenthood or any organization that provides abortion services.

In a separate bill related to minors, parental consent would be required for psychological evaluations by school districts.

The definition of marriage and the legality of same-sex civil unions have also been hotly contested issues of late, and New Hampshire will be no exception this year. While one bill proposes to “replac[e] marriage with civil unions” and another would authorize civil unions between one man and one woman, two others would prohibit New Hampshire from recognizing out-of-state same-sex civil unions and establish that only marriage between one man and one woman shall be recognized as a domestic union in this state.

Finally, the recent jury sentencing of convicted murderer Michael Addison to death is not necessarily the impetus for the bills related to the death penalty on the docket this year, but the visibility of that case will no doubt heighten the debate, which tends to be a perennial topic in the capitol.

Two bills, one of which would institute a temporary moratorium on executions, would establish a commission to study the death penalty in New Hampshire. Two others would repeal the death penalty outright (a switch that Gov. Lynch opposes), and a fifth would require the attorney general to request a life sentence instead of the death penalty “in certain circumstances.”

more to watch for

• 2009-H-0754-R: relative to a New Hampshire state house cat.
• 2009-H-0204-R: relative to the minimum age for fighting sports competitions.
• 2009-H-0232-R: relative to taking stones from stone walls.
• 2009-H-0254-R: prohibiting writing a text message while driving.
• 2009-H-0310-R: relative to a replica monument of the Old Man in the Mountain.
• 2009-H-0359-R: prohibiting banks from requiring blood samples, DNA samples or fingerprints in order to complete a transaction.
• 2009-S-0874-R: authorizing the electronic enforcement of traffic signal violations.
• 2009-S-0183-R: declaring the chinook the state dog of New Hampshire.
• 2009-S-0975-R:  relative to the use of audio and video recording devices by law enforcement officers.