Rep. James Parison (R-New Ipswich) has sponsored a bill to lower the permissible school drop-out age to 16.

In this last of three parts, we look at three bills that are part of the so-called Regular Calendar that are subject to floor debate and roll call votes. They’re measures regarding death penalty, the school drop out age, and voting.

To help you follow along, the committee names in red are linked to previous Front Door Politics dispatches on these bills.

Death Penalty

Criminal Justice and Public Safety

House Bill 147, sponsored by House Speaker William O’Brien (R-Mont Vernon), would expand the state’s death penalty statute to “include murder committed during home invasions where the killing is premeditated.” The vote comes during the trial in Nashua of a 21-year-old charged with the home invasion murder of a Mont Vernon woman in October 2009. The measure received a majority Ought to Pass recommendation by a 14-2 vote in committee.

Drop-Out Age

Education Committee *

It’s uncommon for a bill that doesn’t get any committee recommendation to still have a House roll call vote, but that’s just the case with House Bill 429, sponsored by Rep. James Parison (R-New Ipswich). The bill would allow students 16 or older to drop out of school with only parental permission and would reverse a 2007 law that raised the drop-out age to 18. The committee split 8-8 on a recommendation vote. Last week, Gov. John Lynch announced that the statewide drop-out rate had dropped below one percent in 2009-2010 — a 61 percent reduction since 2007-2008.

*Our original dispatch mistakenly reported that House Bill 429 would also require superintendent permission and an alternative learning plan. It would not, and that dispatch has been corrected.

Who Can Vote

Election Law

It’s also not often that a House roll call vote is scheduled for a bill that gets a majority Inexpedient to Legislate recommendation, but House Bill 176 is an exception to that rule. If passed, it would prohibit voting in New Hampshire for those who serve in the military or go to college and have so-called temporary “domicile” status in the state. It’s sponsored by Rep. Gregory Sorg (R-Easton). The committee rejected the bill 13-5. Look for an interesting floor debate.

>> The full House will be in session on Tuesday, March 15; Wednesday, March 16; and Thursday, March 17; all beginning at 9:00 a.m.

>> The Senate will meet in session on Wednesday, March 16, at 10:00 a.m.

>> Check the status of ALL the bills Front Door Politics has covered this session with our new 2011 Bill Tracker.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

House Speaker William O'Brien

House Speaker William O’Brien (R-Mont Vernon) has decided to have no full House sessions this week, allowing more time for committees to make their annual mad rush to beat the legislative calendar. In particular, there’s the March 10 (tomorrow) deadline to report all bills (except those in their second committee, like Finance). Meanwhile, the Crossover deadline of March 31 — when all House bills cross over to the Senate and vice versa — is creeping closer by the day.

This week’s meetings aside, beginning next Tuesday morning (March 15), O’Brien will crack the proverbial whip and keep lawmakers busy with three straight full House sessions, all beginning at 9:00 a.m. In that spirit, today we turn the spotlight on three of today’s executive session committee votes on bills we have followed this season.

Election Law Committee

Last month we highlighted the debate over two controversial bills: House Bill 176, which would not allow college students to vote in local or statewide elections if they weren’t originally residents of the town they live in for college; and House Bill 223, which if passed would disallow election day voter registration. We recommend listening to the audio files from the public hearings of both bills (HB 176 and HB 223).

>> Executive Session, House Election Law Committee, Legislative Office Building, Room 308, March 9, 10:30 a.m.

Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs

We highlighted House Bill 228 last month and today the full committee will vote on the measure to eliminate all state funding to Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. The organization provides family planning services and other health care programs and if the measure passes, it will save the state an estimated $365,000.

>> Executive Session, House Health, Human Services, and Elderly Affairs Committee, Legislative Office Building, Room 205, 10:00 a.m.

Criminal Justice and Public Safety

Back in December we initially reported that Speaker O’Brien had sponsored a measure to expand the state’s death penalty statute. House Bill 147 proposes to include a capital murder provision that reads “a person is guilty of capital murder if he or she knowingly causes the death of another, while in another’s residence, while attempting to enter another’s residence, or as a consequence of having been in another’s residence, without invitation or right.” O’Brien’s home town of Mont Vernon was the location of an October 2009 home invasion murder of a 42-year-old mother, whose 11-year-old daughter survived the same attack.

>> Executive Session, House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, Legislative Office Building, Room 204, 10:00 a.m.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

former Rep. Jim Splaine is pleased with the process but disappointed with the results

Formed in 2009, the commission has been meeting for more than a year. The bill establishing the study commission was sponsored by former Rep. Jim Splaine (D-Portsmouth), a death penalty opponent. He told The Portsmouth Herald that he was disappointed by the vote but appreciated the work all the members did in holding hearings and considering a wide range of information.

“For the first time in decades, I think we have a lot of data that will be used in the next realm of debates,” Splaine said. “From the testimony and realm of materials that the commission was able to pull together, even though I disagree with 12 of them, I think all 22 members did a fantastic job in trying to really understand what does the death penalty mean to society, what does it do, what are the ramifications.”

The Herald also cited commission member and former Portsmouth Police Detective Steve Arnold who said the commission’s close decision mirrored the country as a whole. “I am a proponent of the death penalty. As a retired police officer, I am adamant about that,” said Arnold, who now works with the New England Police Benevolent Association as the New Hampshire legislative and organizing director. “Clearly, there’s a majority, but it’s very close. Nationally, statistically, the country is split on this issue. Our committee basically confirmed that statistical analysis.”

For the 2011 session, House Speaker William O’Brien (R-Mont Vernon) had begun drafting a bill to expand the definition of capital murder. But a check yesterday on the quickly-being-updated House web site, the name of the bill sponsor has been changed to Rep. Jerry Bergevin (R-Manchester). For more about the commission and the process, see the Front Door Politics explainer post from Nov. 4 here. The Concord Monitor also had an informative follow up story on varying perspectives of commission members and the vote.

To paraphrase Bob Dylan, a hard budget rain is gonna fall

Gov. John Lynch finishes the second day of state agency budget hearings later today. According to the Associated Press, Lynch opened the hearings Friday by telling state agency heads they will have to make even tougher choices for the coming 2011-2013 budget. He said agency budgets need to be at a minimum 5 percent below current figures. Lynch said his goals are to keep state taxes the lowest in the nation, provide services for the most vulnerable citizens, and reform and modernize government to stretch taxpayer dollars as far as possible. The quandary is that by law, agencies must submit requests reflecting the cost of maintaining existing staff and programs. “That would cost the state $3.7 billion, or 31 percent more, for programs funded with state taxes over the next two years,” the story said. “The total budget when federal and other funding sources are added would be $12.4 billion, or a 14 percent increase over the past two years.”

Also according to the Associated Press, Department of Safety Commissioner John Barthelmes testified that his agency is already dealing with difficult financial challenges. He said understaffing, rising gasoline prices, an aging fleet of squad cars and increasing demands on the state by communities are straining his agency. As an example, state police drove 9.2 million miles during the last fiscal year (2009-2010) and didn’t replace any cruisers because of budget cuts, he said. The average mileage on cruisers is 89,000 and rising. “These are not regular miles. “These are hard miles,” Barthelmes said.

Expect more tales of budget woes from today, as well.

Death Penalty

The Commission to Study the Death Penalty will have its next to last regular meeting tomorrow in anticipation of a final report due Dec. 1. The Commission will meet at Room 208 in the Legislative Office Building at 9 a.m. tomorrow and again on Monday, Nov. 29 at the same time and location. (You can read an earlier explainer dispatch, complete with outdated scheduled references, here.)

Follow Up

The Concord Monitor took a good look Sunday at the fact, fiction and workable realities of the new and controversial parole law Senate Bill 500 that we have covered in Front Door Politics.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

New Hampshire currently has one inmate on death row in Concord and has not executed anyone since 1939. The death penalty study commission was formed in 2009 after Gov. John Lynch threatened to veto a bill that would have abolished the death penalty outright. House Bill 556 had just narrowly passed the House, but Lynch said, “I believe there are some crimes that are so heinous, the death penalty is warranted.” The Senate then tabled the bill. In 2000, then-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen did veto a bill to repeal the death penalty after it passed both the House and Senate.

Rep. Jim Splaine (D-Portsmouth) sponsored House Bill 520, which created the current study commission. It is charged with investigating a range of issues, including whether the death penalty serves the public interest as a deterrent, as punishment, or to instill “confidence in the criminal justice system.”

The state’s Capital Murder statutes are the only ones that allow for the death penalty. These crimes include killing of a public safety official or prosecutor; killing during a kidnapping; a contract or “murder for hire” killing; killing while serving a sentence of life in prison; and killing during a aggravated felonious sexual assault.

For the 2011 session, Rep. William O’Brien (R-Mont Vernon) has begun drafting a bill to expand the definition of capital murder. As Front Door Politics previously reported after the Mont Vernon murder of Kimberly Cates last year, O’Brien tried to submit a bill that would make murder in the course of a home invasion a crime eligible for the death penalty. The legislative filing period had passed, however, and the House voted to not suspend the rules to allow the late introduction. A bill to the same effect was introduced in the Senate, which operates on a slightly different schedule. Senate Bill 472 was referred for interim study and will be revisited next session.

Michael Addison is currently the only death row inmate in New Hampshire. He was convicted in 2008 of the shooting and killing of Manchester Police Officer Michael Briggs in 2006. Howard Long was hanged in 1939 for the molestation and killing of a 10-year-old Laconia boy.

The Commission to Study the Death Penalty has drawn national and statewide notice. Following a public meeting at Keene State College in September, an editorial in the Keene Sentinel asked “whether the death penalty has any effect on murder rates, positive or negative. Is it a deterrent, reducing the potential for future crimes, or does state-sanctioned killing cheapen the value of life? An FBI report, issued last week, lays out the chicken-and-egg conundrum. The lowest murder rate in the country is in the Northeast, where executions are exceptionally rare (the last one in New Hampshire was in 1939), and the highest murder rate is in the South, where executions are commonplace. Do murder rates drive execution rates, or is it the other way around?”

At its meeting tomorrow, the commission is expected to review its draft report (it did not prepare an interim report) in advance of issuing a final report on Nov. 15.

>> The Commission to Study the Death Penalty will meet in Rooms 206-208 in the Legislative Office Building on Friday, Nov. 5, at 9 a.m.

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

Meeting for only the second time since it took summer recess in June, House Speaker Terie Norelli (D-Portsmouth) had to remind the 400-member chamber to behave on several occasions when collective boos, cheers and jeers followed various speeches and votes.

This may help explain why lots of activity resulted in definitive votes on only 11 pieces of legislation, by her count. The remainder will be taken up in subsequent weeks.

electric assistance

The Senate’s first day back was largely ceremonial, but had some tension of its own over an attempt to fast-track Senate Bill 300. The bill would temporarily divert money from an energy efficiency program to an electric assistance program to help low-income utility customers. According to Senate President Sylvia Larsen (D-Concord), “8000 households … have already qualified for aid but are languishing on a waiting list.”

An informational session with public testimony was held prior to the fast-track vote, but even some sponsors of the bill say that a formal public hearing is still needed. Along party lines, Republicans blocked the Democrat-led measure. The public hearing is now scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 12.

SB 300 is expected to pass its Senate vote the next day and move immediately to a similar fast-track in the House. But it could run into the same problems with procedure.

The House Science, Technology and Energy Committee, expecting to already have the bill last week, went ahead with a previously scheduled hearing. But, since the bill was not in its official possession, that meeting can’t be called a “public hearing.” And without a public hearing, a special exception must be made to permit the House or Senate to vote.

Rep. Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) is House Minority Leader and is also a co-sponsor of SB 300. “It is a goal to have a full committee hearing,” said Legislative Aide Paul Smith, when asked about Packard’s intentions.

Nonetheless, House Speaker Terie Norelli (D-Portsmouth) is confident the House Democratic and Republican leadership are all in agreement. “We are prepared to ask the House to suspend rules to allow us to vote that day,” Norelli reported.

payday loans

Payday loans produced quite a stir when the House took up Senate Bill 193 on Wednesday. Its proposed amendments apply to a 36 percent Annual Percentage Rate cap on “payday and title loans,” passed in 2008. Many thought that law settled unfair practices with high-interest, short-term loans, but SB 193 would apply the same interest rate cap to all loans under $10,000, no matter what the loans are called.

Supporters of SB 193 contend that it really just clarifies the intent of the APR cap. Since the law singles out payday and title loans only, some lenders have “changed their practices and names slightly” since it passed, said Rep. Susi Nord (D-Candia). “They say the laws don’t aply to them.”

Nord said N.H. Banking Commissioner Peter Hildreth, who’s left to challenge unfair practices on a case-by-case basis, requested the clarification to bolster these prosecutions. SB 193 is supported by the Attorney General’s office, as well as several professional and consumer organizations, Nord said.

But, Rep. Stephen DeStefano (D-Bow) disputed Nord’s implication that the 2008 law contained a loophole. He said that before it took effect, there were over 100 payday lenders in the state. Only about 30 remain, he said, and under SB 193 there would be none.

“[T]his bill is overkill,” reads the majority report from the House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee, written by Rep. John Hunt (R-Rindge).

Since national banks and lenders operate outside the scope of the state’s banking commission, Hunt argues, “they can charge NH consumers whatever fees and interest rates they want to borrow money.” People who require short-term loans to get by, even at high interest rates, will be left with no choice but to borrow from national banks or Internet lenders, he wrote, leaving New Hampshire-based lenders out of the game.

The House narrowly missed the simple majority needed to kill SB 193. Subsequent legislative acrobatics produced a head-spinning flurry of motions that finally resulted in a two-session postponement on further voting, currently projected for January 20.

death penalty

Amidst all the bustle, a tense quiet blanketed the House chamber at one point Wednesday. It followed an attempt to introduce a bill referencing the Cates home invasion and murder in Mont Vernon last October.

That tragedy occurred just days after the Sept. 25 window closed for House members to file new legislation for 2010. Exceptions to the deadline are generally made only in urgent or unforeseable circumstances, according to House rules.

The bill in question, sponsored by Rep. William O’Brien, would add home invasion with intent to murder to the list of capital offenses. He argued that the Cates invasion and murder, which prompted the legislation, was certainly unforeseen.

Since laws cannot apply retroactively, the Mont Vernon case still would not be eligible for the death penalty. The urgency for O’Brien, then, is to “assure our constituents that when lives are taken in this way, justice has a chance to be served.”

On such an emotional issue as the Mont Vernon crimes, floor debate was quiet, but firm. So was displeasure that the motion did not pass.

“Was it unforeseen?” asked Rep. David Campbell (D-Nashua). Based on the “eerily similar” 2001 home invasion and double murder of Dartmtouh professors Suzanne and Half Zantop in Hanover, he concluded it was not.

“There have been seven legislative sessions (since then) when this could have been introduced,” Campbell testified. Therefore, he concluded, it must not be terribly urgent, either.

Rep. O’Brien later speculated that the true reason the “radically liberal” leadership didn’t want the bill introduced is that it would expose their stance against the death penalty as being out of step with the majority of the constituents of the state.

“This subject deserves full, fair and adequate consideration without danger of it becoming politicized,” said Rep. David Nixon (D-Manchester). Several other legislators indicated that they thought pursuing this expansion of capital punishment in direct response to the Mont Vernon incident was too close to the nerve to be seen clearly.

They also pointed to the death penalty study commission, whose report is due Dec. 1., saying that would be a more appropriate forum to examine home invasion as a capital offense.

The House voted down the late introduction 201-161. But, they may get to debate it yet, if a nearly identical Senate Bill co-sponsored by O’Brien passes that chamber. The Senate deadline for new bills being later than the House, that one was filed on time.

LLC taxation

One issue coming soon at the State House has already raised plenty of ire around the state: the LLC tax. It’s actually a 5 percent tax on interest and dividend income that exceeds “reasonable compensation.” Created in 1923 for state corporations, was extended to Limited Liability Companies in the final hours of budget negotiations last June.

Opponents criticize first the last-minute nature and perceived lack of transparency with which it was passed. The Department of Revenue Administration has also indicated the tax will be charged retroactively, starting Jan. 1, 2009. Combine that with confusion over how it will be implemented, and “the polite term is a briar patch,” said one LLC owner at a recent public hearing held by the Dept. of Revenue Administration in Plymouth.

The most prevalent complaint, though, is actually the same point on which even LLC tax proponents agree: There is no good definition of what constitutes reasonable compensation. This according to DRA Commissioner Kevin Clougherty, just about every LLC owner who’s given public testimony, and Rep. Susan Almy (D-Lebanon).

“It’s been very difficult for businesses and accountants to figure out what DRA would accept as reasonable compensation,” she said. The vague language and inconsistent methods DRA has used have been a problem for a long time for corporations, she said. Now, it’s a problem for LLCs, too.

House Bill 1607 tries to come up with a clear definition of what “reasonable compensation” is. Its public hearing is scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 14. Hearings on additional legislation, some of which seek outright repeal, have not yet been scheduled.

Still, the very concept of the state determining reasonable compensation, for any reason and based on any formula, is repugnant to many of the 100+ business owners who testified to DRA. “The only group of people qualified to determine what is reasonable compensation for me,” said one attendant at the Plymouth hearing, “is my customers.” He was met with much applause.

Several speakers’ indignant accusations that the LLC tax is an income tax fell somewhat flat, however. “Yes, it is,” replied Commissioner Clougherty simply. He pointed out that the Interest & Dividends Tax has been an income tax since its implementation in 1923, and is clearly marked as such in state tax codes.

fingerprints

The House also signed off on House Bill 299, preventing state-licensed banks from requiring fingerprints in order to complete a transaction. The state doesn’t have authority to apply the law to nationally chartered institutions like Bank of America, which does require a fingerprint of non-customers in order to cash a check drawn on one of the bank’s accounts.

Further prohibitions on requiring blood and DNA samples were removed before the bill passed because, according to testimony on the House floor, no banks currently have such a requirement.

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.

While the House and Senate decide whether to bring slot machines into New Hampshire to fund the state’s budget, smoke shops in the Granite State may be getting a new card up their sleeves. House Bill 392 creates a new liquor license, and it has passed both chambers.

In 2007, New Hampshire tightened its public smoking ban by adding bars and restaurants to its list of forbidden places to smoke. But, if HB 392 is signed by Gov. John Lynch, cigar bars can start serving their stogies with a swig, starting in 2010.

Rep. Edward Butler (D-Hart’s Location) co-sponsored HB 392 with Rep. John Hunt (R-Rindge). Butler doesn’t think it challenges existing policy. “There are many cigar bars … in states where smoking is banned in most public accommodations,” he says.

For the record, Butler says he is not a cigar smoker, but he thinks the bill is business-friendly. He’s not sure, however, how many shops will take the state up on its offer. “It’s a narrowly defined bill,” he says.

It’s a license to serve liquor, not to sell it for carry-out. Eligible shops would have to make at least 60 percent of their quarterly sales from cigars or cigar-related paraphernalia like humidors, cigar cutters, lighters and ashtrays.

Online and mail-order sales would not count for the 60 percent threshold, and neither would loose tobacco or cigarettes. Cigarette smoking and food service would not be permitted. “Minors” would also not be allowed in the bars, but exactly what minimum age that entails will be decided if the bill becomes a law. Finally, all job applicants at the establishment would have to receive a health warning about the dangers of second-hand smoke.

“I don’t see where it helps me any,” says Dave Ladisheff, owner of Dave’s Cigar Shop in Dover. “The way they’ve written the whole thing, it looks like they’re the ones making out,” he says. He points to the $840 annual liquor license and imagines purchasing his new stock from state liquor stores.

Ladisheff’s own customers have told him they wouldn’t be likely to buy a drink when they come in. That may make it easier for Ladisheff to keep the business dry. “I worked in night clubs for years,” he says. “Dealing with the public and alcohol is a nightmare.”

Adding insurance costs and the stress of liability, selling booze does not equate to a promising new business model for Dave’s. He does know some colleagues who are looking into expanding their business, however.

Happy Jack’s in Laconia has been in the tobacco business since 1945. Owner S. Peter Karagianis says that his current location is too small to entertain the idea of selling liquor, but he likes the law.

“They’re very gracious to let us operate our business the way we’d like. If you get my gist,” he says. Whether it relates to business or health, Karagianis says, he doesn’t like others thinking they know best.

death penalty study

Gov. Lynch is reportedly likely to sign a bill to study the death penalty in New Hampshire. House Bill 520 establishes a 22-person commission to examine capital punishment’s effectiveness in deterring crime, to measure its “decency” and the fairness with which it’s applied, to examine its costs, and to explore alternatives.

All this comes after quite a year for the topic. Two capital murder cases were tried in New Hampshire in 2008, resulting in one sentence of life imprisonment and one death sentence—the state’s first in 50 years. Five bills on the matter were considered in the current legislative session. HB 520 is the only one that passed both the House and Senate.

The very similar HB 512 also would have established a study commission, but suspended executions in the meantime. HB 556 would have repealed the death penalty altogether, and HB 557 would have banned the death penalty for cases in which the defendant pleads guilty. Still another, HB 37, provided for death by firing squad for anyone found guilty of killing someone with a gun in the act of a felony. Current practice would be lethal injection.

Rep. Jim Splaine (D-Portsmouth), who sponsored HB 520, says he worked closely with Attorney General Kelly Ayotte to strike the right balance of members on the commission. They include designates from the AG and public defender offices, law enforcement associations and the N.H. Mental Health Council.

A majority of commission members would represent relatives of murder victims and organizations concerned with the death penalty. Thirteen seats are to be appointed from the public by Gov. John Lynch, House Speaker Terie Norelli, and Senate President Sylvia Larsen.

Despite his support for the death penalty, Gov. Lynch has said he welcomes the study. Splaine says he’s hopeful the governor “will sign the bill with the good faith that it has been offered.”

Splaine also invites people “who have broad background on the pros and cons of the current death penalty laws (to) bring their talent and experience to the work of the Commission.” Anyone interested in serving on the commission, he says, is invited to contact Lynch (271-2121), Norelli (436-2108, terie.norelli@leg.state.nh.us) or Larsen (271-2111, sylvia.larsen@leg.state.nh.us).

Is allowing liquor sales in cigar bars hypocritical? 
Or should businesses be able to sell whatever they’d like? 
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.

Does the state have the right or responsibility to take the life of a convicted killer? Should certain murders be punishable by death? Such are the questions open to public debate in Concord on Tuesday, Feb. 10, when four bills related to the death penalty will be heard by the House Criminal Justice & Public Safety Committee.

The subject comes up often at the State House, but attention to this year’s bills may be heightened due to two capital murder cases tried last year—a high number for New Hampshire. Both well publicized, Michael Addison’s killing of police officer Michael Briggs resulted in the death penalty, while John Brooks’ conviction of murder-for-hire produced a sentence of life in prison.

For some background, the death penalty can be applied to six different circumstances of murder in New Hampshire: killing a law enforcement officer, killing during a kidnapping, paying someone or being paid to kill, killing after being sentenced to life in prison without parole, and killing in the course of a rape or certain drug offenses. According to the criminal code, the state’s death penalty is reserved for individuals 18 or older at the time their crimes were committed. Gov. Lynch has stated that supports the state’s right to seek capital punishment. The last execution held in the state was in 1939.

Debates don’t get much bigger than life or death, but these bills are only four of many dozens of subjects being worked out in Concord. Next week alone, the House and Senate will hold 149 and 28 public hearings, respectively, plus many work sessions and executive sessions on other bills.

establish death penalty study commission and/or institute a temporary moratorium

HB 512: study the death penalty and suspend executions, David Pierce (D-Etna)
HB 520: study the death penalty, James Splaine (D-Portsmouth)
public hearings Tuesday, Feb. 10
House Criminal Justice & Public Safety Committee

House Bills 512 and 520 would both establish a commission to study the death penalty in New Hampshire. According to HB 512 sponsor Rep. Pierce, the part his bill that outlines the commission was copied verbatim from a 2008 bill that passed the House; HB 520 matches this language almost exactly. Both commissions would consist of members of the House and Senate, law enforcement professionals, and members of the public appointed by the governor. And both would study the same aspects of capital sentencing: Is it an effective crime deterrent? Does it match our social standards of decency? Is it fair, cost-effective, and worth the risk of making irreversible mistakes? Does it address the interests of victims’ families? In addition, HB 520 asks “whether and how the death penalty affects the behavior or beliefs of the young people of the state.” The commission reports would be due in late fall 2010, and both bills would take effect upon passage.

The major difference between the them is that HB 512 would temporarily suspend executions until the findings of the study commission could be considered. The hold would last until Nov. 1, 2011, giving the state a year to process the commission’s report and take any further action called for. HB 520 would not call for such a moratorium.

Rep. Pierce explains two concepts behind his suggestion. First, he says, it would signify the seriousness of the commission’s work. “Why bother with the commission,” he asks, if executions won’t be put on hold to wait for its findings? The second reason is a political attempt to provide common ground among opponents and proponents of the death penalty. He hopes that it essentially would buy time for the commission to do its work, suspending not only executions, but also the debate over whether or not there should be any in the first place.

repeal or limit the death sentence

HB 556-FN: repeal the death penalty, Steven Lindsey (D-Keene)
HB 557: life sentence if the defendant pleads guilty, Steven Lindsey (D-Keene)
public hearings Tuesday, Feb. 10
House Criminal Justice & Public Safety Committee

It may seem odd that the same person sponsoring a bill to repeal the death penalty has also sponsored a bill that would eliminate the possibility of a death sentence if the defendant pleads guilty. But Rep. Lindsey sees it clearly. He’s covering his bases. If repealing the death penalty doesn’t pass (and he says that he’s not hopeful for its fate), then “maybe the other does,” he says.

In an extensive fiscal note attached to House Bill 556, the Judicial Branch, the Dept. of Justice, and the Judicial Council state that repealing the death penalty—which, in essence, would replace “capital murder” with “first degree murder” in the criminal code—may save their departments significant money. The NH Association of Counties is unclear about its impact on county expenses, and the Dept. of Corrections expects that it would cost the state prison system more money due to longer incarceration periods for would-be capital convictions.

However, as the Dept. of Justice points out, it’s impossible to predict how many capital murder cases may be tried in years to come, so it’s also impossible to forecast related costs or savings.

For his part, Rep. Lindsey says it’s not about the money the state may or may not save, “and I’m not even going to bring up the race issue or the class issue … For me, it’s about morality.” Morality, and something else. “Once you give the state the power of life or death, you give the state the power over every other aspect of our lives,” he says.

What do you think about the death penalty?  
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.

© 2009 Niles Media “Front Door Politics” all rights reserved