House Bill 82 will have its first Senate hearing later today. Sponsored by Rep. Laura Pantelakos (D-Portsmouth), HB 82 passed the House by a voice vote in February. The measure is the fruit of a legislative study committee formed last year to provide recommendations to update the annulment law for the first time in almost four decades.

The main issue with the current statute is this: While a conviction may be removed from official records, that annulled conviction isn’t necessarily removed from public databases outside the courts with seemingly infinite storage capacity (like online search engines or media archives).

The first criminal record annulment statute was passed by the New Hampshire Legislature in 1971 and allows for a process to remove a conviction from the public record. The process works like this:

1. Depending on the type of conviction and after a period ranging from one to 10 years following conviction, a person can request an annulment.
2. A judge decides whether to grant the annulment after considering input from state and local police, the local prosecutor and correction officials.
3. Conviction records for murder, felonious sexual assaults and other violent crimes cannot be annulled. The number of granted annulments has increased from about 800 criminal cases in 1997 to more than 4,000 in 2009.
4. With narrow law enforcement exceptions under current law, any person who discloses information about an annulled conviction can be charged with a misdemeanor.

The leaking of an annulled record to a Portsmouth Herald reporter during the Rockingham County Sheriff election in 2008 was one of the main factors that led to the study committee and to HB 82.

The most significant change in law the bill would bring is to eliminate legal ramifications for journalists reporting both a previous criminal record and a subsequent annulment. Annulments also would become public records that courts would be required to release upon request — and media organizations would not be required to revise details of a conviction or deny public access to that content.

One fundamental pillar from the old statute will remain in effect: Those with annulled criminal records will still be able to truthfully say that they have no criminal record.

>> Thursday, May 12, Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on pending House legislation, including HB 82. Hearings begin at 1 p.m. in Room 101 of the Legislative Office Building in Concord.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

Marijuana photo by Scott Beale / Laughing Squid

Later today, the N.H. Senate will vote on House Bill 442, which would allow people to legally use marijuana to treat certain diseases, under narrow qualifying exceptions and with a medical doctor’s recommendation.

The bill has strong bipartisan sponsorship from both chambers, including Rep. Evalyn Merrick (D-Lancaster), the bill’s prime sponsor, and Sen. James Forsythe (R-Strafford). And the House overwhelmingly passed the measure by a 221-96 vote in March.

In a closer 3-2 vote and with many suggested changes, the Senate Health and Human Services Committee has given it a narrow recommendation. Among the many amendments the committee would like to see are a controlled patient ID system and state-licensed (but not state-funded) alternative treatment centers to distribute the drug. (You can read the complete amendment by going to the May 5 Senate calendar page here, then scrolling down the amendments in numerical order to HB 442.)

Veto History — and Future

Supporters say that, if passed, the bill would create the strictest medical marijuana law in the country. But Gov. John Lynch is not among the bill’s supporters. He vetoed a similar measure in 2009, and has vowed to do the same this year, saying there simply aren’t enough legal safeguards.

He’s not readying his veto pen yet, though. House Bill 442, if it passes the Senate today with the committee’s suggested amendments, will still need to go back to the House for approval of those changes. Only when it’s passed both chambers will it go to Lynch’s desk.

Two years ago, the House had enough votes to override the veto, but the Senate fell two votes short of the two-thirds majority required.

If it eventually passes this session, New Hampshire would join 15 other states — including neighboring Vermont and Maine — and the District of Columbia in permitting medical marijuana.

>> Wednesday, May 11, full Senate session beginning at 10 a.m. at the State House.

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

Nanny rates

On Wednesday, the House defeated a bill to re-allow a variation of so-called “payday loans” — short-term, high-interest loans — that lawmakers banned in 2009. The vote on Senate Bill 160 was narrow at 186-179, and the issue generated passion and contrasting views on the role of government.

“What have we come to? We were elected to get government off our backs and no more nanny states. I’m really disturbed,” said Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester).

“This will make loan sharking an acceptable business,” said Rep. Donna Schlachman (D-Exeter). “It’s state-regulated usury.”

Stuck in the middle

A Senate committee has voted to kill a House measure that would withdraw New Hampshire from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Sen. Jeb Bradely (R-Wolfeboro) is trying to keep RGGI alive, but make it a whole lot different.

“There are people who want to keep the program exactly as is, and there are people who want to repeal outright. We’ve got a long way to go with this,” Sen. Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro) told the Concord Monitor about the amendment to House Bill 519 he plans to introduce on the Senate floor next Wednesday.

The article says his plan would lower the cap for the price of carbon from $9 per ton to $1 per ton (it’s currently $1.86). It would also turn that money back over to utilities, rather than use it to fund a state-administered grant program for renewable and efficient energy projects.

Power pleas

The House voted 261-104 to pass its version of Senate Bill 148, which would return any federal grant money for health care reform and force the state Attorney General to join the multi-state lawsuit against the law. The debate on the House floor was pointed and sharp.

“We don’t want to do anything, anything that will allow this federal law to plant its poisonous seeds in our state,” said Rep. Andrew Manuse (R-Derry).

“I urge you to read article 37 (of the state Constitution), use your common sense, deny this lust for power and defeat this amendment,” said Rep. Gary Richardson (D-Hopkinton).

Accounting jujitsu

Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester) was puzzled by a Senate Finance Committee amendment to House Bill 635. It would cut the Department of Corrections budget by $10.5 million by sending 600 prisoners from the state prison in Concord to an as-yet unknown location run by private companies.

“I really didn’t see any materials that indicated we could save $10.5 million. I didn’t know where they were going, how they were going to get there, what the costs would be,” said D’Allesandro, who was the only Finance Committee member to vote against the bill.

On Wednesday, the full Senate did not take up the amendment and the bill was returned to the Finance Committee.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

Sen. Tom De Blois (R-Manchester) sponsored the Senate's bill to fight the feds on health care reform.

The House version of Senate Bill 148, sponsored by Sen. Tom DeBlois (R-Manchester) requires the Attorney General to join the multi-state lawsuit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and requires New Hampshire to reject some $600,000 in federal grant money to help the state set up a health care exchange as provided for in last year’s law.

“This bill sends the Obamacare money back to Washington with specific instructions to use it to reduce our massive federal deficit,” O’Brien said in a press release. “Obamacare has been found unconstitutional by two federal courts and we are awaiting the final decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Spending that sort of money to comply with a mandate that is three years away and stands on very shaky ground makes no sense.”

Daily Briefing notes that the reform act’s unconstitutionality is far from a foregone conclusion; the law been upheld by two different federal district courts. Also, if the state doesn’t use the federal money to set up a health care exchange network, the federal government will set up an exchange of its own. And finally, New Hampshire can suggest, and even suggest nicely, but Granite State legislators have no legal authority over what the federal government does with money the state returns.

Senate Bill 148 now returns to the Senate, which may or may not take a dim view of the House amendments — especially because the Senate had merely suggested (not required) that N.H. Attorney General Michael Delaney join the lawsuit.

Lynch will have a couple weeks before he has to make a decision either way on SB 148. But whether he simply lets the bill become law or risks an override, Daily Briefing believes this one ultimately will be decided in state court.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

>> During the next few weeks as more bills are hashed out between the House and Senate, the Daily Briefing will highlight some of the more controversial, interesting and frankly obvious decisions awaiting lawmakers and Lynch.

We’d also like to hear from you: What bills are you tracking and which ones should Lynch sign or veto? (Comments below, policy here.)

Expect a spirited debate when the House votes on Senate Bill 129 in its full session Wednesday.

The rules

If enacted, the measure would go into effect before the 2012 general election and would require voters to present an approved form of identification to ballot clerks before being given a ballot.

Those without a proper form of ID — such as a driver’s license, military ID, or a state-issued photo ID — would be allowed to cast a provisional ballot and would have three days to present proper ID to voting officials.

The controversy

The measure steps into a Constitutional minefield of issues, starting with the possibility that it infringes on the right to vote by creating onerous safeguards. According to a Nashua Telegraph story this morning, Assistant Attorney General Matthew Mavrogeorge told members of the House Republican Caucus that requiring voters to pay $10 for a state-issued ID may violate the N.H. Constitution and amount to a “poll tax,” which was outlawed by the 24^th amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1964. One provision in the amended bill would allow potential voters who couldn’t afford the $10 to apply for a voucher.

House Speaker William O’Brien (R-Mont Vernon) has thrown his full leadership weight behind SB 129. Sponsored by Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry), the bill passed the Senate in March by a nearly party-line 18-6 vote. O’Brien is quoted in the Telegraph story as saying that the costs to vote are reasonable because “there are costs to vote today” such as time off from work or paying for gas to get to the polls.

Opponents of the bill say it’s unnecessary, targets a phantom issue and creates additional costs for local election officials.

While there have been a handful of investigations by the offices of the Secretary of State and Attorney General, there has been only one substantiated case of voter fraud in the past decade in New Hampshire. Secretary of State Bill Gardner has long contended that the state doesn’t have such a problem.

In a blistering minority report opposing the bill, Rep. David Pierce (D-Etna) said the bill should have been retained because the Election Law Committee failed to carefully consider the constitutional implications:

“The committee did not discuss whether the bill is constitutional under Part I, Article 11 of the New Hampshire constitution. The committee never even discussed the framework that should be used to analyze its constitutionality. The committee couldn’t answer the question about whether the bill would be subject to the constitution’s rational basis test or to a strict scrutiny analysis. The list of substantial and genuine questions about the bill goes on and on. … The right to vote is the most fundamental right we have to keep government in its place. We ought to know what we’re doing before we reform it in such a profound and fundamental way.”

The Daily Briefing expects SB 129 will pass handily — and, if it becomes law, that its constitutionality ultimately will be decided in the state Supreme Court.

>> Wednesday, May 4, full House session vote on SB 129. Session begins at 10:00 a.m. at Representatives Hall in the State House.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

Do you want to show your ID when you go to vote next time? Would you trust ballot results more if your neighbors had to?

(Comments below, policy here.)

We’re tracking an effort by New Hampshire lawmakers to get the Attorney General to join other states in challenging the constitutionality of last year’s federal health care reform law.

The proposals may or may not amount to anything more than political posturing and a lengthy court battle. But as they play out, they illustrate tension between the states and the federal government, plus a debate within New Hampshire about separation of powers.

the campaign

The next step comes Wednesday when the House meets in full session to vote on — and likely approve — Senate Bill 148, which Republican House leadership has heavily amended.

The Senate version says the attorney general “should, as soon as practicable, join the lawsuit” in federal courts. The House’s amendment orders the AG to do so, saying he “shall, no later than July 1, 2011,” move to join the suit.

The House would also order the executive branch to return more than $600,000 in federal grant money coming to New Hampshire under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The reason for returning those funds, as stated in the amendment itself, is “for the purpose of reducing the federal budget deficit.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office, after full implementation of the law in 2014, it will save more than $1 trillion in federal spending during the following decade.

You can see the full amendment and original version below.

In his majority “ought to pass” recommendation report for the amended House version, Rep. Andrew Manuse (R-Derry) said SB 148 sends “a clear message that New Hampshire will neither be a willing participant in this health care scheme that will rob consumers of freedom and drive up costs to state and federal taxpayers, nor will it waste federal taxpayer dollars on implementing a law that will likely be invalidated ultimately.”

The crux of the legal battle is the individual mandate provision, of which Manuse said, “No resident of the ‘Live Free or Die’ state should ever be forced to buy health insurance or face a penalty.”

the resistance

Gov. John Lynch will likely veto whichever version reaches his desk. Attorney General Michael Delaney has said any measure to require his office to join the multi-state legal battle (which is being pursued exclusively by Republican governors) is an unconstitutional breach of separation of powers that he will fight in state court.

In her minority report rebuttal, Rep. Donna Schlachman (D-Exeter) said consumers are already benefiting from the law’s provisions now in effect. Those provisions include small business tax credits for offering health care coverage, payments to seniors for Medicare drug prescription coverage, allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance coverage to age 26, and a halt to pre-existing condition restrictions for children.

Beyond its symbolism, she said, “this bill does nothing to improve health care access or affordability for businesses and individuals in New Hampshire.”

the federal case

It’s too soon to know which constitutional, political and policy arguments will prevail. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined a request for an expedited hearing by Virginia’s attorney general. The legal fight will make its way through the federal courts in the coming months.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

>> Wednesday, May 4, full House vote on SB 148, Representative’s Hall at the State House, 10:00 a.m.

Here is the House’s amended version of SB 148:

Amend the title of the bill by replacing it with the following:

AN ACT relative to health insurance coverage, requiring the attorney general to join the lawsuit challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and requiring federal grant moneys received by the state for implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be returned to the federal government.

Amend the bill by replacing all after section 1 with the following:

2  Statement of Findings.  The general court finds that:

I.  Several federal courts have ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional and at least one federal court has ruled the act nonseverable.

II.  The New Hampshire insurance department has accepted federal moneys for implementation of a law which is likely to be ruled unconstitutional and therefore is likely to be invalidated.

III.  The general court is concerned with the spending of all tax dollars, whether at the state or federal level, when the federal government is running a massive structural deficit.

3  Lawsuit Challenging the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  The attorney general shall, no later than July 1, 2011, move to join the state of New Hampshire as a plaintiff in the lawsuit pending in federal court captioned State of Florida et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al.

4  Funds From Grants Returned to Department of Health and Human Services.  The state treasurer shall return any grant funds received by the insurance department for purposes of implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to the federal Department of Health and Human Services for the purpose of reducing the federal budget deficit.

5  Effective Date.

I.  Section 1 of this act shall take effect July 1, 2011.

II.  The remainder of this act shall take effect upon its passage.

AMENDED ANALYSIS 
  This bill:

I.  Provides that a resident of New Hampshire shall not be required to obtain, or be assessed a fee or fine for failure to obtain, health insurance coverage.

II.  Requires the attorney general to join the state of New Hampshire as a plaintiff in the lawsuit pending in federal court captioned State of Florida et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al.

III.  Requires certain grant moneys received by the New Hampshire insurance department for the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be returned to the federal government.

Original version of SB 148:

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven

AN ACT relative to health insurance coverage and declaring that the attorney general should join the lawsuit challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Section; Insurance Department; Health Insurance Coverage. Amend RSA 400-A by inserting after section 14 the following new section:

400-A:14-a Health Insurance Coverage. No resident of this state, regardless of whether he or she has or is eligible for health insurance coverage under any policy or program provided by or through his or her employer, or a plan sponsored by the state or the federal government, shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage except as required by a court or the department of health and human services where an individual is named a party in a judicial or administrative proceeding. No provision of this title shall render a resident of this state liable for any penalty, assessment, fee, or fine as a result of his or her failure to procure or obtain health insurance coverage. This section shall not apply to individuals voluntarily applying for coverage under a state-administered program pursuant to Title XIX or Title XXI of the Social Security Act. This section shall not apply to students being required by an institution of higher education to obtain and maintain health insurance as a condition of enrollment. Nothing in this section shall impair the rights of persons to privately contract for health insurance for family members or former family members.

2 Lawsuit Challenging the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The attorney general should, as soon as practicable, join the lawsuit (State of Florida et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al.) challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

3 Effective Date.

I. Section 1 of this act shall take effect July 1, 2011.

II. The remainder of this act shall take effect upon its passage.

The Senate votes tomorrow on a bill to bring the probate and district courts and the judicial family branch under one umbrella. The reorganization would bring lots of staffing and management changes and reductions, with an overall projected savings of almost $1.5 million in staffing costs in the next four years.

The idea behind House Bill 609, sponsored by Rep. Gary Richardson (D-Hopkinton), can be found in a major report by the Judicial Branch Innovation Commission. The report also called for New Hampshire courts to enter the digital age, and asks for $5 million to help them do it.

reorganizing

The Innovation Commission was established by the N.H. Supreme Court in March 2010 to figure out how the courts could meet increased demand at the same time the system was facing budget cuts. Headed by Eric Herr of Bristol, the commission is a group of judges, lawmakers, business leaders and experts from the National Center for State Courts.

The reorganization and attendant staffing changes comprise the report’s primary call to action. And it’s got traction. With some changes, HB 609 passed the House last week without objection. According to the Judicial Branch’s fiscal note in the bill, here’s a short list of what it would do:

• The reorganization would not close any court locations.
• Marital master positions would gradually be bumped up to full-time judgeships, with benefits.
• The positions of 42 clerks of court and 10 elected registers of probate would be converted to 18 regional clerks, 3 deputy clerks and 23 court assistants.
• The salary for registers of probate, who would be required to live in the county where their probate records are kept, would be reduced to $100 per year.

Allowing for some increases in budget line items, but more in savings, the branch estimates HB 609 would save nearly $1.5 million in personnel costs in the next four years.

But, sometimes it costs money to save money, according to Laura Kiernan, Communications Director for the Judicial Branch. The House’s recently proposed operating budget offered about $2.9 million more to the courts than Gov. John Lynch suggested at the beginning of the year.

That extra money is “intended to help accelerate some of the circuit court changes,” says Kiernan. She points to creating a centralized call center and expanding the court’s use of video conferencing as initiatives that save money in the long run, but cost to set up.

e-Courts

The Innovation Commission also proposed bringing New Hampshire courts into the digital age with an “e-Court” system, pegged at about $5 million to start up. This isn’t part of HB 609, but is handled through the budgeting process, instead.

Money for the e-Court system would mostly come from the state’s Capital Budget, where the House has written in $1.9 million specifically for its launch.

If funded, the project would take about five years to implement, ultimately introducing e-filing, electronic payments of fines and fees, and digitized court records to the Granite State’s court system. Lawyers, people involved in cases, and the public would have online access to the files.

Q&A

Can the courts can deliver better service with fewer resources? Do they have a choice?

Share your thoughts in the comments box below (policy here).

>> The House is not in session this week; it meets next for full session votes on April 27 at 10:00 a.m.

>> Wednesday, April 20, 10 a.m., full session of the Senate (State House, Senate Chambers).

This Daily Dispatch was written by Hilary Niles.

Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry) has proposed a new way to settle the JUA controversy.

Senate Bill 170 first forbids the state from claiming any surplus funds from the Joint Underwriting Association — either through legislation or taxation. It also orders that any “excess surplus” funds be distributed to policyholders. That excess measures at least $110 million, according to the bill. And that $110 million is at the core of the two-year controversy.

A House committee will hold a public hearing on SB 170 Tuesday.

the backstory

The JUA (officially known as the New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association) is an otherwise unknown structure. Founded in 1981 by the N.H. Legislature, it was designed to help doctors, hospitals and other medical providers find affordable medical malpractice insurance through a state-administered not-for-profit agency.

Over the years, plenty of money has built up at the JUA from premium payments made by policyholders. The fund goes beyond a prudent reserve, some say, to the point of having “excess” surplus funds.

The JUA became a political flashpoint in 2009, when Gov. John Lynch and Democratic budget writers tried to transfer $110 million in surplus JUA money into the state’s general fund to help balance the budget for 2010 and 2011.

As we noted in an earlier post on SB 170, JUA shareholders were joined by Republicans in fighting the transfer, saying lawmakers had no right to the money. The Lynch administration countered that the people had a right to benefit from the surplus JUA funds because the state had established the entity in the first place.

Eventually, the JUA won a lawsuit that reached the N.H. Supreme Court. In its ruling, the Court said the tax-exempt JUA is a private agency, even though the IRS allows it to function within state government.

the new story

Senate Bill 170, sponsored by Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry), codifies the court’s ruling and goes a step further by prohibiting any possible taxation on the funds. It also orders that the current excess be distributed among shareholders, effectively emptying the cookie jar.

In a full Senate vote, even Democratic members who had formerly supported the Lynch administration’s stance on JUA supported SB 170 as it passed by a 23-1 vote. Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester) was the sole objector.

If SB 170 passes, that won’t mean that the JUA controversy itself is anywhere near over. Check out this Foster’s article on continued legal fallout.

Q&A

Is it about time for SB 170? Or does it go too far in prohibiting any possible taxation on the JUA’s surplus funds? And is it for the Legislature or the courts to order that excess money be distributed to shareholders?

Let us know your thoughts using the comments box below. (Comments Policy)

>> Tuesday, April 19, 10 a.m., House Executive Departments and Administration Committee public hearings on SB 170 and other legislation. An executive session is scheduled at 1:15 p.m . (Legislative Office Building, Room 306).

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

Most state senators and representatives think so. The N.H. House and Senate have both passed bills to get state Attorney General Michael Delaney to join a multi-state lawsuit fighting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which President Obama signed into law in March 2010. So far, more than two dozen other states have joined the lawsuit, which challenges the constitutionality of the federal law.

The difference between the House and Senate’s persuasive approaches is the difference between “must” and “should.”

The House Approach

House Bill 89, sponsored by Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R-Kingston), is short and to-the-point: “The attorney general shall, no later than July 1, 2011, move to join the state of New Hampshire as a plaintiff in the lawsuit pending in federal court captioned State of Florida et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al.”

Weyler’s bill passed two House committees (including a new committee on constitutional review) and two floor votes with a veto-proof majority.

The Senate Approach

Sponsored by Sen. Tom DeBlois (R-Manchester) and 16 of his Senate colleagues, Senate Bill 148 takes a slightly different tack. It makes more of a suggestion that Delaney “should, as soon as practicable, join the lawsuit …”

It also undermines a key provision of the federal health care reform approach, asserting that no resident of New Hampshire can be required to obtain health insurance, nor be fined for going without coverage. That essentially would void the applicability of the federal mandate that individuals must have insurance (which is scheduled to be in place in 2014 at the earliest).

Having passed the Senate with a veto-proof majority, SB 148 will get its second public hearing of the session, today in the House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee.

The Debate

Democratic critics of the House measure have called it a waste of time and money, as well as an unconstitutional encroachment of the Legislature into executive branch functions.

If passed, Delaney says he would fight the law in state court. And that brings up an interesting note: The final House budget bill, which is now being tweaked in the Senate, included a provision preventing the N.H. Department of Justice from taking any legal action against the state Legislature.

Even if passed, either law may be rendered moot depending on the final outcome of pending federal court challenges. So far, two federal district courts have upheld the health care reform law and two district courts have struck part or all of the law.

Q&A

What do you think about states fighting the federal insurance mandate: wasted time or principled stands?

Share your thought using the comments box below!

>> Thursday, April 14, 10:00 a.m., House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee public hearings on SB 148 and other legislation (Legislative Office Building, Room 302).

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

As folks in the Seacoast are learning, you wait.

The long-anticipated Hampton-Exeter District court construction may get put off for another four years. The deadline to choose a permanent location for the combined district court already passed on the first of this year. Senate Bill 36 would extend it further to Jan. 1, 2015.

The House Judiciary Committee will hold a public hearing Thursday on the measure, sponsored by Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester). It passed unopposed in the Senate back in February.

The towns that would be served by the new combined court are Brentwood, East Kingston, Exeter, Epping, Fremont, Hampton, Hampton Falls, Kensington, Newfields, Newmarket, North Hampton, Seabrook, South Hampton and Stratham.

why the new court

In 2005, the Legislature set the current deadline for a new court that combined the Hampton and Exeter district court facilities. That move came after Supreme Court Justice John Broderick, whose office oversaw the entire New Hampshire court system, closed down the old facilities in both towns because they were considered “uninhabitable.” The state decided it would no longer to pay for two facilities, so the two courts were to combine functions.

why the delay

Despite a few close breakthroughs on finding the right property and legislative funding, the Exeter and Hampton courts remain separate — with neither located in either Exeter or Hampton. The Exeter District Court is located at the Rockingham County Superior Court complex in Brentwood and the Hampton District Court is located off a side road in Seabrook.

The project was hampered by being second in line behind a new Merrimack District Court, and budget cuts to the state court system haven’t helped. The last strong effort was derailed in 2008 when a bill to fund the project was shelved in the former House Public Works and Highways Committee.

questions and actions

Is delaying this combined court an exercise in being penny smart and pound foolish? Or should brick-and-mortar construction projects take a back seat during tough economic times?

Have you been involved in a case tried at the Exeter or Hampton courts? Tell us what you think using the comments box below. (Read the Comments Policy first, please!)

>> For a great collection of stories tracking the court building saga, go to the Hampton Library web site, which has compiled the selection.

>> Thursday, April 14, 10:00 a.m., House Judiciary Committee public hearing on SB 36 and other legislation. An executive session may follow. (Legislative Office Building, Room 208).

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