A recent campfire at Front Door Politics headquarters burns safely.

Case in point: A proposed law about residential fire sprinklers provides an intriguing confluence between personal liberty, public safety and local control. When the N.H. House votes later today on Senate Bill 91, it will offer one perspective on the cost of liberty.

Fire Codes

The Senate passed SB 91, sponsored by Sen. Boutin (R-Hooksett), back in February. If it becomes law, the bill would disallow any town or city in New Hampshire from requiring “automatic fire suppression sprinklers” in one- or two-family homes.

New Hampshire is just one of many states having this same debate. In Pennsylvania and Georgia, for example, lawmakers are either enacting similar bans or delaying enforcement of existing laws. Meanwhile, fire protection and home building organizations are fighting it out to influence public and political opinion on the economic costs and benefits of such fire protection systems.

And the subject isn’t new in New Hampshire. Another bill this session would prevent planning boards from requiring fire sprinklers in one- or two-family homes. House Bill 109, having passed the House without debate, now awaits Senate committee recommendation. And in 2010, the Legislature removed fire sprinklers for the same sized dwellings from the state fire code with House Bill 1486.

For and Against

In the majority committee report supporting the bill, Rep. John Burt (R-Goffstown) writes that the measure is “consumer friendly” to homebuyers in the state and “is a safeguard to personal liberty by preserving an individual’s choice whether or not to purchase such a system for their home.”

But in the minority report, Rep. Kris Roberts (D-Keene) says SB 91 strips away a local government’s ability to achieve public safety ends. Roberts also says that a “one size fits all” approach doesn’t work for all communities and can ultimately increase costs through higher insurance rates and more municipal public safety spending. “We shouldn’t be using the power of the government to require the majority to assume the cost of the moral hazard,” Roberts said.

>> The House will meet in full session beginning at 10 a.m. today in Representative’s Hall at the State House.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

Would having to install a $4500+ fire sprinkler system in a new house discourage you from building? Do you want your town or the state to decide if fire sprinklers are required?

Is this bill even about fire sprinklers?

(Comments below, policy here.)

In the Granite State, the answer hinges not just on “when,” but also “where” deadly force is used. It’s known as the Castle Doctrine (as in, “a man’s home is his castle”) and the N.H. House and Senate are taking up two bills in the coming week to change it.

The Castle Doctrine says that someone in his or her own home is permitted to use deadly force in self-defense or to protect another person from a rape, kidnapping, or other serious crime. According to currrent law in New Hampshire, if you’re not at home, you must retreat if you’re able to do so safely. The doctrine does not apply to people who pick fights (otherwise known as “initial aggressors”) in situations involving deadly force.

where you have a reasonable right to be

House Bill 210 would bring the doctrine outside the domain of the “castle.” Permission to use deadly force in self-defense or to protect another person would be granted to anyone “who is in any place where he or she has a right to be or reasonably believed he or she had a right to be….”

House Bill 210, sponsored by Rep. Richard Okerman (R-Windham), passed the House along mostly partisan lines by a veto-proof 270-92 majority on March 15. Its second public hearing will be held Thursday in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

duty to retreat

Meanwhile, a related bill passed the Senate last week by a veto-proof 17-7 majority. It will receive its second public hearing in the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, April 12.

Senate Bill 88, sponsored by Sen. David Boutin (R-Hooksett) would remove a person’s “duty to retreat” from an encounter involving deadly force. It also adds that a person who brandishes a firearm or other means of self-defense — as long as they have a right to be where they are — is not guilty of criminal threatening.

fiscal impacts

The fiscal note for HB 210 includes observations by a few state agencies that suggest their costs may go down thanks to fewer criminal cases or incarcerations. Or they could go up, due to more potential homicide investigations.

Neither the Judicial Branch, Judicial Council, Department of Justice, Department of Corrections, or N.H. Association of Counties were able to predict the number of their current cases that would have been changed by a different Castle Doctrine, much less the number of future cases that may be subject to it.

veto option

Gov. John Lynch vetoed a similar measure in 2006. But with veto-proof votes so far on both bills, he may have to be very persuasive to not have a veto overridden, should he choose to use it.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

Have you ever had to use force protect yourself or someone else — or have you been protected by someone who used force to help you? Would it have made a difference where you were?

Share your thoughts on the Castle Doctrine using the comment box below. (See our Comments Policy first, please!)

In particular, we’ll focus on the state Senate, which meets in session Wednesday to consider more than 34 bills and amendments.

The proposals cover a wide range of issues — from a constitutional amendment giving the governor line item veto authority over the state budget to increasing the allowable size of off-highway recreational vehicles on state trails.

It’s all a part of government, folks.

Charge It

Senate Bill 56 >> This would allow the Department of Revenue Administration to accept tax payments by credit and debit card. Sponsored by Sen. Robert Odell (R-Lempster), SB 56 also would allow the DRA to enact a usage service charge.

The bill’s fiscal note says New Hampshire currently handles some 265,000 checks every two years, at a cost of $592,553 annually. Plus, the note indicates, the state pays about $87,000 annually for armored car services and $18,550 in bank fees. Senate Bill 56 passed the Senate Finance Committee with a unanimous 7-0 vote.

Line Item

CACR 5 >> New Hampshire is one of six states in which the governor does not have line item veto power over the state budget, but CACR 5 sponsor Sen. Chuck Morse (R-Salem) would like to change that.

In short, a line item veto allows a governor to edit a bill line by line. In this case, it would only apply to spending bills, meaning the governor would be able to take some spending provisions out of a budget, while leaving other parts intact. And the “veto” implies that the governor could only take certain provisions out of a budget, but wouldn’t be able to add any in.

The issue has had far more attention at the Congressional level than in Concord over the years. If CACR 5 passes through the Senate and House by a 3/5 margin in each body, it would go before the voters in 2012. The measure passed the Senate Internal Affairs Committee with a 3-0 vote.

Wider Trails

Senate Bill 100 >> Sponsored by Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry), this would increase the allowable size of off-highway recreational vehicles (OHRVs) on any designated state-owned trail.

The OHRV size limit would increase from 50 to 65 inches in width and from 1,000 pounds to 1,600 pounds in weight. The bill passed unanimously out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee by a 5-0 vote.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

Money, Money, Money

As we noted in a dispatch last week, the House Finance Committee has scheduled two-day executive session on House Bill 1, House Bill 2 and House Bill 25 beginning today.

The committee will also host a three-hour budget explainer presentation for House members on Tuesday, March 29. The House will not meet in full session this week, but there are scheduled sessions for March 30 and March 31 to complete voting on all bills originating in the House.

The Senate, meanwhile, will meet in session Wednesday to consider more than 34 bills and amendments. The Daily dispatch will bring you previews of the Senate session tomorrow.

Northern Pass

On Tuesday, the House Science, Energy and Technology Committee will continue work sessions on two proposals — House Bill 648 and House Bill 649 — connected to the Northern Pass hydroelectric project (see earlier Daily Dispatch here). The committee’s reporting deadline for both bills was extended to March 24.

According to the Concord Monitor, a recent public hearing in Franklin by the U.S. Department of Energy generated strong pro and con opinions on the economic and environmental impacts of the proposal to bring Canadian hydroelectric power into the regional power grid. The project would include a planned $350 million generator conversion project in Franklin and an estimated 40 miles of new right-of-way contracts in the northern part of the state.

>> Tuesday, March 22, work sessions for the House Science, Energy and Technology Committee on House Bill 648 and House Bill 649, Legislative Office Building, Room 304, beginning at 10:15 a.m.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

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.

To prepare for the flurry of activity, today we begin a series of dispatches looking at some of the bills we’ve followed from early stages through public hearings and committee votes. We start with bills that are on the “consent,” or voice vote calendar.

This process bundles up scores of new pieces of legislation and lets lawmakers agree to the committee recommendations on each bill, all by voicing just one vote. The official name for killing a bill is voting it “Inexpedient to Legislate,” commonly shortened to ITL. Short for “Ought to Pass,” an OTP recommendation means the committee supports the bill in question.

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

Education

The committee gave a unanimous Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) recommendation for House Bill 39, which targeted the state’s curriculum requirements for an adequate education.

Election Law

House Bill 223, which would eliminate election-day voter registration, received an ITL recommendation.

Executive Departments and Administration

Back in November, we highlighted the progress of a study committee looking into establishing a state meat inspection service. House Bill 339 would establish just such a service, and received a unanimous Ought to Pass (OTP) committee recommendation.

Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs

Two pharmaceutical take-back bills are headed for passage after receiving unanimous OTP committee recommendations. House Bill 71 would allow communities and private entities to establish drug take-back programs, and House Bill 426 would allow for institutions such as nursing homes and correctional facilities to re-allocate unused drugs.

Municipal and County Government

House Bill 144, a proposal to repeal the PACE, or clean energy district legislation from last year, has been amended to changes some funding mechanisms in a way that satisfied committee concerns about the new program. The PACE changes are headed for passage after a unanimous OTP recommendation by the committee.

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.

The House Science, Energy and Technology Committee will meet in Representatives Hall to consider two measures:

• House Bill 648, denying all eminent domain petitions to any large-scale transmission project, sponsored by Rep. Laurence Rappaport (R-Colebrook)
• House Bill 649, establishing guidelines for regional planning commissions to do separate economic and social impact studies on the Northern Pass project, sponsored by Rep. Rick Ladd (R-Haverhill)

In its current incarnation, Northern Pass calls for building 140 miles of direct-current transmission line in New Hampshire, from the Canadian border to a converter terminal in the City of Franklin (the terminal would convert Canadian direct current application to American alternating current). The 1,200 megawatts of Canadian hydro-power would then be sent to a substation in Deerfield and connected to the New England power grid. An estimated 45 miles of new right-of-way agreements would be needed in the North Country for 135-foot-tall transmission towers, to be spaced about 800 feet apart.

Opponents such as the organization Bury the Northern Pass say the privately financed project will mar the landscape, drive down property values and generate little economic benefit beyond the converter station. Passions ran high last month when a hearing about changing the state’s renewable energy portfolio standards to include large-scale hydro-power was seen as an endorsement of the Northern Pass project. Dozens of people showed up to speak against Northern Pass, and the related did not make it out of committee.

If it goes forward, the Northern Pass transmission lines would be built, owned and maintained by Northern Pass Transmission LLC, a subsidiary of Northeast Utilities (which also owns PSNH). On the Canadian side, Hydro Renewable Energy Inc. (a subsidiary of Hydro-Quebec) would pay transmission fees to Northern Pass Transmission.

>> Wednesday, March 9, public hearings on HB 648 and HB 649 in the House Science, Energy and Technology Committee, Representatives Hall at the State House, beginning at 10:15 a.m.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

The move comes midway through an extended public hearing on one of New Hampshire’s most challenging public policy debates: a constitutional amendment on education funding. The public hearing continues Wednesday in the House Special Committee on Education Funding Reform.

Sponsored by Rep. David Hess (R-Hooksett), CACR 12 would also allow lawmakers to target education funding to smooth financial disparities among different communities. The amendment attempts to move beyond the state Supreme Court’s 1997 Claremont decision. If approved by the Legislature, CACR 12 would go before New Hampshire voters in 2012.

In his January inaugural address this year, Gov. John Lynch, who has long supported a constitutional amendment to allow for targeted education funding, said such a measure would affirm “our responsibility for education; but gives us the flexibility we need to give every child in every town the opportunity for a quality education.”

In The Nashua Telegraph, Kevin Landrigan reported Sunday on the bid to find the right language that will appeal to Lynch and Senate Republicans. In 2007, Lynch and then-House Speaker Terie Norelli (D-Portsmouth) made a hard push for a targeted funding amendment. However, a majority of Democrats balked at taking oversight authority away from Supreme Court, which currently has final say on whether the state is living up to its constitutional obligations on education funding.

>> Wednesday, March 9, House Special Committee on Education Funding Reform, public hearing on CACR 12, Legislative Office Building, Room 207.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

Last month, we tracked a different gambling proposal in the House that would create casinos with video poker, slots and table games. In the process, House Bill 593 would divert as much as $363 million of the state’s gambling take to reduce education property taxes and contribute to the Highway Fund. After a public hearing Feb. 22, the House Ways and Means Committee voted to retain the bill in committee.

The same fate is unlikely for a much more expansive effort currently underway in the Senate. On Monday, the Senate Ways and Means Committee will hold its first public hearing on Senate Bill 182, sponsored by Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester). The latest proposal from this longtime advocate for expanded gaming in New Hampshire — who co-sponsored HB 593 — is also co-sponsored by Sen. Jim Raucsch (R-Derry) and Sen. John Gallus (R-Berlin).

D’Allesandro’s bill would allow for 10,000 video lottery machines at four locations in the state, and would create a permit process for table gaming. The four locations would be determined, according the language of the bill, “based on demographics, population, access to appropriate transportation, suitability for tourism, local resources, and development opportunities.” The four casino operators would have to pay a combined $145 million in initial license fees.

Senate Bill 182 would also give the state 40 percent of all net video machine income, spreading that money among seven state and municipal government accounts:

• 31 percent for oversight and to the general fund
• 3 percent for property tax relief (divided equally among all ten counties)
• 3 percent for the city or town where a casino is located
• 1 percent for the casino’s neighboring cities or towns that are in the same county
• 1 percent for programs to treat problem gambling
• ½ percent for the department of travel and tourism to promote tourism in the state
• ½ percent for police, fire and emergency medical training

The bill’s preamble leaves little doubt about the economic development goals for expanded gambling: “New Hampshire has an interest in promoting economic recovery, revenue, property tax relief and job creation as soon as possible through the development of regulated gaming in order to preserve the quality of life for New Hampshire residents.”

As we noted in a recent dispatch, however, opponents of expanded gambling maintain that gambling’s economic benefits are overstated and the state’s “quality of life” would be threatened — not preserved.

For his part, D’Allesandro is nothing if not persistent. In 2010, he led the fight and won Senate approval for a similar bipartisan measure, but the House defeated it 212-158. In 2009, D’Allesandro also got Senate approval for expanded gambling as part of final House-Senate budget negotiations, but House conferees shot the measure down and it was removed before the final budget vote.

>> Monday, March 7, Senate Ways and Means Committee, public hearing for SB 182, Room 100 at the State House, beginning at 11 a.m.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.