Thanks to our loyal readers, and thanks especially to The Wire newspaper in Portsmouth. Front Door Politics returns for the 2012 legislative session to bring you statehouse updates from Concord.

The full updates can be read in The Wire’s print and online editions, and we’ll post linked excerpts here. If you are subscribed, you’ll once again receive FDP’s jargon-free reporting, now on a bi-weekly basis. (Well, mostly. The schedule may fluctuate a bit depending on what else is going on at the paper every other week.)

The new arrangement

The Wire newspaper in Portsmouth has taken up the Front Door Politics mantle for the time being while I am on the next phase of this journalism adventure.

After starting Front Door Politics out of pocket and in my “free time” in 2008, the long hours and learning curve only fueled my passion for reporting. I made the leap in August 2011 to graduate school — and leapt all the way to Columbia, Missouri. Until 2013, I am pursuing my master’s degree in multi-media investigative reporting on public policy and international affairs, with a reserach focus on the business of journalism. You can find my student blog here.

The Wire and the wonderful folks behind it were part of the original inspiration for Front Door Politics. I am grateful to them for their continued creativity, editorial guidance, and remarkable commitment to community.

I know that Front Door Politics is in good hands, and I hope you enjoy its latest incarnation.

Best Wishes,
Hilary Niles
Columbia, Missouri

P.S. In refreshing the website last night, it looks like I accidentally re-posted some old updates. Please accept my sincere apologies for flooding your inbox or news reader!

This week, we heard a lot of talk about Gov. John Lynch’s veto of so-called right-to-work legislation, pleasure over the first tax cut of the session signed into law, and a newspaper speaking out for consumers.

Veto speak

Jack Kimball, New Hampshire Republican Party chair, on Lynch’s veto of “Right to Work,” House Bill 474:

“It is clear by his veto on HB 474, John Lynch is against free market principles, job creation and individual liberty. It also confirms that he is out-of-touch with the plight of New Hampshire families and business owners. Right to Work would create a more appealing business climate that would attract new businesses, create sustainable jobs for our citizens and allow current businesses to grow while putting us back on track for a prosperous future.”

Gov. John Lynch’s HB 474 veto message:

“In the last seven years of recruiting businesses to move to New Hampshire, not one business leader has ever even asked me if New Hampshire had a right-to-work law, let alone suggested it was a factor in the company’s location decision. No New Hampshire business leaders have ever told me that the lack of a so-called right-to-work law prevented them from expanding or hiring new workers here in New Hampshire. And no New Hampshire workers have ever told me they couldn’t get a job because New Hampshire doesn’t have a so-called right-to-work law. The debate over the so-called right-to-work bill in New Hampshire appears to be largely driven by national outside interest groups, and is not a result of problems facing New Hampshire businesses or workers.”

House Speaker William O’Brien speaking to New Hampshire Public Radio before Lynch vetoed HB 474:

“My caucus members are concerned (about) not allowing the governor to believe that he can function as a third branch of the legislature. The senate and the house have spoken with very strong majorities that right to work is what the people of NH want.”

Ray Buckley, New Hampshire Democratic Party chair, critiquing Republican criticisms of Lynch’s HB 474 veto:

“Why do Republicans want to turn New Hampshire into Mississippi? New Hampshire is routinely recognized as having one of the most business-friendly business climates in the nation and ranks highest in public safety and our schools outperform most other states.”

Spread the good (tax cut) word

House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt of Salem on Lynch signing House Bill 229, which repealed the 10 percent gambling tax:

“This tax cut is merely a first installment in our plans for tax relief for New Hampshire citizens. Help is on the way and we are going to get back to being a low tax, business friendly state. We want people from across New England and the country to come here to visit, to shop and to bring their businesses… I encourage Governor Lynch to travel around the border communities and get the word out about this pro-business tax cut. I’d be happy to work with local merchants in my hometown to set up an event with the governor to let people know about this tax cut that the Republican legislature has delivered to the people.”

Flawed measurements

Concord Monitor editorial:

“In its anti-regulatory zeal, House Republicans also want to eliminate the Department of Agriculture’s Weights and Measures Division. Last week, in this paper, Hanover Rep. Bernie Benn shared some startling facts that every consumer should know about the need for the division’s inspectors. Last year, the agency inspected 139 service station gas meters and found that 113 were pumping less gas than displayed on the pump. The inspectors found scales that were cheating customers and home heating oil trucks that were overcharging by $36,000 by using meters that overestimated how much fuel had been delivered.”

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

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.

House Bill 113, which passed the House 263-102 in February, has received closer scrutiny in the Senate. Sponsored by Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester), the measure would stop all state funding for NHPTV (Channel 11), including contracts with state agencies for educational and broadcasting services.

Vaillancourt and supporters of HB 113 have said that NHPTV does not fit into the state’s budget priorities. Vaillancourt has also staked out ideological ground, saying the state has no business using taxpayer money to fund public media.

The debate here in New Hampshire is not isolated, as a handful of states and Republicans in Congress have introduced proposals to either cut of defund public radio and television.

Impact

The fight is more than whether Big Bird will survive on free television in the state. At stake for NHPTV is a loss of an estimated $5.5 million over a two-year budget cycle, along with other funding that is jeopardized if NHPTV isn’t allowed to contract with state agencies. NHPTV is also involved in the state’s enhanced 911 system used by public safety agencies, in expanding broadband in the North Country, and in offering free educational programming to school systems throughout the state.

“HB 113 will have far-reaching and negative impacts on our other sources of support,” said Peter Frid, NHPTV president, in testimony to lawmakers. “Our work with state agencies is supported by general funds, and if we were to do a project with them we couldn’t receive revenues.”

Fate

The Senate Finance Committee has recommended against passing HB 113, in part because the station does not received funding directly from the state; NHPTV is funded and overseen by the University System of New Hampshire, which receives money from the state.

Senate Finance Committee member Robert Odell (R-Lempster), one of three Republicans to recommend killing the bill, told New Hampshire Public Radio that lawmakers shouldn’t tell the university system how to run its operations. “We didn’t want it in the budget that way. And it’s not going to be,” Odell said.

We ask readers for feedback on whether the state should the state defund New Hampshire Public Television, including barring it from service contracts with state agencies. Should lawmakers tell the university system how to budget its operations? How Senators answer those questions likely will determine the fate of HB 113.

(Comments below, policy here.)

>> Wednesday, May 6, full Senate session beginning at 10 a.m. at the State House.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

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.)

House Bill 474 would prevent New Hampshire’s public sector unions from collecting fees from non-union employees who are nonetheless covered under the union’s collective bargaining agreements. The bill is sponsored by Rep. William Smith (R-New Castle).

The Senate’s 16-8 vote to pass an amended version of the bill on April 20 hit the veto-proof mark with no room to spare. The House yesterday voted to pass the Senate’s amended version, but missed the veto-proof mark, with a vote of 255-140. It appears the House has lost some steam for the measure since its February vote of 221-131.

But House Speaker William O’Brien (R-Mont Vernon) wasted no time in calling for Lynch to sign the bill into law. “Right to Work is the single greatest opportunity to create jobs in New Hampshire that the legislature will pass this year,” O’Brien said in a press release. “This means more manufacturing jobs, more service jobs and more companies coming to the Granite State to grow.  If Governor Lynch is committed to growing our economy and creating jobs, he will sign this legislation at the first opportunity.”

The State Employees Association of New Hampshire, on the other hand, has taken to calling HB 474 “Right to Work for Less.” The union says it overturns decades of Republican and Democratic leadership respect for collective bargaining rights and essentially tells employers how to run their businesses. SEA President Diana Lacey called on Lynch to veto the bill and applauded the 140 lawmakers who voted against it.

The House’s concurrence with the Senate’s amendment means that Lynch has five days to sign the bill into law or veto it. Alternatively, he simply do neither, in which case it would become law without his signature — but that’s not likely.

If Lynch vetoes HB 474, a two-thirds majority vote will be required in both the House and Senate to override his decision. Expect a bruising rhetorical battle.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

This Rollinsford cow from Brookford Farm is headed for milking, not slaughter. (photo by Hilary Niles)

The issue has emerged in the past few years as a number of smaller meat and poultry farms have sprouted up throughout the state. Later today, the Senate will likely pass House Bill 339, which would establish a meat inspection services administrator.

The hunt for local food

According to the U. S. Department of Agriculture, 23 states have given up their meat and poultry protection program in the past four decades — as New Hampshire did in 1978. A Nashua Telegraph story by David Brooks from last August focused on the challenges of a state having only one federally certified slaughterhouse with inspection capability.

State veterinarian Stephen Crawford, whose office would oversee the state inspection service, said in the story that “the increase in interest for locally raised meat and poultry has created an enormous opportunity for New Hampshire farmers. The most significant limitation to filling the demand for meat other than poultry is a distinct lack of access to local slaughter facilities.”

Making it pay (for itself)

Establishing the program is one thing, but providing enough funding to get a viable service up and running may be an issue. House Bill 339, sponsored by Rep. Laurie Harding (D-Lebanon) establishes a meat inspection fund. But, it only appropriates $1 through June 30, 2012. Supporters believe the program will become more than self-sustaining through fees, fines and other grants and donations. The cost for inspection services will start at $50 for a cow, $10 for a turkey or rabbit and $5 for a chicken.

House Bill 339 had bipartisan sponsorship and passed the House by a voice vote in March. The bill already made it through one round of Senate vetting before being resubmitted (as all spending bills do) to the Senate Finance Committee, which gave it a unanimous recommendation for passage.

>> Wednesday, May 4, full Senate session vote on HB 339 and more than 60 other bills and amendments. Senate Chambers at the State House, beginning at 10:00 a.m.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

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.)