commentary by Timothy Horrigan; July 29, 2010
We state legislators are not
supposed to refer to seemingly minor bills which don't make major
changes in policy as "housekeeping bills." Every bill is
important, and sometimes seemingly inconsequential bills turn out to
have major effects. And sometimes, as happened with HB1459
in 2010, a "housekeeping" bill can be amended to be
used as a vehicle to carry a major policy inititative. (This happens
less in the New Hampshire General Court than it does in the U.S.
Congress, since the General Court's rules guarantee every bill a fair
hearing and an up-or-down vote.)
In any case I sponsored and passed three bills in 2010 which could be characterized as "housekeeping bills." They were passed and signed by the governor without much fuss, although one went to conference committee after the Senate changed a few words around. I had two others which died, also without too much fuss.
Actually one of the bills which passed is related to a potentially controversial topic: i.e., purging inactive entries from the checklist. But, HB1476 made fairly minor changes to the existing procedures, and those procedures already do protect voters' rights very effectively.
|
HB 1150 – FINAL VERSION 2010 SESSION 03/01 HOUSE BILL 1150 AN ACT removing certain references to nomination for the office of vice-president. SPONSORS: Rep. Horrigan, Straf 7 This bill removes certain references to nomination for the office of vice-president.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics. Matter
removed from current law appears [ Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type. 10-2166 03/01 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Ten AN ACT removing certain references to nomination for the office of vice-president. Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened: 19:1 Declaration of Intent. Amend RSA 655:17-b to read as follows: 655:17-b
Declaration of Intent; Presidential [ I.
Declarations of intent for each candidate for president [ II.
I, _________________, declare that I am domiciled in the city (or
town or unincorporated place) of _________________, county of
_________________, state of __________, and am a qualified voter
therein; that I intend to be a candidate for the office of
[ 19:2 Nomination Papers. Amend RSA 655:53 to read as follows: 655:53
By Nomination Papers. Candidates for president [ 19:3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage. Approved: May 7, 2010 Effective Date: July 6, 2010
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Written testimony in favor of HB1150(House Election Law Committee) "AN ACT removing certain references to nomination for the office of vice-president"Rep. Timothy Horrigan; Strafford County #7; January 12, 2010
This bill was a request of the Secretary of State's office, even though it doesn't say so on the bill. HB1150 simply strikes a reference to candidates for the office of Vice President from RSA 655:17b, thus changing the text of a form filed by candidates in our "first in the nation" Presidential Primary. New Hampshire had a non-binding preference primary for Vice President alongside the Presidential Primary until 2008. In 2012 and beyond, there will be no Vice Presidential primary. It also strikes a reference to Vice Presidential candidates from RSA 655:53, which deals with "third party" General Election candidacies. I do not favor any additional changes to the documentation filed by Presidential candidates in either the Presidential Primary or the General Election.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Written testimony in favor of HB1150(Senate Election Law Committee) "AN ACT removing certain references to nomination for the office of vice-president"Rep. Timothy Horrigan; Strafford County #7; March 16, 2010
This bill was a request of the Secretary of State's office, even though it doesn't say so on the bill. HB1150 simply strikes a reference to candidates for the office of Vice President from RSA 655:17b, thus changing the text of a form filed by candidates in our "first in the nation" Presidential Primary. New Hampshire had a non-binding preference primary for Vice President alongside the Presidential Primary until 2008. In 2012 and beyond, there will be no Vice Presidential primary. It also strikes a reference to Vice Presidential candidates from RSA 655:53, which deals with "third party" General Election candidacies. We have been struggling on the House side with the requirements for third party candidacies, but this bill merely makes a small change to the paperwork for a third party Presidential candidacy. This bill (in its current form) does not change the number of petitions needed to get on the general election ballot. RSA 655:42 states that a Presidential candidate needs at least 1,500 petition signers from each Congressional district (for a grand total of 3.000) to get on the ballot. It says nothing about Vice Presidential running mates. The corresponding slate of Presidential electors is chosen by a statewide convention of the candidate's party or political organization, as specified in RSA 667:21. This bill makes RSA 655:53 consistent with those two statutes, which say nothing about Vice Presidential running mates. This bill would allow a third-party Presidential candidate to begin circulating petitions before he or she chooses a running mate. RSA 656:7 would still allow a Vice Presidential running mate's name to be on the ballot.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CHAPTER 177 HB 1476 – FINAL VERSION 2010 SESSION 03/09 HOUSE BILL 1476 AN ACT relative to periodic verification of the checklist. SPONSORS: Rep. Bates, Rock 4; Rep. Splaine, Rock 16; Rep. Horrigan, Straf 7; Rep. Perry, Straf 3; Sen. Carson, Dist 14; Sen. Houde, Dist 5 This bill changes which elections are used to deem a voter reregistered during the 10-year verification of the checklist. This bill is a request of the department of state.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics. Matter
removed from current law appears [ Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type. 10-2305 03/09 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Ten AN ACT relative to periodic verification of the checklist. Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened: 177:1 Verification Every 10 Years; Reregistration. Amend RSA 654:39, IV to read as follows: IV. For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed reregistered and need not appear before the supervisors if: (a)
The person voted in [ (b)
The person [ 177:2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage. Approved: June 21, 2010 Effective Date: August 20, 2010
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Written Testimony in Favor of HB1476(House Election Law Committee) AN ACT relative to periodic verification of the checklistRep. Timothy Horrigan (Strafford District 7); House Election Law Committee; February 2, 2010
This bill was a request of the Secretary of State's office. It makes two changes to the periodic verification of the checklist. At least once every ten years, the voter list is cleaned up to take out listings for voters who have not recently voted. The deleted voters are free to re-register; and are given ample opportunity to so so— although quite often these voters have died or moved out of state. This bill makes sure that two groups of active voters do not get deleted by mistake:
The checklist must be verified statewide at least once every ten years; and a town or ward's checklist can be verified more frequently after the local supervisors of the checklist request permission from the state. A relatively small group of citizens— 50 or 5% of the registered voters, whichever is smaller— can also petition to have the checklist verified. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Written Testimony in Favor of HB1476(Senate Election Law Committee) AN ACT relative to periodic verification of the checklistRep. Timothy Horrigan (Strafford District 7); Senate Election Law Committee; April 20, 2010 This bill was a request of the Secretary of State's office. It makes two simple changes (RSA 654:39, IV) to the periodic verification of the checklist. At least once every ten years, the voter list is cleaned up to take out listings for voters who have not recently voted. The deleted voters are free to re-register; and are given ample opportunity to so so— although quite often these voters have died or moved out of state. This bill makes sure that two groups of active voters do not get deleted by mistake:
The checklist must be verified statewide at least once every ten years; and a checklist can be verified more frequently after the local supervisors of the checklist request permission from the state. A relatively small group of citizens— 50 or 5% of the registered voters, whichever is smaller— can also petition to have the checklist verified. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CHAPTER 366 HB 1477 – FINAL VERSION 05/12/10 1845s 02Jun2010… 2242cofc 02Jun2010… 2435eba 2010 SESSION 03/04 HOUSE BILL 1477 AN ACT relative to checklist information and relative to challenges of voters. SPONSORS: Rep. Bates, Rock 4; Rep. Splaine, Rock 16; Rep. Horrigan, Straf 7; Rep. Perry, Straf 3; Sen. Carson, Dist 14 This bill modifies requirements relating to voter address information. This bill also establishes additional requirements for challenging voters, including a challenge affidavit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics. Matter
removed from current law appears [ Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type. 05/12/10 1845s 02Jun2010… 2242cofc 02Jun2010… 2435eba 10-2306 03/04 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Ten AN ACT relative to checklist information and relative to challenges of voters. Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened: 366:1 Preparing Checklist. Amend RSA 654:25 to read as follows: 654:25 Preparing Checklist. The secretary of state shall issue and distribute guidelines for the composition and style of checklists and for the maintenance of data related to checklists by which the supervisors of the checklist shall compile and correct the checklist. Such guidelines shall specify the information which will be maintained and updated by the supervisors. The secretary shall establish standard forms and procedures for the use of the supervisors for the maintenance of such information. The information to be maintained and updated shall include the full name, domicile address, mailing address, and party affiliation, if any, of each voter on the checklist and such other information as the secretary requires. Every checklist used at any election shall contain the full name, domicile address, mailing address, and party affiliation, if any, of each voter on the checklist. The paper checklists used by ballot clerks on election day need not include mailing addresses. The name and address of a voter shall not appear on the checklist at the request of the voter if the voter presents to the supervisors of the checklist a valid protective order pursuant to RSA 173-B. The name, domicile address, and mailing address, if different, of such a voter shall be maintained on a separate list of voters, which shall be nonpublic and not subject to RSA 91-A. If it is necessary to establish such a nonpublic list, the public checklist shall be marked at the end with a notation of the number of voters whose names are maintained on the nonpublic list. 366:2 Checklist and Voter Information. Amend RSA 654:31, IV to read as follows: IV.
The secretary of state shall, upon request, provide to a political
party, as defined in RSA 664:2, IV, or to a political
committee, as defined in RSA 664:2, III, a list of the name,
[ 366:3 Right to Know Exemption. Amend RSA 654:31-a to read as follows: 654:31-a
Right to Know Exemption. The information contained on the
checklist of a town or city, specifically, the name, [ 366:4 Challenge of Voter; Affidavit. RSA 659:27 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 659:27 Challenge of Voter; Affidavit. I. A voter offering to vote at any state election may be challenged by any other voter registered in the town or ward in which the election is held, an election official, a challenger appointed by a political committee pursuant to RSA 666:4, or a challenger appointed by the attorney general pursuant to RSA 666:5. II. Upon receipt of a written challenge, the moderator shall determine if the challenge to the ballot is well grounded. If the moderator determines that the challenge is well grounded, the moderator shall not receive the vote of the person so challenged until the person signs and gives to the moderator an affidavit in the following form: I, ______________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) under penalties of voter fraud, that I am the identical person whom I represent myself to be, that I am a duly qualified voter of this town (or ward), and have a legal domicile therein. If the moderator determines that the challenge is not well grounded, the moderator shall permit the voter to proceed to vote. III. No voter or appointed challenger shall challenge a person's qualifications to be a voter at the election day voter registration table. 366:5 New Section; Asserting a Challenge. Amend RSA 659 by inserting after section 27 the following new section: 659:27-a Asserting a Challenge. I. No challenge may be asserted except in the form of a signed affidavit, under oath administered by an election official, in the following form: INFORMATION ON THE PERSON MAKING THE CHALLENGE Name of Person Making the Challenge: ___________________________________________________________________________________ Last Name First Name Middle Name/Initial ___________________________________________________________________________________ Party affiliation ___________________________________________________________________________________ If person making a challenge is a voter: Physical Address – Street Name & Number ___________________________________________________________________________________ If person is a political party or attorney general appointee: mailing address & phone number ___________________________________________________________________________________ The challenger's qualifications to assert the challenge INFORMATION ON THE VOTER BEING CHALLENGED: The person making the challenge shall complete the following: Name being used by the voter who you wish to challenge: _________________________________________________________________________________ Last Name First Name Middle Name GROUNDS FOR THE CHALLENGE: The person making the challenge shall indicate the ground on which the challenge is made (check all grounds that apply). ___ The person seeking to vote is not the individual whose name he or she has given ___ The person seeking to vote has already voted in the election at (name polling place) ____________ at approximately (state time if known) __________ ___ The person seeking to vote is disqualified as a voter by conviction of a willful violation of the elections laws (state offense, court, and date of conviction) _______________________________________ ___ The person seeking to vote is under 18 years of age ___ The person seeking to vote is not a United States Citizen ___ The person seeking to vote is not domiciled in the town or ward where he or she is seeking to vote (state person's true domicile —town/city) _____________________________________ ___ The person seeking to vote does not reside at the address listed for that person on the checklist ___ The person seeking to vote is an incarcerated convicted felon who is currently sentenced to incarceration (state name of institution person is in) _________________________________________ ___ This is a primary and the person seeking to vote in the (state political party name) __________ primary is not a declared member of the party he or she claims to be affiliated with ___ The person seeking to vote is ineligible to vote pursuant to the following state or federal statute or constitutional provision: _________________________________________ BASIS FOR THE CHALLENGE: The person making the challenge shall state the specific source of the information or personal knowledge upon which the challenge of the particular individual is based: ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ OATH: The person making the challenge shall complete the following: I hereby swear and affirm, under the penalties of perjury, that to the best of my knowledge and belief the information above is true and correct. ____________________ (Signature of challenger) On the date shown above, before me, __________ (print name of notary public, justice of the peace, election officer), appeared __________ (print name of person whose signature is being notarized), known to me or satisfactorily proven (circle one) to be the person whose name appears above, and he or she subscribed his or her name to the foregoing affidavit and swore that the facts contained in this affidavit are true to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. ____________________ Notary Public/Justice of the Peace/Official Authorized by RSA 659:30 TO BE COMPLETED BY THE MODERATOR: Ruling on the challenge: If the ground at issue is age, citizenship, or domicile: The supervisors of the checklist have ruled that the challenged voter is: qualified as a voter; not qualified as a voter. The moderator rules on challenges based on other grounds. The moderator rules that the challenge is: well grounded; not well grounded. If it is ruled that the voter is not qualified or that the challenge is well grounded, the challenged person may vote only if he or she completes and swears to a challenged voter affidavit. II. A challenge may be asserted only upon personal knowledge or other basis of probable cause that the challenged voter is ineligible to vote. No challenge may be accepted unless one of the following grounds is asserted and specific facts are offered in support of such grounds: (a) The person seeking to vote is not the individual whose name he or she has given. (b) The person seeking to vote has already voted in the election at the time and place specified in the challenge. (c) The person seeking to vote is disqualified as a voter by conviction of a willful violation of the elections laws, such conviction having been for the offense specified in the challenge. (d) The person seeking to vote is under 18 years of age. (e) The person seeking to vote is not a United States citizen. (f) The person seeking to vote is not domiciled in the town or ward where he or she is seeking to vote because the person's true domicile is in the town or city specified in the challenge. (g) The person seeking to vote does not reside at the address listed for that person on the checklist. (h) The person seeking to vote is an incarcerated convicted felon who is currently sentenced to incarceration in the institution specified in the challenge. (i) The person is attempting to vote in a primary and the person is not a declared member of the party with which he or she claims to be affiliated. (j) The person is ineligible to vote pursuant to some other state or federal statute or constitutional provision specified in the challenge. 366:6 Absentee Ballots; Announcement by Moderator and Challenges. Amend RSA 659:50 and RSA 659:51 to read as follows: 659:50 Announcement by Moderator. The moderator shall begin processing absentee ballots by clearly announcing that he or she is about to open the envelopes which were delivered to him or her. The moderator shall then remove the affidavit envelope containing the ballots of each absentee voter and shall compare the signature on the affidavit envelope with the signature on the application for the ballot. If: I. The name of the voter is on the checklist, except for voters provided for in RSA 7:46; and II. The affidavit on the envelope appears to be properly executed; and III. The signature on the affidavit appears to be executed by the same person who signed the application; and IV. The signatures appear to be the signatures of a duly qualified voter who has not voted at the election; then the moderator shall publicly announce the name of the absentee voter, except for voters provided for in RSA 7:46. If these conditions are not met, the moderator shall follow the procedure provided in RSA 659:53. 659:51 Challenges. I.
All absentee ballots are subject to challenge after the moderator
publicly announces the name of the absentee voter, except
for voters provided for in RSA 7:46, but not after the
ballot is removed from the envelope. [ II. If the ballot is challenged, the moderator shall write on the affidavit envelope containing the ballot the word "challenged'' and the name and address of the person who makes the challenge and the basis of the challenge. The moderator shall also number each challenged envelope consecutively by marking, for example, the first challenged ballot "Challenged Ballot No. 1." III. The moderator shall then determine if the challenge to the ballot is well grounded. If the moderator decides the challenge is well grounded, the moderator shall not open the envelope but shall preserve it with the other ballots cast at the election as provided in RSA 659:101 and shall record next to the name of the absentee voter on the clerk's list of absentee voter applicants prepared pursuant to RSA 657:15 the word "challenged" and the reason for the challenge. The clerk shall record this information in the statewide centralized voter registration database. If the moderator decides that the challenge is not well grounded, he or she shall open the affidavit envelope so the affidavit thereon is not destroyed and proceed first to mark on the reverse of the folded ballot the corresponding challenge number as previously marked on the envelope. The moderator shall then proceed to deposit the ballot as provided in RSA 659:52. 366:7 Nullification. Section 2 of HB 1528 of the 2010 regular legislative session shall not take effect. 366:8 Challenges. Amend RSA 659:51 to read as follows: 659:51 Challenges. I.
All absentee ballots are subject to challenge after the moderator
publicly announces the name of the absentee voter, except
for voters provided for in RSA 7:46, but not after the
ballot is removed from the envelope. [ II. If the ballot is challenged, the moderator shall write on the envelope containing the ballot the word "challenged" and the name and address of the person who makes the challenge and the basis of the challenge. The moderator shall also number each challenged envelope consecutively by marking, for example, the first challenged ballot "Challenged Ballot No. 1." III. The moderator shall then determine if the challenge to the ballot is well grounded. If the moderator decides the challenge is well grounded, the moderator shall not open the envelope but shall preserve it with the other ballots cast at the election as provided in RSA 659:101 and shall record next to the name of the absentee voter on the clerk's list of absentee voters prepared pursuant to RSA 657:15 the word "challenged" and the reason for the challenge. The clerk shall record this information in the statewide centralized voter registration database. If the moderator decides that the challenge is not well grounded, he or she shall open the envelope so the affidavit is not destroyed and proceed first to mark on the reverse of the folded ballot the corresponding challenge number as previously marked on the envelope. The moderator shall then proceed to deposit the ballot as provided in RSA 659:52. 366:9 Contingency. If HB 1535-FN if the 2010 regular legislative session of the general court becomes law, section 6 of this act shall not take effect and section 8 of this act shall take effect upon its passage; provided that, if HB 1535-FN becomes law after this act, section 8 of this act shall take effect at 12:01 a.m. on the effective date of HB 1535-FN. If HB 1535-FN does not become law, section 8 of this act shall not take effect and section 6 of this act shall take effect upon its passage. 366:10 Effective Date. I. Sections 6 and 8 shall take effect as provided in section 9 of this act. II. The remainder of this act shall take effect upon its passage. Approved: July 23, 2010 Effective Date: I. Sections 6 and 8 shall take effect as provided in section 9. II. Remainder shall take effect July 23, 2010.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(House Election Law Committee) Written Testimony in Favor of HB1477AN ACT relative to checklist information.Rep. Timothy Horrigan (Strafford District 7); House Election Law Committee; January 19, 2010
Currently, voter checklists just have an "address" for each voter. This bill would clarify how to handle the case of a voter whose mailing address differs from the street address of their domicile. From now on, the database would have address fields: a "domicile address" and a "mailing address." Voters lists actually already have two address fields: this bill just clarifies what data goes in each column. My district happens to have several hundred voters whose mailing address differs from their actual domicile address: UNH students all have post office boxes at the student union building, even though their domicile would be their dorm room (if they live on-campus) or their off-campus residence. Off-campus residences have regular city mail delivery, but on-campus housing does not have mail delivery except at the central mailroom. Statewide, this bill primarily effects people who get their mail at a post office box. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(Senate Election Law Committee) Written Testimony in Favor of HB1477AN ACT relative to checklist information.Rep. Timothy Horrigan; Strafford County #7; March 16, 2010Currently, voter checklists just have an "address" for each voter. This bill would clarify how to handle the case of a voter whose mailing address differs from the street address of their domicile. From now on, the database would have two address fields: a "domicile address" and a "mailing address." Voter lists actually already have two address fields: this bill just clarifies what data goes in which column. My House district happens to have several hundred voters whose mailing address differs from their actual domicile address: UNH students all have mail boxes at the student union building, even though their domicile would be their dorm room (if they live on-campus) or their off-campus residence. Off-campus residences have regular city mail delivery, but there is no mail delivery to UNH dorms except via the campus mailroom. Statewide, this bill primarily effects people who get their mail at a post office box. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CACR21: I thought eliminating the age limit for judges and sherriffs was a good idea, and I have reason to believe the state's judiciary thought so too, but this constitutional amendment died in the House on a 286-32 division vote. (A division vote is the same as a roll call except the clerk doesn't keep a record of the names of who voted how.) CACR 21 would have needed a 60% supermajority in both Houses plus a 2/3 supermajority at the polls in November 2010 to pass. Rep. Joel Winters and I were at least 150 votes short of the number we needed in the House— and in truth we were probably over 200 votes short. Joel and I would have needed 240 votes if all 398 of our colleagues showed up (which never happens, although we do get up to about 385 on the really crucial session days.)
|
CACR 21 – AS INTRODUCED 2010 SESSION 06/09 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 21 RELATING TO: judges and sheriffs. PROVIDING THAT: judges and sheriffs may serve after the age of 70 years. SPONSORS: Rep. Winters, Hills 17; Rep. Horrigan, Straf 7 This constitutional amendment concurrent resolution permits judges and sheriffs to serve after the age of 70 years
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics. Matter
removed from current law appears [ Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type. 10-2442 06/09 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Ten CONCURRENT RESOLUTION PROPOSING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RELATING TO: judges and sheriffs. PROVIDING THAT: judges and sheriffs may serve after the age of 70 years. Be it Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, that the Constitution of New Hampshire be amended as follows: I. That article 78 of the second part of the constitution, relative to judges and sheriffs disqualified by age, is repealed. II. That the above amendment proposed to the constitution be submitted to the qualified voters of the state at the state general election to be held in November, 2010. III. That the selectmen of all towns, cities, wards and places in the state are directed to insert in their warrants for the said 2010 election an article to the following effect: To decide whether the amendments of the constitution proposed by the 2010 session of the general court shall be approved. IV. That the wording of the question put to the qualified voters shall be: "Are you in favor of amending the second part of the constitution by repealing article 78, relative to the 70-year age limit for judges and sheriffs." V. That the secretary of state shall print the question to be submitted on a separate ballot or on the same ballot with other constitutional questions. The ballot containing the question shall include 2 squares next to the question allowing the voter to vote "Yes" or "No." If no cross is made in either of the squares, the ballot shall not be counted on the question. The outside of the ballot shall be the same as the regular official ballot except that the words "Questions Relating to Constitutional Amendments proposed by the 2010 General Court" shall be printed in bold type at the top of the ballot. VI. That if the proposed amendment is approved by 2/3 of those voting on the amendment, it becomes effective when the governor proclaims its adoption.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Written testimony in favor of CACR21(House Judiciary Committee) "PROVIDING THAT: judges and sheriffs may serve after the age of 70 years."Rep. Timothy Horrigan; Strafford County #7; January 14, 2010
I urge the House Judiciary Committee— as well as the entire General Court and the people of New Hampshire— to support CACR21, a constitutional amendment eliminating the age limit for judges and sheriffs. On July 31, 2009, the Governor vetoed House Bill 655, an act extending senior active status to judges over 70 years of age. On June 10, 2009, the Committee of Conference report on HB655 passed the House by a largely party-line vote of 201-148. I was one of the 17 Democrats who voted against it on that roll call— but not because I thought the basic proposal in the bill was a bad idea. I was also one of a presumably smaller number of Democrats who voted against it on March 25, 2009, when it passed by a division vote of 231-103. I reluctantly pressed the Red button both times because HB655 was unconstitutional. Part II, Article 78 of the Constitution of New Hampshire states that "[n]o person shall hold the office of judge of any court, or judge of probate, or sheriff of any county, after he has attained the age of seventy years." This age limit might have made more sense in the past. 70 used to be a much older age than it is now. Also, in the past judges and other officials had no retirement system and the judicial branch was less professionalized than it is today. It is now easier to induce non-performing judges, of whatever age, to retire. If for whatever reason a judge does not perform his or her duties and cannot be convinced to step down voluntarily, there are a variety of remedies which can be applied— such as a "house address" resolution or an impeachment. The age limit for sheriffs in particular is undemocratic, since sheriffs are elected. This is the only elected office with a maximum age. The election laws make no special provisions for sheriff candidates: the laws merely say that a candidate for any office must meet the age and domicile requirements at the time of the general election— even if he or she would be over 70 before his or her term as sheriff expired. The Governor said in his veto message: "Any further expansion of the role of judicial officers over the age of 70 should be drawn in a very narrow way, or addressed through an amendment to our Constitution." I agree with Governor Lynch. Please vote OTP on CACR21.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Finally, I tried to move the state's primary election up to August. (The famous "first in the nation" Presidential primary would stay in January. Well, we might have to move it up to the preceding December or even November one of these quadrennia, but we sure hope it doesn't come to that.) No one but me liked the idea of an August primary, although some people would like to move it up to the spring. And, I wasn't all that enthusiastic myself about my own idea.
|
HB 1538 – AS INTRODUCED 2010 SESSION 03/05 HOUSE BILL 1538 AN ACT relative to the date of the state primary election. SPONSORS: Rep. Horrigan, Straf 7 This bill changes the date of the state primary election to the last Tuesday in August.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics. Matter
removed from current law appears [ Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type. 10-2162 03/05 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Ten AN ACT relative to the date of the state primary election. Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened: 1 State Primary Election. Amend RSA 653:8 to read as follows: 653:8
State Primary Election. The state primary election shall be held
on the [ 2 Primary Petition Form. Amend RSA 655:21 to read as follows: 655:21 Form. Primary petitions shall be made in the following form: State of New Hampshire County of ______________________ ss. City (Town) of _____________________ I
do hereby join in a petition for the printing on the primary
ballot of the name of __________________ whose domicile is in the
city (town) of ________________ (ward, street, and number, if in a
city), in the county of ________________, for the office of
________________ to be voted for on Tuesday, the ________ day of
[ I hereby swear, under the penalties for voting fraud set forth below, that the information above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. _______________________ Print Voter's name ______________________ Voter's Signature In accordance with RSA 659:34, the penalty for knowingly or purposefully providing false information when registering to vote or voting is a class A misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of imprisonment not to exceed one year and a fine not to exceed $2,000. Fraudulently registering to vote or voting is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000. 3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2011.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Written Testimony in Favor of HB1538(House Election Law Committee) AN ACT relative to the date of the state primary election.Rep. Timothy Horrigan (Strafford District 7); House Election Law Committee; January 19, 2010 The traditional date for the state primary is the second Tuesday in September. That date is usually 56 days (8 weeks) prior to the General Election. One year in seven, as is the case in 2010, there are only 49 days between the September primary and the November General Election. My bill, as originally introduced, moves the primary date up 14 days to the last Tuesday in August. The version before us actually would not effect the 2010 election cycle: it sets an effective date of January 1, 2011, so the first election effected would be the 2012 state primary. Town and cities have a choice of a few dates for their municipal elections, and that choice is reflected in the town or city charter. A city is allowed to hold a first round of primary elections, at a date of its own choosing. This bill does not effect the timing of municipal primaries.
The date of the federal General Election is fixed in the U.S. Constitution, and the state follows the same date: the first Tuesday after the First Monday in November.
Recently, the U.S. Congress passed the "Schumer Amendment" as part of a defense appropriations bill. This new law mandates, amongst other things, that "overseas" absentee ballots are to be sent out 45 days in advance. (This primarily effects military voters.) In the past, we here in New Hampshire have been sending out the overseas absentees 30 days in advance. My bill, as introduced, does not apply to the ongoing 2010 election cycle, which happens to be the one election cycle in 7 where we only have 49 days lead time after our state primary rather than 56. Even the normal 56 days is a compressed timeframe which may need to be decompressed a little. The bill only directly mentions two statutes: RSA 635:8 (which sets the date) and RSA 655:21 (which specifies the text for a cover sheet form accompanying nominating petitions.). It indirectly effects the deadline for filing nominating petitions for independent candidates and "third parties": this is set as "the Wednesday one week before the primary." It also indirectly effects the date when the checklists are posted, on "the fourth Tuesday before the day of any state election"— as well as several other deadlines which happen to be pegged to the primary date. One crucial deadline which is not pegged to the primary date is the filing period for partisan candidates: the June filing period is currently defined as the first Wednesday in June through the Friday of the following week. I personally favor a late state primary, with a compressed general election campaign. Our election schedule gives lesser known candidates more time to catch up with the early front runners, and it gives the voters a wider range of candidates to choose from. Our current calendar also gives independent candidates more time to collect nominating petitions. (My bill also leaves just the right amount of time for recounts and court challenges: a long enough time to get the result right, but a short enough time to ensure a prompt resolution.) There is resistance to holding an election in the summer months, when many families are on vacation, and when political activity tends to slow down considerably. That is one reason why I set the election as late in August as possible, the week before Labor Day, rather than just after Labor Day. Three first-in-the-nation Presidential primaries (1988 through 1996) were held on the Tuesday after Presidents' Day; however, there seems to be some resistance to scheduling state primaries for the Tuesday after Labor Day, which would be necessary if we had an earlier September Primary. (Ironically, this bill's first hearing is being held on the date of a hotly contested special election in the neighboring state of Massachusetts— a date which just happens to be the day after Martin Luther King Day.) We could hold it earlier, but the earlier in the summer we hold the election, the more families are on vacation. There has been some talk of moving the primary all the way up to June, but I think that is too early: it is better to give lesser-known contenders more time to make their cases to the electorate. Ideally, I would prefer leaving the date as is. However, I introduced this bill in case we need to change the date, and sadly it appears that we do in fact need to change the date. We may even need to consider changing this year's primary date.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
See Also:
HB 105: an election law bill related to vote counting devices
HB 1402: a bill abolishing the criminal penalty for adultery
HCR 28: a resolution against a federal constitutional convention
My October 13, 2010 statement about my 2010 re-election campaign (in PDF format)
June 3, 2011 Letter to the Editor to Foster's Daily Democrat in support of Bob Perry for state rep