Quote of the Day: GOP Could Lose More Than 100 Seats

While Republicans led by David Bates in New Hampshire continue to be doubling down their opposition to gay marriage, most — if not all — polls (including those conducted by Republican pollsters) show that more than 60 percent of New Hampshire residents believe the issue is settled, and the Legislature should move on to other business. If Bates and Company get their way, we may see the impossible happen — Republicans could actually lose more than 100 seats to lose control of the NH House.

— GOP state Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, on Republican efforts to repeal same-sex marriage

Quote of the Day: Let Despotism Rule

The tragedy is that Republicans won so many seats in 2010 that O’Brien and company have come to believe that they can do absolutely anything they choose. To hell with the spirit of compromise. To hell with the Constitution. Let despotism rule. That’s the modus operandi for Speaker O’Brien…

— GOP state Rep. Steve Vaillancourt

GOP Rep Accuses Speaker O’Brien of Ethics Violations

In an open letter to the chairman of the House Ethics Committee, GOP state Rep. Steve Vaillancourt asks if Speaker Bill O’Brien “and his minions” violated two provisions of the New Hampshire General Court Ethics Guidelines involving coercion and lack of openness.

The first provision Vaillancourt cites is the Principle On Independent Objective Judgment which states, “Legislators should employ independent objective judgment in performing their duties, deciding all matters on merits free from conflicts of interest and both real and apparent improper influences.”

To me, this means that all legislators must put the interests of the Constitution and the people who elected us ahead of party interests. To me, this means that bullying, coercion, or intimidation by party leaders to change votes would constitute a conflict of interest. [emphasis added]

Vaillancourt details several instances of O’Brien’s coercion and intimidation, the most recent which occurred during the debate over the House redistricting plan.

In an absolute stunning development, an amendment … passed by a margin of 170-153. This was not what the Speaker and Republican leadership wanted, so the Speaker immediately called a recess for a caucus. While I don’t feel at liberty to detail what went on in the caucus, in my opinion there was blatant intimidation, coercion, arm twisting, whatever word or phrase you might choose to use. …

I ask for your clarification as to how much coercion is allowed before it would be in violation of the ethics provision I noted here. Clearly, as we learn in testimony from the Emerson bill, intimidation has been at record level this year. It seems to me that the Speaker and his minions and those who have failed to employ independent objective judgment are guilty of ethics violations many times over, but then I’m not a lawyer.

The second ethics provision Vaillancourt cites is the Principle of Accountability which reads, “Legislators should assure that government is conducted openly, equitably and honorably in a manner that permits the citizenry to make informed judgments and hold government officials accountable.”

Others have charged, and I am beginning to agree, that most of the House redistricting process was not “conducted openly”. … An investigation, sadly, would likely show that much of the redistricting work was done behind closed doors by non-elected officials. … Clearly, others were secretly involved. Clearly, these others ignored what little public input there was. The question is how much secrecy is allowed before violation of Section III occurs. Certainly, words have meaning, and if meaning is to be followed, can such secrecy be acceptable?

House “Breathtaking Disrespect” for N.H. Constitution

The New Hampshire House is moving forward with a plan to bypass the Governor and send its redistricting plan directly to the Secretary of State for implementation. Rep. Paul Mirski, chair of the House Special Committee on Redistricting, says lawmakers will accomplish this by submitting the plan in a House Concurrent Order rather than a House Bill.

Rep. Steve Winter, sponsor of the HCO, points to Article 9 of the New Hampshire Constitution.

“It says nothing about the Governor at all,” he said. “It is the duty of the Legislature. We have been doing it through a bill, making a law that these are the districts, but looking through the Constitution we cannot see where the Governor is supposed to play a role in that.”

Republican Rep. Steve Vaillancourt says the approach will “most certainly” result in a lawsuit.

“[I]t is both unconstitutional and unwise, is a slap at the separation of powers provision. It would set a dangerous precedent which could come back to bite the same Republican Parfty which is pushing it today.”

Democratic Rep. David Pierce gets the last word, calling it a “breathtaking disrespect for the constitution.”

Pierce argues those in favor of using an HCO are picking parts of the Constitution that work for them and ignoring the document as a whole, and added something as “vitally important” as redistricting should be subject to the same checks and balances as other legislation.

Speaker O’Brien’s “Dictatorial and Illegal” Tactics

The New Hampshire House session yesterday was one for the record books — don’t miss Dean Barker’s contemporaneous, tweet-by-tweet account of the chaos.

The House ostensibly met to address several fast-tracked bills that were introduced last month. One of those, SB 198, provides a technical fix to the formula used to calculate assistance payments. It corrects an oversight that has cost the state $2 million since July1.

Speaker Bill O’Brien insisted on appending a non-germane amendment to SB 198, despite the fact that this will delay its adoption for at least three months and cost the state another $2 million. State Senate President Peter Bragdon blasted the House action.

“It is unfortunate the Speaker has chosen such a confrontational position when the governor, the non-partisan Legislative Budget Assistant’s Office, leaders and members of our party as well as other conservative voices agree that SB 198 should have been passed immediately without an amendment.”

But as egregious as the delay is, the manner in which the amendment was adopted is even more deplorable. In fact, Republican state Rep. Steve Vaillancourt claims the amendment “never really passed.” (!)

In the most shameful display of strong-handed tactics I’ve witnessed in this my eighth term in the House, Speaker O’Brien refused to allow a recorded vote on the amendment. … Such a blatant denial of free speech is unheard of and a most vile and dangerous precedent in the New Hampshire House.

After calling for the yeas, O’Brien banged his gavel before even hearing the nays—everyone should really listen to the tape on this one. The vote could have been two to one against the amendment and he would have ruled that it had passed!. If a vote is close, people may request a roll call or division vote. In fact, several people were yelling for a recorded vote before the gavel fell, but the Speaker refused to acknowledge the request, no big deal when the vote is a foregone conclusion, but this voice vote hardly fell into that category.

He may well have hammered in a vote which would in fact have lost. That’s how few yeas he had. I’m sure you’ll all want to review the tape—I certainly will.

I was embarrassed (as were many other Republicans) by this ham-handed anti-small d-democrtic treatment. As a defender of the Speaker throughout the year, even when he cleared the gallery on the day the budget passed, I was disgusted by his actions today. I begin to understand complaints Democrats have been mouthing all year. I had my problems with Democratic Speaker Terri Norelli from time to time in the past four years (as did O’Brien when he was in the minority), but she never did anything even coming close to the dictatorial and illegal tactics we witnessed today.

Contentious Bills Waiting for Lynch to Sign or Veto

It looks like Gov. John Lynch will have a busy week-end. More than a dozen bills passed by the House and Senate on Wednesday have made it to his desk. Controversial bills included in the baker’s dozen are HB329, requiring parental notification for abortions, and SB 129, requiring a photo ID to vote. Lynch will have until Wednesday to sign the bills, veto them, or let them become law without his signature.

Right-to-Work Bribes and Threats (Cont.)

When Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, who sits on the House Special Committee on Redistricting, suggested that GOP Rep. Susan Emerson’s vote on so-called Right-to-Work legislation could impact the make-up of her house district, I read it as a threat.

Susan Emerson—After having received so much negativity publicity (at least for Republican primary voters) opposing the Speaker in the media, might she be willing to come back to the fold? Maybe if she wants to get re-elected in 2012, she better start thinking of coming back. Hey, who knows what her district will even look like next year. Just the facts, M’aam, just the facts.

I was wrong. Apparently, it was a bribe.

[Emerson] told the Portsmouth Herald she has received various inducements from Republican House leaders — including a “plum” legislative district when redistricting takes place and reinstatement to her former committee seat — to change her opposition to House Bill 474.

Regardless, Emerson remains committed to voting against Right-to-Work. “I told them (House leadership) that everyone would know I sold out to them if I changed my vote.”

O’Brien’s Right-to-Work Strategy: Bribes and Threats

GOP state Rep. Lee Quandt documents the bribes and threats coming from the House leadership in its effort to override Gov. Lynch’s veto of the so-called Right-to-Work legislation.

What is happening now is state reps are being, as close as I can figure, bribed and threatened all in the same day. I have been told that the speaker is promising money for your campaign if you stick with him and vote for RTW by voting against the Governors Veto. Then I hear that the majority leader is calling state reps and threatening them to vote with leadership to override the governor’s veto….

One direct threat came from Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, who sits on the House Special Committee on Redistricting. Vaillancourt threatened to use the redistricting process to ensure Rep. Susan Emerson loses her seat in the next election if she votes to sustain the Governor’s veto.

Susan Emerson—After having received so much negativity publicity (at least for Republican primary voters) opposing the Speaker in the media, might she be willing to come back to the fold? Maybe if she wants to get re-elected in 2012, she better start thinking of coming back. Hey, who knows what her district will even look like next year. Just the facts, M’aam, just the facts.

Rep. Raymond Gagnon adds this:

Among the stories being circulated is that the more fervent radical republicans are threatening to have any member evicted from their caucus if they don’t support and vote the republican leadership position.

Quandt says the heavy-handed tactics will backfire:

The growing discomfort with our so called leadership team, is only going to split the house more and make it more difficult, if not impossible to hold a veto proof majority and may put the governor in a better position to negotiate a budget he is more comfortable with, due to the hard feelings and loss of respect for the current house leadership. In fact our leadership group is making their own case for why they should be removed.