Don't Count On Two-Thirds For Right To Work

            First a caveat.  I was wrong when I predicted Speaker Bill O’Brien would not be able to round up the votes to get to 239 and pass the education funding Constitutional amendment earlier this year.

            I could be wrong again but my best guess (what I refer to as a “gun to your head prediction”) is that Republicans will come up short of the two-thirds necessary to override Governor John Lynch’s veto of HB 474, the right to work bill.

            Here’s why.

            While Republicans still have a super majority (294-103 after this past week’s election), numerous Republican Reps still gravitate toward organized labor.  The Quandts and Perkins and Frank Sapareto and Mark Proulx and Irene Messier and something in the vicinity of two dozen Republicans are simply never going to change their votes, no matter how much gentle persuasion is applied.

            So let’s do the math.

            First let’s assume that nearly everyone is present for the vote.  Let’s say that 50 Republicans are not inclined to vote for the override.  Let’s say that Republican leadership can convince half of the 50 to take a walk and simply not vote at all.

            Here’s what we have.

            294 Republicans minus 50 leaves us with approximately 244 votes for the override.

            103 Democrats against it would be joined by the remaining 25 Republicans to produce 128 votes against the override.

            244-128 would not be enough for two-thirds.

            You would need to get another six Republicans to take a walk to get the vote down to 244-122—viola!  That’s two-thirds, but I count more than 19 Republicans who will vote with the Governor.

            The other solution would be to change the mind of a handful of Republicans who seem to be leaning against the override at this time.

            I could name names here (and probably will) and you can be sure that Republican leadership knows who are moveable.

            If 10 of those decided to vote for the override rather than take a walk and 25 Republicans still joined the Democrats, what would we have?

            254-128. That’s still one vote shy of two-thirds, so you might need to convince 11 or 12 soft no or absent votes to join Republican ranks.  Of course, a great deal depends on who shows up.  While Democrats will scramble to achieve 100 percent attendance, it’s very hard to do, so we could lower the number of Demcrat votes to 98-100.

          Of course, there could be a surprise on one side or the other.  Might a Democrat or two abandon the party?  Probably not, but if it’s close, one never knows.

             We could be in for a long day of Parliamentary wrangling.  The Speaker enjoys tremendous power, not to persuade people into voting with him, but in deciding when to bring the issue forward.  Although he’s said it will be voted on Wednesday, May 25, nothing would prevent him from postponing the vote if signs point to defeat.

            There’s also the matter of reconsideration.  Let’s say Republicans fail to achieve two-thirds by a small margin.  Will Democrats then risk moving reconsideration to get it over with?  Remember House rules stipulate that a vote may only be reconsidered once.

            However, rules can be changed with a two-thirds vote.  Even if the override fails and reconsideration fails, you conceivably could have a handful of Republicans who might vote with Democrats to sustain the veto but then might vote with the Speaker and Republicans on a procedural motion to keep the issue alive.  It's not as far-fetched a scenario as it appears at first blush.

            If I can think of these scenarios, you can be sure others in the Speaker’s office and Majority office are thinking of them as well.

            I could mention a dozen or so people who might—just might—be susceptible to gentle persuasion.  I'll name only four here.

            Carols Gonzalez—This one time Manchester Republican Mayoral candidate owes the party a great deal.  He spoke glowingly about naming the airport access road for Ray Wieczorek.  What if the Wiz were to call and say, “Hey thanks Carlos for the kind words, but rather than that road being named after me, could I get you to vote for right to work?”

            Gary Hopper—Weare Republican and Chairman of the Fish and Game Committee.  Should not chairmen be expected to vote with the party on such important issues?

            John Tholl—North Country Republican who’s in GOP leadership ranks.  (I know because he has the aisle seat next to me).  No one is suggesting anyone would change a vote for a seat, but should leaders not be expected to rally round the party on important votes?

            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 won’t go on, but I can come up with a dozen people who might want to come on down and get on board against the Governor (No, I am not and probably never will be in leadership, so I am making no calls--in fact some might have me in the camp of those Republicans who might just might switch to the other side--not gonna happen).

            Don’t discount the idea of rallying around the Republican cause and voting to thwart John Lynch.  In fact, while Bill O’Brien and DJ Bettencourt might not be able to swing enough votes to turn this around, Raymond Charles Buckley and Terie Norelli might.  Nothing could convince wavering Republicans more than outlandish comments like Ray, Terie, and Harrell the Humorless Hack are certainly capable of mouthing in the lead-up to Wednesday’s  vote (will it be Wednesday?).

            Come on Raybo, you can do it!  Unleash the Hack and right to work will get to two-thirds!

            Gun to my head prediction remains—you won’t see two-thirds, but I repeat—I’ve been wrong before.