Expect a full-blow Media Watch (by popular demand) later in the week, but it's necessary to correct an error immediately in Tueday's Union Leader. (And I though I'd get through an entire week without having to correct the William Loeb Lane folks).
In his editorial in support of CACR 6 (with which I totally agree), Drew Cline notes that "it appears to have enough votes to pass teh Senate with the required two-thirds majority".
This is a Constitutional Amendment which would require a 3/5 vote by the Legislature to pass new or increaded taxes or fees.
Here's the problem.
Constitutional Amendments require not a two-thirds vote by the House and Senate but sixty percent (of the entire body, not merely those present and voting--normally all 24 senators are present) to get on the ballot (and then two-thirds is required by the people voting). Two-thirds of 24 senators would be 16 votes, but 60 percent would be 15 votes (14.4 rounded up to 15). It's only a one vote difference. That could be critical but even more important is that editorial writers get Constitutional provisions correct.
The editorial notes that the House passed the measure 256-117 earlier. Had two-thirds been required, it would not have passed (two-thirds of 400 is 267; even if you account for three vacant seats, two-thirds of 397 is 265, more than the 256 votes received).
You're forgiven Drew (if indeed it wasn't W writing his own editorial).