Census Corrects 454 Person Portsmouth Error

               Despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars (was it more than a billion?), the United States Census Bureau has acknowledged making a mistake in New Hampshire.

               It credited the town of Hampton with 454 too many residents and the city of Portsmouth with 454 too few.  This means that any redistricting plans will have to account for the new numbers.  That shouldn’t be a problem with state senate, congressional, executive council, and county commissioner districts since Portsmouth and Hampton are likely to be in the same districts.

               It means, however, that we’ll have to take another look at State Rep districts to make sure they comply with the one man, one vote principle.

               Of course the morons who post in the blueblogblathererer blogosphere are already promising to sue the state no matter how perfect the redistricting plans are.  Yes, they are threatening to sue even before they’ve seen what they might be suing!

               However, those of us on the redistricting panel take our responsibilities seriously, and the Census mess-up will in fact be taken into account.

               Prior to the 454 injection, Portsmouth was well within acceptable deviation for losing one Rep, going from seven down to six.  However, with a new population of 21,233, it now deserves 6.45 Reps, a number too high to round down to six.  Thus, it will need to get another half a representative, and a new floatarial district will need to be created.

               There’s a particular problem with Portsmouth.  As noted here previously, every other city in the state realigns its wards to be approximately equal in population every ten years.  

               Portsmouth, which elects its city councilors at large rather than by wards, has not felt the need to even out its wards.  Ward 3 currently has 2444 people while neighboring Ward 4 has 5961 people!

               The new Constitutional amendment requires that every city, town, or ward with enough people (3291) be assigned its own Representative.  Thus, four of the Portsmouth wards have enough people for their own Rep.  Ward 3 currently does not.

               The Constitution does not allow the state to compel a city to realign its wards, so it’s all u to Portsmouth.  The House redistricting committee more than a month ago sent a letter explaining this to all city mayors and clerks.  We never heard back from Portsmouth.  As clerk of the House redistricting committee, I explained this problem to the City Clerk two weeks ago and to Portsmouth Representative Jackie Cali Pitts last week. Today, I received assurances from Portsmouth City Solicitor Sullivan that the city would address the problem (at a meeting of the city’s legislative delegation next Friday, he said, although I believe it’s the City Council which must approve changes in ward boundaries).

               Those in the blueblogblatherer blogosphere may be ready to sue before they know what plan will emerge, but let me assure all 1.316 million people in New Hampshire that the plan the House redistricting committee presents will be fair to every city, town, ward, and human being in the state.

               Threats of suits are not helpful, but of course any idiot can make any threat he or she so chooses, no matter how ignorant he or she may be.

               Why must Portsmouth gain 454 people and Hampton lose that many at such a late date?

               Apparently, the census added 454 people aboard a ship in the Portsmouth harbor to Hampton rather than Portsmouth.  Further details are beyond my need to know approach to this business, but rest assured.  The right numbers will be used. 

                Let’s hope more errors are not unearthed later on.

Coming Soon--Sytek Hall In The Lynch State House

Warning!  Warning!  Warning!  This blog comes with a warning.  Those easily offended by tongue-in-cheek humor, sarcasm, or satire should avoid this particular blog by all means.

Having violated its own policy against naming roads for living beings by approving the Raymond Wieczorek Memorial Airport Access Road yesterday, New Hampshire House members are scurrying around today attempting to find enough bits of real estate to name for truly deserving (but still breathing) public servants.

John Lynch, who became the first Governor ever elected to a fourth term, comes to mind immediately.  The State House is likely to become the Lynch House.

In honor of the first female Speaker, Reps Hall is slated to become Sytek Hall.

In the spirit of fairness, the first Democratic female Speaker will also have to be honored.  Since Terie Norelli fought so hard for the so-called “bathroom bill” and then spent $80,000 of taxpayer money renovating the third floor ladies room…you’re way ahead of me here…that’s right…it’ll be the Norelli Memorial Loo.

Long-serving solons on the Finance Committee certainly cannot be ignored.  Neal Kurk has been crafting budgets twice as long as Raymond Wieczorek served as mayor of Manchester, so many are insisting that the Kurk Memorial Finance Committee Chamber would be appropriate. 

Of course, current chair and long-time finance guru Ken Weyler cannot be ignored.  Fortunately, Finance subcommittees occupy separate rooms, so one of the three small  meeting chambers will be the Weyler Room.  Democrats fear they may not have the votes to name a second room in honor of Marjorie Smith, the only member of her party to Chair Finance in recent memory.  Republicans are pushing for the Scamman Room in honor of the on-again off-again Speaker who arguably spent more years laboring to make ours a better state than did Ray Wieczorek.

Of course with the state facing tough fiscal times, maybe we’re being too generous by handing out these memorial rooms.  Naming rights might be a better way to go.

Since Wieczorek already has the entire access road named for him, there’s talk that an access ramp will be named for Ted Gatsas who tops Wieczorek in terms of titles.  Not only is Gatsas the current Mayor, but he served five terms as an Alderman and was Senate President as well.  (Does Senate President outrank Executive Councilor)?

Rumor has it that Manchester’s two Aldermen At Large, whose combined tenure is three times as long as Wieczorek’s, are arguing among themselves, but are close to an agreement on the O’Neil-Lopez off ramp to the Wieczorek Access Road (or is it the Lopez-O’Neil off ramp?).

When Bob Baines heard that pieces of the road were all gobbled up, he began lobbying for his name on Fischer Cat Stadium which he foisted upon the people of Manchester with the false promise that it would pay for itself.  Unfortunately for Both Sides Bob, Merchants Auto has already come up with a check for naming rights, so his former Honor has agreed to settle for the Bob Baines Memorial Concession Stand. 

It will, of course, sell Kevin Clougherty Memorial hot dogs in honor of  Mayor Ray Wieczorek’s and Bob Baines’s  Finance Director who cooked up the phony numbers that never quite added up for Manchester tax payers.  Clougherty has gone on to become Lynch’s DRA Commissioner so he’s pushing for the rare naming twofer, hot dogs at Fischer Cat Stadium and the ________ sandwich in the Lynch House Cafeteria.  (Don’t expect me to do all the work here; you too can be a comedian simply by filling in the blank).

Possibilities are endless.  Now that House members have decided to start naming things for the living breathing human beings, lines of wannabes are forming in both Concord and Manchester.  If modesty prevents you from nominating yourself, just hire a lobbyist who can push your idea before the Tom Rath Memorial Naming Commission.

If you can't get an entire road, maybe an alley would do, or maybe you can find a way to have a Way named for you.  Don't laugh.  Look up Nick Demey Way (alley) off Laurel Street in Manchester.

243-111--House Passes Photo ID For Voting

By a vetoproof margin of 243-111 (68.6 percent), the New Hampshire House Wednesday afternoon passed Senate Bill 12 which would require a photo identification for purposes of voting.

Since the House added a significant amendment to the Senate bill, most expect the Senate to non-concur and ask for a commitee of conference.

The prime difference is that the House version allows provisional voting for those who show up without photo identifiction.  The Senate version mandates that each polling place have equipment to create a photo i.d. for those showing up without one.

The Secretary of State's office is believed to support the Senate version.

Republicans voted 243-21 for the bill while all 90 Democrats present voted against it.  This bill represents a major plank in the Republican platform.  Hanover Democrat David Pierce offered several amendments which would have changed the bill.  They all failed by more than two to one margins.

The 21 Republicans who voted against the bill are:  Pilliod, Russell, Tregenza, Emerson, Graham, Russ and Lynn Ober, Murphy, Simmons, Robbins, Warden, Cohn, Seaworth, Allen, DeSimone, Paul Brown, Chirichiello, Gould, and Laura and Kyle Jones.

Along with the usual suspects who often vote against the party, several of the no votes could be considered pure libertarians.

I voted for the bill, not because I believe voter fraud is rampant (it is NOT) but simply because I feel it will do no harm and will put everyone on a level playing field.  It might also speed up the voting process.  It'll be quicker for a poll checker to look at my ID and find my name rather than have me repeat the spelling several times.

Right To Work Falls 20 Votes Short Of Veto Proof Margin

As reported here two weeks ago, the New Hampshire House decided to accept the Senate amendment to the right to work bill (HB474) and send it right on to the Governor's desk without going to a committee of conference first.

However, the House vote (225-140) was far short of the two-thirds majority which will be necessary to override Governor John Lynch's promised veto.

No Democrats voted for the bill.  The Republican vote was 225-47 (82.7 percent).  However 20 or so Republicans would have to change their votes for a veto to be overridden.

I assume someone else will offer the rundown of the 47 Republicans who broke party ranks.  Most interestingly for me was that Manchester Representative Leo Pepino, who voted against the bill the first time around, voted for it this time. 

The House achieved a veto-proof majority and then some for HB148 which would take New Hampshire out of Obamacare and force the Attorney General to join the law suit against Obamacare.  The vote was 261-104 (71.5 percent).   Only 13 Republicans (the usual suspects) joined 92 Democrats in opposing the bill.  Not a single Democrat voted for the bill.

The 13 were:  Bolster, Millham, Pilliod, Emerson, Gargasz, Chris Christensen, Drisko, Kidder, Lockwood, Dowling, Gould, Julie Brown, and Lovett. 

By a margin just short of vetoproof (238-121), the House amended SB3 (the Senate's retirement plan) thus setting up a committee of conference.

The most interesting vote of the morning was on Senate Bill 160 which would have legalized pay day loans.  Despite a 16-2 Commerce Committee recommendation, the ought to pass motion failed 179-186 (too many nanny state Republicans). 

When a motion to kill the bill was offered, I felt compelled to speak against it, noting that if poor people should not be allowed to opt for high interest loans, then maybe we should deny them the right to buy a meal in exess of $50 (no surf and turf for the poor), a car costing more than $20,000 or to go to a rock concert costing more than $100.  The principle is the same--government is telling "poor people" what they should and should not do.

Surprisingly, the motion to kill the bill failed 183-184.  A motion to table also failed and finally the House voted 225-142 to recommit the bill to the Commerce Committee, so we haven't heard the end of this debate pitting Big Brother/Nanny Staters versus libertarian purists.

All in a morning's work.

Stay tuned.     

The Republican Case Against A Line Item Veto (CACR5)

NOON UPDATE--Lacking support for this concept, the Republican Ways and Means Chair told me Wednesday morning that a motion will be made to table this amendment (death with dignity).  Thus, these remarks will most likely not be uttered on the House floor, but it appears they are prevalent.  It now appears that this amendment would not only fail to get 60 percent; it would fail to get even a simple majority.

-----------------------------------

Let's do something a little different today.  Normally I don't speak from a prepared text on the House floor, but I've actually written something against CACR5, the Senate-passed amendment which calls for a gubernatorial line item veto.

I was really surprised (amazed is perhaps too strong a word) that all Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee voted for this.  It's not a good idea for Republicans, and I'll explain why late in the day.

Here's what I'm scheduled to say.  I may not follow the script since I may wish to respond to comments made by speakers earlier in the debate, but you get a preview here.

With Democrats against this amendment (and many Republcans I've spoken with as well), I am fairly confidenct it will fail to reach the 60 percent (238 votes) threhhold needed to go to the voters.

"Thank you Mister Speaker.  I rise in opposition to the committee report and to this proposed constitutional amendment.  I do so with some degree of confusion and please consider my comments more as a series of questions rather than hard and fast opposition.

At first blush, this amendment makes sense.  I suppose that’s why every Republican on the Ways and Means Committee voted for it.  After all, who wouldn’t support an amendment which would lead to less government spending?  Especially wasteful spending, and I suppose the natural tendency would be to assume that any Governor exercising the line item veto would do so only for wasteful spending.

But I’m not sure that’s the case, and I’m convinced that negatives outweigh any possible good this amendment could accomplish.

Why, for example, would any Representative or Senator vote for this amendment which would take power away from not only himself or herself individually but also away from the Legislature as an institution?

Does it really make sense to say that one man or woman, the governor, any governor, is the font of more wisdom than dozens of House members and Senators who have worked for months creating a budget?  I think not.

Does it really make sense to give one man or woman so much power?  I think not.

If you vote for this amendment, you are in effect saying that you are not qualified to construct a budget that is in the best interests of the citizens of our state.  You are in effect abrogating your responsibility to one individual.  After 14 years in the House, I tend to have more confidence in the combined wisdom of 424 people than of one person.

I may be wrong, but I think not.

For fiscal conservatives, like myself, there is really only one time when this amendment could prove useful, and it’s a time that has never before happened in our history, when the people might choose to elect a Republican governor and a Democratic House and Senate.  Only then might we find a conservative executive in the position to rein in out of control Legislative spending.  I suppose it could happen, but—I repeat and correct me if I’m wrong—it’s never happened in our history.  That’s why I’m so confused Mr. Speaker that all Republicans on the committee voted for this and all Democrats voted against it.

I don’t buy the argument that we should do this because 43 other states have done it.  I can assert with certainty that none of those 43 states have as many as 424 individuals who must vote for a budget before it gets to their governor.

For those who prefer to deal in the realm of the practical rather than the theoretical, let’s look at one example from this very year.  In the House budget, we’ve added in monies to fully fund charter schools.  This idea came out of Division II of Finance.  Even in times when monies are tough to come by, Republicans felt so committed to charter schools that they put this money into the budget.  It’s a prime example of what a Democratic governor could eliminate with a line item veto. 

Do we want that?  Or do we want the possibility of something like that happening in the future?  I think not.

While this amendment seems like a good idea at first blush, it would in fact serve as a destabilizing force in budgeting at a time when stability is more and more essential. 

 It’s true that any veto, including a line item veto, could be overridden by a two-thirds vote, but Republicans  really need to ask themselves—do you really think we’re going to have a three to one majority forever?  No, probably not.

 While a line item veto might be a good idea at the federal level, does it really make sense for New Hampshire?

I’m just asking but I think not.  I think—actually I know—I will vote against this and I hope others who have confidence in themselves, in their abilities to create budgets for this state, will also vote against it. "