Who and in what context was the following remark made regarding constitutional revisions?  Regular followers of this blog may have an idea without choices, but five will be offered.

"All power issues from the people.  The constitution lays down the way by which a conception, an idea, and therefore an organization must gain from the people the legitimation, for the realization of its aims.  But in the last resort, it is the people itself that determines the constitution...When a constitution proves itself o be useless for its life, the nation does not die--the constitution is altered."

Was that?

A--Thomas Jefferson, arguing that the U.S. Constitution be amended to prevent a recurrence of the electoral college tie in 1800;

B--Abraham Lincoln, arguing for passage of the 13th amendment barring slavery;

C--Woodrow Wilson, pleading for his "progressive" measures, including a federal income tax;

D--Ronald Reagan, appealing for a balanced budget amendment;

E--Adolf Hitler, noting even before he assumed power, that changes would be needed in the Weimar Constitution.

Hint--441-94.

Hmmm.

First, the quote doesn't flow too smoothly, indicating a translation.

Secondly, I've referred to Alan Bullock's 1000-page tract "Hitler and Stalin:  Parallel Lives" this week, not to mention the Night of the Long Knives.

Of course, the answer is E, Adolf Hitler.  It's from page 252 of Bullock's book.  Hitler said that in December, 1931, 14 months before he was appointed Chancellor by the elderly President Von Hindenburg.  Hitler was responding to a question about his intentions; a question from then Chancellor Heinrich Bruning.

The 441-94 is the vote for the Enabling Act in March, 1933, two months after Hitler came to power and a month after the Reichstag fire.  By that vote, the Reichstag basically voted to get rid of itself and give unlimited power to the Chancellor's cabinet.

Bruning, by the way, escaped death on June 30, 1934, the Knight on the Long Knives, only because he had fled the country.  Another former Chancellor Kurt Von Schleicher, was not as fortunate.  He was murdered as his wife looked on.

Bullock's previous biography "Hitler, A Study in Tyranny" is a much better book actually, not to mention shorter.

Moving from undecided to definitely no are David Lundgren and Brian Wazlaw.

Betsy Burtis is the only switch from No to Yes (a reluctant yes, she writes me). Here's her explanation (no mention if her decision came before or after a meeting in the corner office).

While I understand opinion polls in favor of gambling in general, I find it impossible to believe that people who know what SB152 does could possibly be for it by a three to one margin, but that's just me!  I guess I'll talk about that specifically on the House floor (unless the bill gets tabled).

Bob Backus has moved himself from No to Und.  I had him as a No because his wife is a leader in the anti-gambling movement, but he's also a friend of Lou D'Allesandro who, according to my Manchester TV sources, say appeared on the Backus TV show last week to plead for Manchester support.  Even if it destroys the Verizon Wireless Center (in other words, even without the Long protection amendment), expect most Manchester Democrats to vote for this bill!

Phil Straight and Tony Pellegrino, both from Merrimack, has been moved from Yeses to Undecided.

Joe Duarte has moved from No to Undecided.

That should come out to 138-200.

As for the procedure for the bill Wednesday, keep in mind that House rules call for the committee recommendation to be voted on first.  That is Inexpedient To Legislate.  If that motion passes, the bill dies.  If it fails, any number of other motions could be made.  Word Friday is that many amendments, presumably the same ones which were never voted on by the committee Wednesday, have been printed in the calendar. 

Since I am so convinced the ITL motion will pass, I was not going to have the state incur the expense of printing my amendment, but when I learned that others are doing that, I decided, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."  Thus, should the ITL motion fail, I will be prepared to offer my amendment which, rather than the state getting a mere 30 percent as in the D'Allesandro bill, the state would get 60 percent of revenues from six mini facilities (four with 600 slots; two with 1300).

During the debate on ITL, details of specific amendments may be not be explored.  Talk of amendments in general terms is usually allowed by the Speaker but nothing specific.

A tabling motion is always in order and may be offered at any time--without debate.  A tabling motion most likely would kill the bill.  While there is some talk of such a motion, I would vote against it because I believe this subject is important enough to warrant a full debate.

All indications are that Governor Maggie Hassan continues to apply tremendous personal pressure on first term (and other) Democrats.  I'm told she is asking that Democrats promise her they will vote for this bill as a personal favor regardless of how they feel about it.

If that's true, and I have no reason to believe it's not true, all I can say is that anyone who votes for such a reason is violating his or her oath of office (we pledge to act on our own best judgement) and should be ashamed of himself or herself...if not removed from office.  Of course, there would be no way to prove such motivation. 

The more the Governor pushes for this plan, the more chance that she will be deemed a big loser if it fails, especially if she cannot rally a majority of Democrats who in the past have always been slightly more anti-gambling than Republicans.

As I check my emails, I discover some back and forth on the gambling bill, mostly something we rarely see--internal Democratic fighting (Jeff Goley vs Marj Smith for example), but surprisingly, I've received far more emails for and against lead for loons.

Anyone keeping tabs on that...feel free to put me down with the loons (no pun intended).

Here's your personalized gambling scoresheet, alphabetized.  Since I first posted a sampling of this earlier today, one person called to move from yes to no.  Unlike Channel 9 which seems to ignore messages of change, I will update this immediately when I learn someone is not listed correctly here.

A "yes" here indicates support for the Senate gambling plan which, of course, would mean a no vote on the Inexpedient to Legislate motion and vise-versa.

Unless I know differently, I have taken the WMUR positions.  For others, I have either used past gambling votes (not always an indication of future tendencies, I must admit) or my personal knowledge.  Very rarely, I have moved people to one column for geographic or party reasons.  For example, I moved a few first term Nashua Democrats into the yes column; and a few Carroll or Belknap County Republicans into the no column.

The listing I received seems to have the two newly elected Reps missing; I have added the new Manchester Rep, but the list seems to be one Rep (Nashua short).

It is conceivable that some people might vote against ITL only because they want to hear amendments, but my guess is this number will be only five or so.

In a few cases I've used "lean yes" or "lean no" terminology.

NOTES:

Winters--Since this bill represents a monopoly, an anathema to libertarian types, Joel is the only Libertarian l've listed as yes, and only because that's what he told me.

Hatch, Huot, Ulery voted against ITL in committee, but I feel more comfortable leaving them as undecided here.

Rideout emailed me to say that although he supports gambling, he will not vote for this plan, so I moved him from yes to no.

Kaen, the deputy speaker, has voted both for and against gambling in the past.  I had her a lean yes, but feel more comfortable with a straight undecided.

Gionet is listed as a Yes by WMUR; he told me he would not vote for this plan, but I felt more comfortable listing him as undecided.

Rappaport is a No on WMUR.  A lobbyist insists he should be yes, so I listed him as Und.

Unk indicates that I have no idea how these Reps are likely to vote.

Und indicates that at least to me they appear truly undecided and may not even know themselves how they will vote.  Rep. Shurtleff, take note.

If my math is correct, the total is 139 Yes and 201 no.

Abrami, Patrick F            Stratham               r               no

Aguiar, James D                Campton             d             no        

Ahlgren, Christopher J  Wolfeboro          r                  yes

Alicea, Caroletta C          Boscawen           d             yes

Allen, Mary M   Newton               r                              yes

Almy, Susan W  Lebanon              d                             no

Ames, Richard   Jaffrey  d                                             yes

Andrews, Christopher R               Bow       d            yes

Andrews-Ahearn, E.   Hampton Falls  d                 yes

Arsenault, Beth R            Laconia d                             no

Azarian, Gary S  Salem   r                                              yes

Baber, William S              Dover    d                            yes

Backus, Robert A              Manchester        d             und

Bailey, Brad        Monroe                r                      lean no

Baldasaro, Alfred P         Londonderry      r              und

Barry, Richard W              Merrimack          r              no

Bartlett, Christy D            Concord               d             no

Beaudoin, Steven P        Rochester           r             no

Beaulieu, Jane E               Manchester        d            yes

Belanger, James P           Hollis    r                              no

Belanger, Ronald J          Salem   r                              yes

Benn, Bernard L                Hanover               d            no

Berch, Paul S      Westmoreland d                            unk

Berube, Roger R               Somersworth    d             yes

Bick, Patrick J     Salem   r                                              no

Bickford, David A             New Durham     r              no

Birdsell, Regina M           Hampstead         r             yes

Bishop, Franklin C           Raymond             r             no

Bixby, Peter W  Dover    d                                          unk

Boehm, Ralph G               Litchfield             r             yes

Boisvert, Ronald R           Manchester        d            yes

Booras, Efstathia C          Nashua d                         yes

Borden, David A               New Castle         d            no

Bouchard, Candace C W                Concord    d       yes           

Bradley, Lester W            Thornton             r           no   

Briden, Steven J               Exeter   d                        yes

Brown, Pamela T              Nashua d                      yes

Brown, Rebecca A           Sugar Hill             d       lean no    

Buco, Thomas L Conway                d                         yes

Burchell, Richard B          Gilmanton Iron Works   r      no      

Burdwood, Greg               Dover    d                      unk

Burke, Rachel B                Farmington        d            no

Burns, Scott A    Franklin               d                         no

Burridge, Delmar D         Keene   d                         no

Burt, John A       Goffstown          r                            no

Burtis, Elizabeth B           Derry     d                          yes

Butler, Edward A              Harts Location   d            yes

Butynski, William            Hinsdale              d            yes

Byron, Frank A  Litchfield             r                            no

Cahill, Michael D              Newmarket        d            unk

Cali-Pitts, Jacqueline A Portsmouth        d             und

Campbell, David B           Nashua d                         yes

Carey, Lorrie J   Boscawen           d                         unk

Carroll, Douglas L             Nashua d                       yes

Carson, Clyde J Warner d                                lean no

Cebrowski, John W         Bedford               r             no

Chandler, Gene G            Bartlett                r             no

Chandley, Shannon E     Amherst              d            no

Charron, Gene P               Chester                r             yes

Chase, Cynthia L               Keene   d                        no

Chirichiello, Brian K        Derry     r                        yes

Christiansen, Lars T         Hudson                r             no

Cloutier, John R                Claremont          d            yes

Coffey, James E                New Ipswich      r             no

Comerford, Timothy P   Fremont              r               no

Comtois, Guy     Center Barnstead            r             no

Connor, Evelyn M            Weare  d                            no

Cooney, Mary R                Plymouth            d            no

Copeland, Timothy D     Stratham             r             unk

Cordelli, Glenn Tuftonboro         r                          no

Cormier, Jane    Alton     r                                       no

Cote, David E     Nashua d                                     yes

Coulombe, Gary M          Berlin    d                        yes

Crawford, Karel A            Ctr Harbor           r             no

Culbert, Patrick L             Pelham                r             unk

Cushing, Robert R            Hampton             d            lean no

Danais, Romeo Nottingham       r                            no

Daniels, Gary L  Milford r                                          no

Danielson, David J           Bedford               r             no

Davis, Frank W  Pembroke           d                           no

DeSimone, Debra L         Atkinson              r             yes

Devine, James E               Sandown             r             yes

DiMartino, Lisa Laconia d                                         unk

DiSilvestro, Linda A        Manchester        d            yes

Dobson, Jeremy S            Manchester        d            yes

Doolan, Ralph J Littleton              r                              no

Duarte, Joe         Candia  r                                         und

Dumaine, Dudley D        Auburn r                              no          

Eaton, Daniel A Stoddard             d                           no

Eaton, Richard S               Greenville          d            unk

Ebel, Karen E     New London      d                           no

Elliott, Robert J Salem   r                                           yes

Emerick, J. Tracy               Hampton             r             unk

Emerson, Susan                Rindge  r                        no

Emerson-Brown, Rebecca            Portsmouth   d  lean no          

Enman, Larry S  Errol      d                                        yes

Ferrante, Beverly A        Derry     r                            yes

Fesh, Robert M Derry     r                                             no

Fields, Dennis H               Sanbornton        r             yes

Fink, Charles R  Belmont              r                          no

Flanagan, Jack B               Brookline            r             no

Flanders, Donald H         Laconia r                          no

Flockhart, Eileen C          Exeter   d                          no

Ford, Susan M   Easton  d                                          no

Frambach, Mary E            Epsom  d                          no

Frazer, June M  Concord               d                          no

French, Barbara C            Henniker             d            no

Friedrich, Carol H             Wentworth        d               no

Friel, William G                Atkinson              r             yes

Gage, Ruth E      Goffstown          d                           yes

Gagne, Larry G   Manchester        r                      lean no

Gagnon, Raymond G       Claremont          d            lean yes

Gale, Sylvia E     Nashua d                                        no

Garcia, Bianca R                Salem   r                         no

Garcia, Marilinda J           Salem   r                           no

Garcia, Michael A             Nashua d                          no

Gardner, Janice S             Dover    d                            unk            

Gargasz, Carolyn M         Hollis    r                           no

Gidge, Kenneth N            Nashua d                           yes

Gile, Mary Stuart              Concord               d            no

Ginsburg, Philip E            Durham                d            no

Gionet, Edmond D           Lincoln r                          und

Goley, Jeffrey P                Manchester        d            yes

Gordon, Richard E            East Kingston     r           no

Gorman, Mary J                Nashua d                         yes

Gottling, Suzanne H        Sunapee              d            no

Grace, Curtis W Brentwood         r                          no

Grady, Brenda E                Merrimack          d            yes

Graham, John A                Bedford               r             no

Grassie, Anne C                Rochester           d            no

Gray, James P    Rochester           r                            no

Greemore, Robert H       Meredith             r             no

Grenier, James L              Goshen                r             yes

Griffin, Mary E   Windham            r                              yes

Groen, Warren J               Rochester           r             no

Grossman, Kenneth        Barrington          d            yes

Gulick, Ruth P    New Hampton  d                            yes

Hackel, Paul L    Nashua d                                         yes

Haefner, Robert H           Hudson                r             und

Hagan, Joseph M              Chester                r             yes

Hammon, Marcia             Whitefield          d            unk

Hammond, Jill S               Peterborough   d            no

Hansberry, Daniel C        Nashua d                     lean yes

Hansen, Peter T                Amherst              r             no

Harding, Laurie Lebanon              d                            no          

Harriott-Gathright, Linda              Nashua d            und

Harris, Jeffrey F                Epping  r                            no

Hatch, William A              Gorham                d            und

Hayes, Jack         Atkinson              r                        yes

Heden, Ruth S   Milford d                                          no

Heffron, Frank H              Exeter   d                           no

Helmstetter, Barbara S  Epping  d                           yes

Henle, Paul J      Concord               d                       unk

Hess, David W   Hooksett             r                         no

Higgins, Patricia C            Hanover               d           lean no

Hikel, John A     Goffstown          r                           no

Hinch, Richard W             Merrimack          r             yes

Hirsch, Geoffrey D           Bradford              d            no

Hodgdon, Bruce E            Northwood        r             unk

Hoell, J.R.            Dunbarton          r                           no

Hoelzel, Kathleen M      Raymond             r             no

Holmes, Stephen             Alton     r                            no

Hooper, Dorothea D       Dover    d                           no

Hopper, Gary S  Weare  r                                          no

Horrigan, Timothy O       Durham                d            no

Hubbard, Pamela J          Rochester           d            unk

Hunt, Jane J        Concord               d                        unk

Hunt, John B      Rindge  r                                          no

Huot, David O    Laconia d                                       und

Infantine, William J        Manchester        r             no

Introne, Robert E             Londonderry      r             no

Irwin, Virginia   Newport              d                            unk

Itse, Daniel C     Fremont              r                            no

Jack, Martin L     Nashua d                                lean yes

Jasper, Shawn N               Hudson                r             no

Jeudy, Jean L     Manchester        d                         yes

Johnsen, Gladys               Keene   d                        yes

Johnson, Jane B                Swanzey              r             no

Jones, Laura M  Rochester           r                             no

Kaen, Naida L    Lee         d                                        und

Kappler, Lawrence M     Raymond             r             no

Karrick, David B                Warner d                            yes

Katsiantonis, George     Manchester        d            ABSENT

Katsiantonis, Thomas    Manchester        d               no

Kelley, John D   Nashua d                                            no

Kelly, Sally H      Chichester          d                            yes

Ketel, Stephen M            Dover    d                             unk

Khan, Aboul B   Seabrook             r                               yes

Kidder, David H                New London      r                no

Knowles, Mary Ann        Hudson                d              yes

Kolodziej, Walter            Windham            r             yes

Kopka, Angeline A          Nashua d                              yes

Kotowski, Frank R            Hooksett             r             yes

Kurk, Neal M      Weare  r                                           no            

Ladd, Rick M       Haverhill             r                       yes

Lambert, George A          Litchfield             r             unk

Lauer, Linda D   Bath       d                                       unk

Lavender, Tom  Brookfield          d                           unk

LeBrun, Donald L              Nashua r                       no

Lefebvre, Benjamin P    Grantham            d           yes

Leishman, Peter R           Peterborough   d            yes

Lerandeau, Alfred C       N. Swanzey        d            yes

Levasseur, Nickolas J     Manchester        d            lean yes

LeVasseur, Richard D     Hudson                r             no

Levesque, Melanie A     Brookline            d               no

Ley, Douglas A  Jaffrey  d                                           no

Lockwood, Priscilla P     Canterbury         r             no

Long, Patrick T   Manchester        d                          yes

Lovejoy, Patricia T           Stratham             d            no

Lovett, Sid          Holderness         d                         no

Lundgren, David C           Londonderry      r             no

Luther, Robert A              Laconia r                           no

MacKay, James R              Concord               d            no

MacKay, Mariellen J       Nashua d                             yes

Major, Norman L              Plaistow              r             no

Malloy, Dennis J               Barrington          d            unk

Manley, Jonathan F        Bennington        d            unk

Mann, John E     Alstead                d                         unk

Mann, Maureen R            Deerfield            d            unk

Marston, Dick    Manchester        r                          lean no

Martel, Andre A               Manchester        r             yes

Massimilla, Linda             LIttleton              d            unk

McCarthy, Michael J       Nashua r                            yes

McCloskey, David            Manchester        d            yes

McConkey, Mark E           Freedom             r             yes

McGuire, Carol M             Epsom  r                          no

McGuire, Dan    Epsom  r                                          no

McKinney, Betsy              Londonderry      r             yes

McMahon, Charles E       Windham            r             yes

McNamara, Richard D    Hillsborough      d            unk

Meaney, Richard E          Goffstown          r             no

Menear, H. Robert          Durham                d            yes

Merrow, Harry C               Ctr Ossipee        r             yes

Miller, David P  Rochester           d                           unk

Milz, David E      Derry     r                                         yes

Moffett, Howard M         Canterbury         d            unk

Moody, Marcia G              Newmarket        d            no

Moynihan, Wayne T       Dummer              d            unk

Mulholland, Catherine  Grafton                d            no

Mullen, John A Middleton          r                              yes

Muns, Chris        Hampton             d                         und

Murotake, David K          Nashua r                         yes

Murphy, Keith   Bedford               r                            no

Murphy, Kelleigh D         Bedford               r             no

Myler, Mel          Contoocook       d                           no

Nelson, Bill G    Brookfield          r                            no

Nelson, Mary S Nashua d                                      yes

Nigrello, Robert L            East Kingston     r             yes

Nordgren, Sharon            Hanover               d            no

Norelli, Terie     Portsmouth        d                            no

Notter, Jeanine M           Merrimack          r             no

O'Brien, Michael B          Nashua d                          yes

O'Brien, William L           Mont Vernon     r             no

O'Connor, John T             Derry     r                          unk

O'Flaherty, Tim Manchester        d                         no

O'Hearne, Andrew S       Claremont          d            unk

O'Neil, William          Manchester            d               yes

Ober, Lynne M  Hudson                r                           yes

Ober, Russell T Hudson                r                            yes

Oligny, Jeffrey D              Plaistow              r             yes

Packard, Sherman A       Londonderry      r             no

Palangas, Eric    Manchester        d                         yes

Palmer, Stephen J           Milford r                            no

Pantelakos, Laura C        Portsmouth        d            yes

Parison, James A              New Ipswich      r             no

Parkhurst, Henry A. L.    Winchester        d              no

Parsons, Robbie L            Milton  r                              no

Pastor, Beatriz  Lyme     d                                           no

Patten, Dick W  Concord               d                        yes

Peckham, Michele S       North Hampton       r       unk          

Pellegrino, Tony J            Merrimack          r             und

Pelletier, Marsha L          Dover    d                      lean no

Perkins, Amy S  Seabrook             r                        yes

Perkins, Lawrence B       Seabrook             r             yes

Perry, Robert J  Strafford              d                            no

Peterson, Lenette M      Merrimack          r                  no

Phillips, Larry R Keene   d                                          no

Piper, Wendy A                Enfield d                              no

Pitre, Joseph A Farmington        r                                no

Porter, Marjorie A           Hillsborough      d                no

Pratt, Calvin D   Goffstown          r                                no

Priestley, Anne K             Salem   r                            yes

Ramsey, Peter E               Manchester        d            yes

Rappaport, Laurence M Colebrook           r              unk

Ratzki, Mario F  East Andover     d                             yes

Raymond, Ian P                Sanbornton        d            no

Reed, Dennis     Franklin               r                             yes

Reilly, Harold T Hill         r                                             yes

Renzullo, Andrew           Hudson                r             no

Rhodes, Brian D                Nashua d                            yes

Rice, Chip L         Concord               d                          no

Rice, Frederick C              Hampton             r             no

Richardson, Gary B          Hopkinton          d            no

Richardson, Herbert D   Lancaster             r               yes

Rideout, Leon H               Lancaster             r             no ?

Roberts, Kris E   Keene   d                                           no

Robertson, Timothy N   Keene   d                              no

Rogers, Katherine D       Concord               d              yes

Rogers, Rose Marie         Rochester           d            no

Rokas, Ted          Manchester        d                             yes

Rollins, Skip       Newport              r                              yes

Rollo, Deanna S                Rollinsford         d            yes

Rosenwald, Cindy           Nashua d                            no

Rowe, Robert H                Amherst              r             no

Sad, Tara A          Walpole               d                          no

Sanborn, Laurie J             Bedford               r             no

Sandblade, Emily C         Manchester        r             no

Sanders, Elisabeth N      Danville               r             no

Sapareto, Frank V            Derry     r                            yes

Scarlotto, Joe W               Portsmouth        d            yes

Schamberg, Thomas C   Wilmot d                           yes

Schlachman, Donna L     Exeter   d                          no

Schmidt, Andrew R         Grantham            d            no

Schmidt, Janice E             Nashua d                         yes

Schmidt, Peter B              Dover    d                           no

Schmidt, Stephen J         Wolfeboro          r             yes

Schroadter, Adam R        Newmarket        r             no

Schuett, Dianne E            Pembroke           d            yes

Sedensky, John B             Hampstead         r             yes

Shackett, Jeffrey S          Bridgewater       r               no

Shattuck, Gilman C          Hillsborough      d            no

Shaw, Barbara E                Manchester        d            yes

Shepardson, Marjorie J Marlborough     d                no

Sherman, Thomas M      Rye        d                         unk

Shurtleff, Stephen J       Penacook            d            und

Smith, Marjorie K            Durham                d            no

Smith, Steven D               Charlestown      r             yes

Smith, Suzanne J              Hebron d                        no

Smith, Timothy J              Manchester        d            no

Smith, Todd P    Hooksett             r                            no

Soucy, Timothy A             Nashua d                         yes

Souza, Kathleen F            Manchester        r             no

Spainhower, Dale S        Somersworth    d            yes

Spang, Judith T Durham                d                          no

Spratt, Stephen P            Greenville          d            yes

St.James, Kevin P            Kingston              r             yes

Stevens, Audrey M         Rochester           d            yes

Straight, Philip N             Merrimack          r             und

Stroud, Kathleen M        Merrimack          r             yes

Sullivan, Daniel J             Manchester        d            yes

Sullivan, Peter M             Manchester        d            no

Sweeney, Cynthia P       Charlestown      d            yes

Sweeney, Joe    Salem   r                                          yes

Sweeney, Shawn P         Milford r                          no

Sykes, George E                Lebanon              d          no 

Sylvia, Michael J               Belmont              r             no

Sytek, John         Salem   r                                         no

Takesian, Charlene F      Pelham                r             unk

Tamburello, Daniel J      Londonderry      r             no

Tanner, Linda L Georges Mills    d                              unk

Tasker, Kyle J     Nottingham       r                               no

Tatro, Bruce L    Swanzey              d                             yes

Theberge, Robert L         Berlin    d                               yes

Thomas, Yvonne D          Berlin    d                            yes

Thompson, David H        Derry     r                       lean yes

Ticehurst, Susan J            Tamworth           d            no

Till, Mary L          Derry     d                                          no

Tilton, Franklin T              Laconia r                         no

Tilton, Joy K       Northfield          d                              yes

Townsend, Charles L      Canaan d                       no

Tremblay, Stella S           Auburn r                             no

Tucker, Pamela Z             Greenland          r             no

Turcotte, Alan J                Allenstown        d            unk

Ulery, Jordan G Hudson                r                         und

Umberger, Karen C         Kearsarge            r             no

Vadney, Herbert R          Meredith             r             no

Vail, Suzanne M               Nashua d                        unk

Vaillancourt, Steve         Manchester        r             no

Verschueren, James       Dover    d                       unk

Villeneuve, Moe              Bedford               r             no

Wall, Janet G     Madbury              d+r                      no

Wallner, Mary Jane         Concord               d            no

Walsh, Robert M              Manchester        d            yes

Walsh, Thomas C             Hooksett             r             unk

Walz, Mary Beth E           Bow       d                           no

Ward, Gerald W.R.          Portsmouth        d            no

Ward, Kenneth J              Rollinsford         d            yes

Warden, Mark   Manchester        r                            no

Waterhouse, Kevin K     Windham            r             yes

Watrous, Rick H                Concord               d            no

Wazlaw, Brian   Portsmouth        d                          no

Webb, James C Derry     r                                       yes

Webb, Leigh A  Franklin               d                        lean yes

Weber, Lucy M  Walpole               d                          no

Weed, Charles F               Keene   d                        no

Weyler, Kenneth L          Kingston              r             yes

White, Andrew A             Lebanon              d            no

White, Syndi G  North Conway   d                           no

Whittemore, Lisa I          Londonderry      d            und

Willette, Robert F           Milford r                              no

Williams, Carol A             Manchester        d            yes

Williams, Kermit R          Wilton  d                           yes

Winters, Joel F  Nashua d                                        yes

Woodbury, David            New Boston       d            no

Worsman, Colette           Meredith             r             no

Wright, Donald S   Moultonborough        r             lean no

Young, Harry L   Jaffrey  d                                       yes

 Lobbyists on both sides seem to be saying it'll be close.

 The media is salivating in their hopes for a close vote.

 Perhaps it all depends on what your definition of close is; the first person I asked today said ten votes would be close.  If that's your definition, this vote will not be close.

 Even after a few adjustments for votes from committee members yesterday, I have the margin at 60 votes, approximately 200-140 as it now stands.  That would be 200-140 in favor of the Inexpedient to Legislate motion or if you prefer 140-200 in favor of the bill.  We're into the realm where Yes really does mean No and No means Yes.

WMUR at long last has done an update.  They have finally moved Rep. Barry from Yes to No, where I've had him all along.  Apparently it takes a vote before the WMUR folks will correct their errors.

WMUR now has nos ahead 138-112, but they list now list five people (and I've informed James Pindell of this at least twice, so he's had plenty of time to verify) as Yes who are rather firm Nos.  Make those corrections, and even the WMUR margin is 36 votes, 143-107.

 Yes, it's time to name names.  What with Jodi facing death today and O.J. taking a stab at getting a new trial (ugh!  I know, but I had to work it in), it'll be a great personal sacrifice but hopefully by the end of the day, I'll be able to post a list of all 396 Reps (three seats vacant and GeorgetheK nowhere to be found).  Not only that, I'll do it in a format (alphabetical) far easier to follow than the WMUR town by town approach.

 For now, allow me to name three Reps who insist they are Nos while WMUR still has them in the Yes column:  James Aguiar of Campton, Tim Horrigan of Durham, and Tim Comerford of Fremont.  Two other Reps (Larry Gage of Manchester and Joe Pitre, of Farmington) I would also move from the Channel 9 Yes to No column.

 I just received an email from Rep. Mario Ratzki. of East Andover, noting that he is a Yes, but this doesn't change anything.  He's been listed as a Yes all along.

 What we need to ferret out now are stances of undecided Reps or even more importantly, those who might change positions.

 I also have a list of key undecided Reps.  Dan Eaton, of Stoddard, was one of them, and his vote against gambling yesterday must be viewed as more than a simple addition of one vote since he's on the list of people who absolutely must change for SB152 to have even a slight chance.  One of my other key undecideds came out as a No yesterday, but I promised him/her anonymity.

 The one thing that could make things closer in my calculation is the preponderance of first term Democrats in the list of 60 unknown/undecided Reps I currently have.  At least on Ways and Means, first term Democrats broke to the yes side while more veteran Democrats still appear to be, for the most part, staunch nos.

 So far, I've found that undecideds have been breaking more to the No than Yes side, but let's go way out on a limb and say that undecideds break two to one (40-20) in favor of SB172.  That would merely reduce the margin from 60 votes down to 40.  Also many Republicans are among the 60, and I fully expect most of them to break to the No side as the loyal opposition to the governor.  The more Hassanick pressure brought to bear on Democrats (one of the most tenured Democrats in the House just told me she'll be going into the corner office next Monday), the more Republican fence sitters can be expected to oppose the bill.

 My bottom line remains that, unless you define close as 40 votes, next week's vote will be the opposite of close.

 As always absences must be considered, but they usually tend to break proportionately about the same for and against a bill, so even if there are 50 or so Reps absent (and it could well be less than that for such a heavily lobbied bill), don't expect the margin to change much.

 Here's the big question of the day.

Speakers rarely leave the rostrum and come down to the well to speak.  I remember Speaker Norelli did so a few years back in support of the transgender bill (I applauded her for it).  What are the chances that Speaker Norelli will wait till the last minute and then decide to speak out against this bill?  Most of her leadership is aligned against it, but then she would be going against her Democratic governor.  My guess is she will wield a fair gavel and say nothing...except to tell the media that she expects a close vote.

Neither would be politically correct these days of course, so I may be taken to task for even mentioning it, but as the 45-member gambling panel met to vote this afternoon, the audience was crowded with what we might term Blue Shirts.

Apparently some labor group, shades of when Bill O'Brien was Speaker, had deluded itself into thinking it might swing a few votes if they stacked the crowd with people all wearing the same pro casino blue shirt.  "Yes on 152" was emblazoned on the shirts.  One can only wonder who paid for them.

One can only wonder if the wearers actually believed such tactics would sway votes.

Among the blue shirt wearers was one of my friends (at least I thought so) from Ward 8, Manchester.  I felt the need to explain how I too support expanded gambling, just not this plan which provides only 30 percent to the state as opposed to 55 percent in past versions and which virtually guarantees that Manchester would be cut out of even a small piece of the gambling action.

My plan was tailor-made for a 600-machine facility somewhere in the South Willow or downtown area.  But, this blue shirt wearer asked me if it wouldn't take longer to get up and running.  The answer is--no, not at all.  In fact, since enough infrastructure is already in place for a 600-machine mini facility, the place could be up and running almost immediately after getting a license.

But no, we would forever be pre-empted from a small facility in Manchester or Hudson or Seabrook or Hinsdale or Loudon or Lincoln or any place else if Millennium and Salem hog all 5000 machines.

That's not the kind of plan I support, my blue-shirted friends.

By stacking the House with blue-shirted backers, the casino supporters left no room for the number one backer, Senator Lou D'Allesandro, to sit down; he was forced to sit at the press table.

I know, I know, "Parallel Lives" is 20 years old.  In fact, I bought it back when it first came out and from the underlining, it seems I managed to get through the Hitler parts back then, but I got bogged down with all those long Russian names and skipped the Stalin sections.  As penance for a winter of reading too much crime fiction (Harlan Coben), I'm forcing myself to a spring of tough history.  Note the heading here is not only an analogy to brown shirts, but also to Night of The Long Knives (a good trivia question some week; I could list five people and ask you who survived the night; don't say Rohm, Hitler's homosexual head of the Brown Shirts who was slaughtered during that purge).

Suffice it to say that I've never been a fan of members of any group sacrificing their individuality for any specious reason, especially the wearing of silly shirts in a quixotic attempt to sway opinion!  Not that I'd ever make a law to deny them their free speech.  As I stated in the Stella episode, free speech allows anybody to say or do any stupid thing that body so desires.   It simply strikes me as an unproductive attempt at bullying...not that there's anything wrong with that.

Is there?

The amendment would have blocked any casino from building an entertainment venue (that is to say concert hall) with more than 1500 seats. 

Sources tell me that it was not one of the 18 amendments presented this morning, but it was included in one of the omnibus amendments proposed.  The omnibus amendments were never voted on by any of the full subcommittees either, so the Long plan appears to be in legislative limbo.

Since House rules prevent mention of any amendments as long as the pending motion is Inexpedient To Legislate and since I expect the ITL motion to carry, we will most likely never hear of the Long/Verizon Protection Plan on the House floor.

My guess is that even though Verizon would thus be in jeopardy if SB152 passes, a majority of Manchester Democrats will still vote for the gambling bill; never underestimate the desire of Manchester Democrats to put their governor ahead of their city!

Speaking of Manchester Democrats, SB152 sponsor Lou D’Allesandro, whose previous gambling bills allowed the state to keep up to 55 percent of revenues unlike the 30 percent with this bill, slipped into the committee room and was sitting at the press table during the 23-22 vote to ITL his bill.

From 55 percent for the state in 2004 to a mere 30 percent this year, to quote Howard Cossell, "Who would have believed it?!"

At least three or four members of the committee seemed to be against the gambling bill, but were voting against the ITL (kill) motion as a protest against not being allowed to vote on one of all of 18 amendments which were on their desks this morning.

As Chairman of the committee, Mary Jane Wallner made the decision to accept the ITL motion from Rep. Patricia Lovejoy, of Stratham, seconded by Rep. John Kelley, of Nashua.

The first indication that the vote would be closer than expected was when Hudson Republican Jordan Ulery, who earlier told me he was against the bill, voted against the ITL motion because he wanted to consider the amendments first.

In other work, the bill conceivably would have failed by more than the one vote margin had the chair allowed the amendments to be voted on first.

We'll never know, but there were a few surprises.

Dan Eaton, of Stoddard, whom I had as undecided, voted for the ITL.

Bill Hatch, of Gorham, whom I had as leaning against gambling, voted against ITL.

Despite heavy pressure from Democratic leadership, Susan Ford, of Sugar Hill, voted for ITL. 

Despite heavy pressure from some in Salem, Marilinda Garcia voted in favor of ITL.

Three Ways and Means freshmen Democrats chose to side with their governor rather than their committee chair (Susan Almy).  Voting against ITL were Richard Ames and Harry Young, both from Jaffrey, and David Karrick, of Warner.  I'll be sure to change them in my overall total listings, but be aware, others are changing the other way as well.

Ways and Means members appeared to be split 10-10 on the motion which means Finance members must have been 13-12 in favor of the ITL motion.

Others can run the numbers, but there appears to be real evidence that first termers were far most likely to vote against ITL while veterans Reps were anxious to dispose of gambling as a revenue solution.  Note, for example, that in those with seniority are first on the roll listing and I will list names as they appear on the roll in totals here.

Here's how everyone voted, Democrats from Finance listed first; remember a yes vote is to kill the  gambling bill; a no vote would have kept it alive for other motions to come. 

Wallner yes

Rosenwald yes

Nordgren yes

Eaton yes

Benn yes

Leishman no

Buco no

Huot no (a surprise to me; this may not be an indication that he favored the bill, simply that he didn't want to see it killed prior to amendments being offered)

Lerandeau no

Hatch no

Rogers no

Ford yes

Spratt no

Walsh no

Now Finance Republicans:

Kurk yes

Weyler (absent; Priestly voted for him) no

Lynne Ober no

Elliott no

Allen no

Garcia yes

Barry yes

Cebrowski yes

Umberger yes

Dan McGuire yes

Worsman yes

Now Ways and Means Democrats

Almy yes

Lovejoy yes

Butynski no

Davis yes

Shattuck yes

Kelley yes

Cooney yes

Ames no

Karrick (another surprise to me) no

Schamberg no

Young no

Now Republicans on Ways and Means:

Major yes

Griffin no

Hess yes

Sapareto no

Ulery no

Russ Ober no

Abrami yes

Azarian no

Sanborn yes

Finance Democrats--6 for ITL, 8 against ITL

Finance Republicans--7 for ITL, 4 against ITL

Finance Total--13 for ITL, 12 against ITL

Ways and Means Democrats--6 for ITL, 5 against ITL

Ways and Means Republicans--4 for ITL, 5 against ITL

Ways and Means Total--10 for ITL, 10 against ITL

Total Republicans--11 for ITL; 9 against ITL

Total Democrats--12 for ITL; 13 against ITL

24 committee members spoke.  The words "do the right thing" in favor of the gambling plan were uttered twice, including Ways and Means Democrat Thomas Schamberg from Wilmot (I kept track because I have long been convinced that "do the right thing" is really a pathetic argument; we all after all are trying to do the right thing with each and every vote).

I took notes on all 24 orations (a throwback to my days as a reporter; although I can type faster than I can scribble), but will mention here only the one I agreed with most (after all the matter of Jodi's life or death is being decided even as I sit here).  Former Ways and Means Republican Chair Norm Major, of Plaistow, actually summoned passion to note something I've been saying for weeks now, that the bulk of the money with this bill will flow to out of state to out of state owners.  (After all, Millennium gets to keep 70 percent of earnings as opposed to only 45 percent in previous incarnations of D’Allesandro bills). There is only so much money to go around and with it leaving the state to go to Millennium in Las Vegas, jobs and businesses here, Major asserted, will be hurt. 

A big thumbs up to Norm Major.

Even as lobbyists left the room claiming Chairman Wallner's tactics will come back to haunt anti-gambling forces, I see very little change from the 60-vote plus defeat I forecast yesterday.

Clearly, however, first term Democrats are in for the arm twisting of their young legislative lives as they get called into the corner office to hear how the state really needs the up front money this bill would provide.  Yes, I would contend, there's $80 million in up front, but the state loses more than a billion dollars in the long run with this plan.

Norm Major sees that; others should as well.

The House is expected to vote on the bill next week, limiting the time for Hassanick pressure on first term Dems.

House rules do not allow for ideas from amendments to be mentioned in floor speeches until the ITL motion is disposed of.  Thus, depending on how strictly Speaker Norelli enforces that rule, gambling forces could well be extremely hamstrung.

It's standing room only.

Lobbyists abound; even Jabba The Hut has resurfaced (bonus points for the first person to identify this particular lobbyist, so dubbed long ago).

The press table is packed.

Various pro gambling senators (Woodburn, Soucy, Lasky) spill into the hallways.

As they arrived, committee members were presented a packet of no less than 18 amendments.  Chairman Wallner indicated that each presenter would be given 5 to 15 minutes (plus questions), but at the end of hour number one, only two amendments had been heard.

One pro gambling committee member, Ken Weyler, has been declared absent for the week, and according to House policy (if not rules), Republican leader Gene Chandler has been allowed to name a voting replacement.  Apparently he reached an agreement with Weyler that the replacement would be pro-gambling (like Weyler).  Rep. Chandler had promised me that I would be his first choice as a replacement were an anti-SB152 member not present.

Of the 45 members on the panel, only four or five are deemed undecided at this point.

I'm listed sixth among presenters, and the way things are going, that could be after lunch.

I have four handouts:

--One comparing revenues from SB152 and my HB678 which was tabled by the House earlier;

--One showing how Senator D'Allesandro's gambling proposals began with the state keeping 55 percent in 2004 and is now down to 30 percent (25 percent to the general fund plus five percent to special stat interests)

--One detailing five changes from the original HB678 including cutting the minimum bid price in half, from $10 million (from a 1300 machine facility) and $5 million (for a 600 machine facility) down to $5 and $2.5 million; and allowing a single county to have up to two facilities (one of 1300 machines and one of 600 machines);

--One proving how Delaware rents/leases slot machines for only six percent of the take, very like the number Lottery Director Charlie McIntyre told the revenue subcommittee, but way out of line with what a Millennium spokesman insisted was the industry standard--10 to 15 percent.

Among the other amendments are five from Rep. Dan McGuire (including one for Rep. Ed Gionet, the champion of a North Country casino), two from Rep. Bernie Benn, two from Rep. Frank Davis, and one each from Transportation Chair Candace Bouchard, Lynn Ober, Mary Cooney, Rosenwald, Lovejoy, and Dan Eaton (one of the undecided members of the committee).

It's going to be a long day!

By noon, the committee had completed hearing about all 18 amendments.

UPDATES

By noon, the committee had completed hearing about all 18 amendments.

Pressure On Ford--When it comes time to vote, watch Democrat Susan Ford from Grafton County (Sugar Hill--pop. less than 500) very carefully.  She's always been opposed to gambling, and I had her as a lean no, but she also comes from a swing district and word is that Democratic leaders are applying tremendous pressure, going so far as to threaten that they will not do much to help in a re-election bid (presumably against Greg Sorg again) if she does not do what Governor Hassan wants.  We knew hard ball tactics would set it; we'll report them here as they come forward. 

Elliott Vs. Sytek and The Garcias--Also watch Salem Republican Marilinda Garcia.  Long-time pro gambling Republican Bob Elliott is apparently trying to bully (my word, not Toole's) four of his fellow Salem reps into voting for the bill.  John Toole reports in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune that Elliott is naming names of the four; they include both Garcia sisters, Patrick Bick, and John Sytek, husband of former speaker and long-time gambling opponent Donna Sytek.  Elliott doesn't quite say that Salem voters should use this vote against his fellow Salem Republicans, but he comes close to it.  Of course, by touting gambling Elliott himself is going against his party platform.  Talk about the impure pot calling the ketle black!  You just can't make this stuff up.  Check out the Toole take on the Salem spat.

I'll quote the pertinent passage for you.  Toole reports:

There are four no votes in the Salem delegation, according to Elliott.  He identified them as  Reps. Patrick Bick, John Sytek, Marlinda Garcia and Bianca Garcia, all Republicans (hey, all Salem Reps are Republicans, I would add).  "Turn them yes and that could make it a winner," Elliott said.  In an interview later, Eilliott said he has no doubt the four lawmakers could be decisive players in the casino debate in Cncord.  "This would be a (sic) historic moment for the represenatives of Salem if this bill passed," he said.

Not to mention an historic chance for an out of state company to rake in billions of dollars by yielding only 30 percent to the state as opposed to 55 percent in past incarnations.  No, Elliott didn't say that; I did and do.

Of course, Elliott is conveniently claiming that the House vote is within eight votes (thus a switch of four votes could make a difference).  To that I say, only in Bob's dreams!  I don't expect his bullying tactics will change the mind of the Salem four.

Eaton's Amendment--Cheshire County Democrat Dan Eaton offered an amendment which doesn't really provide an answer as to how he will vote; I have him as a lean yes.  His amendment was recommended by the Lottery Department and would merely tighten up regulations guaranteeing that not owner of the lottery terminals be allowed to report on them.  He calls it a "back room amendment".  Perhaps the fact that Eaton has been talking with the Lottery Director should tell us he's a Yes.

The 200th No--However, my survey is up to 200 nos as of noon.  I had 198 coming into today; I got one more, the I ran into a true undecided on the sidewalk.  I explained that he/she could become number 200.  "Off the record?" he/she asked.  Sure, I promised, I won't use your name (not even your gender as you can see here).  His/her thumb went down and an explanation enused, but I had to break it off to be on the Arnie show.  Sorry, Mssr. Elliott, it's up to 200 nos now.  Even if Rep. Ford caves to Hassanick pressure, this bill is going down.

Edmond Speaks!--It could be even worse.  Long time gambling supporter Edmond Gionet, my friend from Lincoln, just told me he would not vote for the bill as currently configured.  "Unless this bill is changed to incorporate two destination casinos, one on the Mass border, one in the White Mountains," he is saying (for attribution even as I type this, "I will vote against it."

But dear Edmond went even further.  "This bill is full of pork, politics, and favors," he states.  Hey, that sounds like a better TV sound bite than one for this blog.  Tell it to Channel 9, Edmond!  I guess he should be listed as number 201 against the plan.  "I didn't get a chance to speak to the committee, but I get a chance to speak to Steve," he adds as he departs the room seeking lunch.  (Hey, what can I say? I used to be a play by play announcer, and I can type pretty fast, not so accurately, but fast).

Lovejoy's Charities; My Charities--Ways and Means Vice Chair Patricia Lovejoy offered an amendment for charitable gambling which could stand by itself.  She appears concerned that charities in current law must yield 35 percent of their take to operators (as well as ten percent to the state), but it's only 14 percent from the casino to the state for table games in SB152 and only 16 percent in a version proposed by the revenue subcommittee.  

Some charities claim that the Senate bill will be the death of charitable gambling.  Various complicated amendments to make the charities "whole" have surfaced, but only one plan (my plan of course) would actually help charities.  In that plan, only slots are allowed in the six casinos which would then enter into agreements with charities to run table games.  In other words, my plan actually would be a boon rather than the death knell for charities.

Alas, my plan has about as much chance of passing as we have of seeing Rep. George Katsiantonis, Ward 10 Democrat, of showing up for the vote...or any vote for that matter!

Certainly not anybody who knows how the process works.

After hearing reports from three subcommittee chairs last Thursday, one might have expected the committee to come back day after day to get the job done.

One would have been wrong. 

With the announcement from Finance Chair Mary Jane Wallner that all amendments were due in Tuesday, one might have expected the full committee to be meeting right now to discuss them.

One would be wrong.

The committee has broken back up into the three subcommittee panels (revenue, regulation, and community impact), and rather than dot the i's and cross the t's on a final document, more and more amendments seem to be surfacing every hour.

Just before noon, for example, Rep. Tom Buco, D-Conway, presented a plan which reverts back to the $80 million licensing fee with the state's take a paltry 25 percent a year, but it also includes a $3 million annual fee, presumably $600 for each of 5000 machines.

Why?

Because that's the way other states do it, the subcommittee was told.

Why not simply increase the annual percentage for the state to keep?'

No one asked that question, and why not?

Because I'm not on the committee.

Buco also offered an amendment which would make the casino operator rather than the state pay the regulation costs (a $4.6 million figure was noted).

My only reaction to that was--Wow!  Talk about the fox watching the chicken coop!

Rep. Tim Horrigan, D-Durham, offered a proposal to remove the four percent (three for the host community and one for abutting towns), replacing it with three percent for the host county and one for any abutting county.

Rep. Dan McGuire, along with his Oregon plan (enthusiastically dubbed here last week "here a slot, there a slot, everywhere a slot, slot") also now plans an amendment which appears to simply remove all prohibitions against gambling; in other words, let's call this one "a slot in every pot". 

Those were only a few amendments I heard before lunch, and I spent much of the morning in my own committee (Criminal Justice) watching a demonstration of the advanced igntion lock devise system, hopefully so we can pass a drive to work bill for first time DWI offenders...but I digress.

My tabled gambling bill remains the first choice of more than a few people.  It would get rid of the Millennium monopoly mega casino and offer six licenses for bid, two for 1300 machine facilities; four for 600.  Promises are that it will also be offered tomorrow as an amendment to the Senate plan.  Only committe members are empowered to offer amendments, but I've been promised it'll be heard.  I would place odds of that passing right up there with odds of georgethek showing up for the next House session!  (Hey, Speaker Norelli, hey Democrats, you really should gently ask him to resign; if the media had any sense of responsibility, his No Showism--is he even living in Ward 10 any more?--would be a major embarrassment to the party, not to mention the honorable House).

So much will be offered tomorrow that one wonders if in fact any final vote will be taken by nightfall.

Of course, if the plan all along has been to simply open the floodgates for all kinds of plans and then reject them all out of hand, things could go fairly quickly.

Only a cynic would even suggest such a master plan.

I've been known to approach cynicism.

Have you?

Of course, amendments could wind up killing the bill.  For example, the revenue committee recommends removing the one percent sum to go to HHS to deal with problem gambling.  A certain undecided Rep just told me he’d vote against the bill if that section is removed.

Then there are the Manchester Reps (mostly Democrats) who are gung ho for gambling but want to assure that any mega casino not be allowed to have a theater to compete with the Verizon Center for concerts. 

Can you imagine—spending $600-700 million to build a facility and NOT having a concert venue?  The so-called Long Amendment will not be LONG for this legislative world.

Can you make this stuff up?

Of course not. 

            That’s correct.  My latest tally is 198 against and 136 in favor with 62 unknowns, three vacant, and the George Katsiantonis seat which is really vacant although he refuses to submit his resignation letter.  (Only Speaker Norelli and Democratic leaders could explain why they insist on playing the game of keeping him on the list when he’s no longer living here).

            But I digress…

            WMUR’s gap is widening.  The station now reports a losing margin of 105-128 (Democrats 55-57, Republicans 50-71), but the station inexplicably continues to list no fewer than seven Representatives as Yes who are most certainly No.  I’ve explained that before, so I won’t name names again here.  John Hunt was one of the seven, but Channel 9 has finally moved him to the No side; the other six remain in error.  If you make those seven corrections, the WMUR total is up to 137 No and only 98 Yes for a 39 vote margin, hardly close. 

            My 136-198 total is an update from 129-186 last time I did a complete rundown.

            Of the 62 unknown Reps, I have only about 20 as truly undecided (mostly Democrats), including majority leader Steve Shurtleff and Dan Eaton and William Hatch on the joint Finance/Ways and Means Committee which is scheduled to vote tomorrow.  Also undecided are Kris Roberts, Keene Democrat, and my seatmate Lisa Whittemore from Londonderry who insists she has not yet made up her mind.  I trust her.

            Deputy Speaker Naida Kaen is not saying how she’ll vote.  I’ve “pushed” her to the No column, but it’s somewhat of a guess.

I’m trying not to guess here, and every time I post numbers here, a few Reps inform me of how they actually intend to vote, either secretly or openly, so these numbers should be fairly solid.  I expect to get the 200^th no later today; maybe we should make it a contest.  “Tell me now; you could be the magical 200^th NO.  Come on Lisa, you can do it.”

            Bad news for gambling buffs is that I’ve included five Republicans in the Yes column who would have to do some fancy footwork to get around their party’s platform in order to cast that yes vote.  They include Al Baldasaro who would have to go against not only his party but the House Republican Alliance who he co-chairs.  The other four are Rideout, Boehm, Haefner, and Lynn Ober (Russ was always a yes).  The loss of any of them would push the No total to an absolute majority.

            Good news for gambling buffs is that I’ve increased my projection on that committee from support of only 17 members to as many as 20, from 17-28 to perhaps 20-25.  Richard Ames is clearly a yes; I had him as a no before.  William Hatch and Karen Umberger are preparing a major amendment for the revenue subcommittee this afternoon; should they both flip and support the gambling plan, the vote could be as close as 20-25.

            My sources are solid that Governor Maggie Hassan is continuing to work very hard to twist arms, mostly of first-term Democrats.  In fact, a prominent Democratic source just now revealed to me that much of the omnibus 19-page amendment (to be offered by Representatives Kathi Rogers and Richard Ames) was actually written in the governor’s office.

            Without releasing how I expect 334 Reps to vote, here’s my latest methodology.

            From the old WMUR total of 101-120, I removed seven from the Yes column and added them to the no column to get a total of 94-127.

            I  “push” five of the WMUR “Not Saying” to the no column and two (David Cote and Mary Nelson) to the yes column for a total of 96-132.

            Of the WMUR “Undecided” group I “push” 23 to No and 15 to yes to get the total up to 111-155.  From the WMUR Not Responding group, I deem 43 to be in the No column and 25 in the yes column for an overall total of 136-198.