When our legislators in Concord act irresponsibly, you and I pay for it.  And soon we’ll be paying more in taxes and fees while exposing the State to extraordinarily risky financial situations over the next decade.

The budget proposed by House Democrats and Governor Maggie Hassan increases spending by a whopping 16% all while raiding funds New Hampshire has set aside for rainy days, expanding Medicaid, placing a moratorium on all school building aid, stifling the growth of charter schools, and cutting off children who received an education tax credit to attend private schools.

Given the Governor’s victory last autumn, and given the significant majority that the Democrats hold in the House of Representatives, why not take the time and conduct a thorough review of our State budget, weeding out inefficient government programs and re-evaluating which programs work and which could be run more efficiently.

Instead, legislators took the easy road and simply increased taxes on you and me.  They aren’t simply increasing taxes, they’re attempting to increase them by a startling $263 million, including a new gas tax that will cause you to pay an additional $3 at each fill-up.

Sadly, the gas tax will have a disproportionate impact on families because parents must drive their children to school, soccer practice, and dance recitals, or are hoping to scrape up just enough money for a family vacation in the White Mountains.  It is a shame that New Hampshire families are being forced to cut their budgets because the Democratic leadership refuses to make the hard choices in Concord.

And while $263 million in additional taxes seem like a lot, it’s likely not enough to cover all the increased spending.  In fact, there are significant discrepancies in how Governor Hassan’s budget calculates real estate transfer taxes, meals taxes, and insurance taxes.  And just this week, the President of the New Hampshire Hospital Association explained that some of the revenue will not materialize and never make its way back to New Hampshire hospitals.

As the Executive Director of Cornerstone, we are calling on legislators to take the time to thoroughly analyze the budget and identify ways in which we can cut costs and strengthen efficiency without resorting to manipulating revenues, preventing parents from using their tax dollars to send their kids to the school of their choice, and significantly increasing our taxes.

It would be a shame if New Hampshire families were forced to cut their budgets because Governor Hassan and the Democratically-controlled House refused to make the hard choices in Concord.

by Ashley Parker, New York Times
March 20, 2013

WASHINGTON — They hear that their cause is lost, that demographics and the march of history have doomed their campaign to keep marriage only between a man and a woman. But the young conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage — unlike most of their generation — remain undaunted.

They identify themselves as part of the “pro-marriage movement” and see themselves at the beginning of a long political struggle, much like the battle over abortion. If they can begin shifting the terms of the debate away from gay rights and toward the meaning of marriage, they say, they have a chance to survive short-term defeats.

“The primary challenge that our side faces right now is the intense social pressure,” said Joseph Backholm, 34, the executive director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington. “To the extent that the other side is able to frame this as a vote for gay people to be happy, it will be challenging for us.”

To put it another way, opponents of same-sex marriage say they must argue in favor of traditional marriage, not against gay people or gay rights. “It’s really a broader defense of marriage and a stronger marriage culture,” said Will Haun, 26, a lawyer and member of the Federalist Society.

In the highest-profile effort, the National Organization for Marriage is gearing up for a march on the National Mall on Tuesday, the day the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on California’s 2008 voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

Last week, the Heritage Foundation released a report by Ryan T. Anderson, 31, in defense of traditional marriage, “Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It.” Mr. Anderson, a Heritage Foundation fellow, has also held briefings for members of Congress, their staff members and others to explain his arguments against same-sex marriage, and he and two co-authors released a book last year laying out their case in depth.

Still, the fight is shaping up to be a difficult one, with public opinion increasingly seeming to shift in favor of same-sex marriage. More than 100 high-profile Republicans recently filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to declare that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry. On Friday, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio became the only sitting Republican senator to publicly support same-sex marriage, citing his 21-year-old gay son, Will, as the catalyst.

Beyond Washington, polling has begun to show that a majority of Americans supports same-sex marriage, with even young Republicans moving in that direction.

In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted last month, 45 percent of Republicans between 18 and 44 years old said they thought same-sex couples should be able to marry — a contrast with Republicans 45 and older, only 20 percent of whom agreed.

After repeated defeats at the ballot box in recent years, same-sex marriage went four for four in statewide votes in November, with victories in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington.

“Proponents of same-sex marriage have done a fantastic job of telling the story of same-sex marriage through music and television and film,” said Eric Teetsel, 29, the executive director of the Manhattan Declaration, which describes itself as a movement of Christians for life, marriage and religious freedom. “I think it’s really a case where once they hear the other side of the issue, and really think about it deeply, we’re going to win a lot of those folks back.”

And the other side of the issue — the case for what proponents call traditional marriage — is simple, they say.

“In redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, what you’re doing is you’re excluding the norm of sexual complementarity,” said Mr. Anderson, the Heritage Foundation fellow. “Once you exclude that norm, the three other norms — which are monogamy, sexual exclusivity and permanency — become optional as well.”

The result, proponents of traditional marriage say, would be further rises in divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births.

“When you de-link marriage from childbearing, you then have to increase the complexity of that relationship,” said Caitlin Seery, 25, the director of programs for the Love and Fidelity Network, which works with college groups to advocate traditional marriage.

Proponents of same-sex marriage respond that no evidence links it to social ills and that, in fact, divorce rates are often lower in states more accepting of it. Moreover, they say, same-sex marriage fits with this country’s long history of extending equal rights to groups once denied them.

For opponents, moving the debate away from those historical analogies is crucial.

“Most young people think if you come out with traditional marriage views, you’re a bigot,” said Thomas Peters, 27, the communications director for the National Organization for Marriage. “You can’t have that many people in the shadows.”

The issue, proponents of traditional marriage say, is one of presentation.

“These Republicans who are jumping ship are doing so because we have no way of messaging,” said Ashley Pratte, 23, the executive director of Cornerstone Policy Research and Cornerstone Action, a New Hampshire group that focuses on social issues. “Do you want to tell your friends when you’re out with them on a Friday night that they can’t get married? No, you don’t want to have that discussion, but you want to have a healthy discussion.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage say they realize they may lose the current fight, but they optimistically take the long view, pointing to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion. At the time, they say, opponents of abortion were told their cause was lost, but the fight continues 40 years later.

“If you take the longer view of history — I’m not talking just 15 years, I’m talking 40 years or even 100 years — I can’t help but think that the uniqueness of man-woman marriage will be adjudicated over time,” said Andrew T. Walker, 27, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Either way, they are not planning on giving up any time soon.

“Even if we are doomed, and I’m totally naïve, I think it’s important that I do this work anyway,” said Mr. Teetsel, of the Manhattan Declaration. “If what I believe is true is true, then I’ve got a responsibility to be on its side for as long as I can be.”

If the New Hampshire House of Representatives has its way, children from low-income families will be forced to rescind scholarships that enable them to attend private elementary and high schools.  When passed last year, the Education Tax Credit was a major victory for low-income parents because it presented them with the opportunity to send their children to more academically rigorous schools.  Now, both the Governor and the Democratically-controlled House are shamelessly attacking this legislation.

Since its implementation on January 1st, the Education Tax Credit program has been popular among parents as well as the business community who have given generously to the fund.  In fact, the program is run solely upon donations from businesses, which are then distributed by the scholarship organization to families who apply for assistance.  These businesses are then able to take a tax credit equal to 85% of any amount they donate.

The Education Tax Credit is not derived from taxpayer funds and is, in fact, a charitable program working to the benefit of our most vulnerable families in the Granite State.

So why do so many Democrats want to see it overturned?  In short: because its opponents believe that all young people should be funneled into public education.  Instead of recognizing the healthy competition that comes from private schools — as well as the superior test scores and academic rigor seen in those students who graduate from them — Democrats are attempting to force all young people into a one-size-fits-all educational program that takes choices away from parents.

Of course, they cannot legally infringe upon the rights of those parents who can afford to send their children to private schools, but they can make it difficult for low-income families.  And that is precisely what they are doing.

Former Executive Council candidate, Bill Duncan, who lost his race to Chris Sununu, recently filed a lawsuit against the Education Tax Credit program, asking that it be banished altogether.  Mr. Duncan founded an organization entitled, “Defending New Hampshire Public Education,” and is using it to champion public schools at the expense of parental choice.

Mr. Duncan is claiming that this Tax Credit program violates the Blaine Amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution. This Amendment states that “no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applies for the use of schools or institutions of any religious sect or denomination.”

This is a false claim.  The money secured from the scholarship program never goes to the state.  In fact, those who established the program carefully designed it so the funds are moved into a charitable organization and are completely protected from greedy hands in Concord.

While I appreciate the value of public education for all, we must never forget that it is the parent who is responsible for the education of their child.  It is a manipulation and a rejection of this fundamental right that is animating the actions of Bill Duncan, Governor Hassan, and the New Hampshire House.

While I appreciate their desire to improve public education, denying 400 students from low-income families the right to attend an academically rigorous school with a more wholesome culture is a selfish act that must be called out for what it is.

Conservatives were kicked in the knees by November’s election results, and now we are facing legislation that should strike fear in the hearts of those who believe in life, families, and free markets.

The first battle we will face is over expanded gambling here in the Granite State. New Hampshire is known for its tourism and hospitality and all of its natural beauty from the White Mountain to the Great Lakes to the Seacoast. This healthy, family-friendly image and New Hampshire’s well-earned reputation for being a great state to raise a family are now at risk.

As the Executive Director of Cornerstone Policy Research, I ardently defend the legislature’s desire to balance our state’s budget and recognize that this is a budget year for the New Hampshire Legislature. But it is imperative that we seek to balance our budget through cutting spending and not through morally questionable activities that will actually cost us more money in the long run.

In order to avoid difficult budget choices, some legislators are backing bills to rush through approval of expanding gambling and believe that they will receive revenue from licensing from one or more casinos. It is unrealistic to expect that a casino will be built in time for revenue to arrive in 2014. These same legislators are also factoring this license revenue into the FY 2014 budget, knowing that this is not realistic. This desperate move would be a grave error – even for those who want casinos here – because this license revenue would not become available until late 2015 at the earliest. For those concerned about keeping New Hampshire family-friendly, all angles of building a casino here in the Granite State need to be researched and not be rushed to put a temporary band-aid on our budget.

It is important to note that other states have grappled with the issue of expanded gambling. States such as Arizona have accepted the arguments of out-of-state gambling interests, believing that new casinos lead to higher revenue and lower taxes. They soon came to realize that quite the opposite is true and that gambling ultimately leads to expanded taxes, increased crime rate, and broken families.

Studies and research have shown that gambling often hurts, not helps, existing businesses by siphoning away discretionary dollars that might otherwise have been spent at local shops, which are at the heart of our economy here in New Hampshire. Also, the economic costs associated with gambling such as losses due to crime, additional law enforcement costs, as well as gambling addiction treatment costs are staggering, often far exceeding a state or community’s total revenue from gambling.

So the question becomes, is building a casino here in New Hampshire really an idea that stems from innovation or is it more an act of desperation in a search to find new revenue opportunities? Responsible governing is critical and making rash decisions that could have a lasting impact on our state would be harmful to Granite Staters.

In today’s technology driven election climate, it’s not enough for Cornerstone to promote pro-family candidates among issue advocates to make sure a conservative agenda resonates with voters. If Republicans want to win, the Republican Party and its top-ticket candidates must develop recognizable pro-family concepts in their campaigns and fully embrace the conservative cause.

Cornerstone can preach to the choir all it wants, but without a modern political party machine to research, target and reach out to new voters and then get them to the polls armed with conservative facts, the choir just won’t add up to a winning tally. The Democrats understood this dynamic, which is why they won, despite their underlying extremism. Republicans denied they were under attack as the enemy overcame them. They assumed voters would pretend social issues aren’t part of modern politics at the same time that Democrats defined Republican positions on these issues for them.

It didn’t help matters that taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood spent between $5 million and $7 million on the election, joining Democrats in their misinformation campaign that alleged Republicans want to take away women’s birth control options. According to The Hill, the abortion business saw a 98 to 99 percent return on its election spending investment. This type of spending is certainly a formidable enemy for Republicans who, in large part, simply want to reduce the number of abortions and make sure taxpayers aren’t paying for men and women’s contraceptives against their will.

All it would have taken to set the record straight was some defensive Republican messaging explaining Republican positions on these issues and an offensive strike explaining the Democratic lies and their underlying extremism. Yes, Republicans are at a monetary disadvantage because they don’t rely on taxpayers to fund their campaigns and they use private donations instead. But Republicans have to prove their more frugal approach will work in government by making it work electing conservatives to office.

The Democratic Party just removed the last quasi pro-family issue from their platform; namely, that “abortion should be safe … and rare.” To add insult to injury, Democrats included a new provision that promotes taxpayer-funded abortions. President Obama has consistently defended barbaric procedures such as partial-birth abortion and leaving an infant out to die of starvation when an abortion procedure fails. If the new Democratic platform becomes reality, people who morally object to abortion would be forced to pay for these procedures against their will.

These are easy pickings for Republicans. According to Gallup polls this year (here and here), most Americans are pro-life, and the great majority of those who think abortion should be legal would restrict the procedure to rare circumstances. In other words, voters prefer the Republican platform, and if they knew about it, they would find the Democratic platform outrageous.

When Democrats said Republicans were at war with women, Republicans remained silent on the issues and let themselves be defined that way. When Democrats said Republicans planned to eliminate access to contraceptives, Republicans didn’t explain that they simply believe men and women should pay for their own birth control, vasectomies or condoms. When Democrats said Republicans wanted to stifle immigration reform or end public support for higher education, Republicans didn’t approach single-issue voters with their actual positions. Republicans let single-issue voters believe the fabrications and exaggerations of Democrats across the board, and those voters responded accordingly.

Likewise, Democrats exclaimed that Republicans planned to take away Medicare from seniors. Yet, it was the president himself, in his infamous Obamacare bill, who took away millions of dollars from successful free market elements of the program and devoted them to the failing Medicaid system, instead. He added millions of Americans to Medicaid at a time when doctors are fleeing the program or their practice altogether because the numbers don’t add up for them. Republicans didn’t explain that the president was making Medicare less accessible for seniors; they didn’t explain that Democrats were making it harder for lower income families to get good medical care. These were easy targets for Republicans, but they let Democrats define the issues instead. Seniors and lower-income families came out and voted Democrat because of it.

If the Republican Party has any hope of returning to power, Republicans must embrace their party’s platform and reach out to voters with it. Republicans can’t rely on their old sources of information about voters, they have to get out in the world and find new voters who believe in the same things but just don’t know it. In short, Republicans have to ask for votes and explain why their way is better, or they just simply won’t win elections.

MANCHESTER, N.H.—Cornerstone’s Families First Pledge signers did better than Republicans as a group in Tuesday’s election, proving that voters did not reject the ideas Cornerstone is advancing and instead reacted to the Democrats’ successful effort to mislead voters and the Republicans’ failure to define how they would pursue pro-family issues in office.

“Cornerstone was acting in near isolation in New Hampshire promoting the issues of life, liberty of conscience, parental rights and the importance of supporting the nuclear family as the foundational building block of society, and candidates were left to fend for themselves when trying to define how reasonable and necessary these issues are,” said Shannon McGinley, Cornerstone’s acting executive director. “The Democratic Party incorrectly described these reasonable ideas as extreme, and the Republican Party agreed with these terms by ignoring the attacks and letting the Democrats’ definitions stick. As a result, the people rejected the party that failed to define these issues in favor of the one that did, however incorrectly.

“At the same time, Cornerstone can legitimately say that informed voters who the organization was able to reach absolutely favored Families First Pledge signers, because they know the ideas in the pledge are not just reasonable, they’re essential to maintaining freedom and prosperity in their state,” McGinley added. “Our Families First General Election Voter Guide was successful, despite the impact of wave voters.”

Cornerstone elected 65 of the candidates who signed the Families First Pledge or who were featured in a Candidate Corner article, 45 percent of the total candidates in this category. Even more impressive, 61 of those 65 candidates were elected to the N.H. House and that’s 48 percent of the total candidates in this category. Only 44 percent of the N.H. House is now represented by Republican members, and 35 percent of them openly supported Cornerstone’s issues. Looking at pledge signers alone, Cornerstone elected 55 to the House, or 49 percent of those who signed the pledge. Compare that to Republicans’ 176 winners, or 48 percent of all the candidates who ran under the GOP banner. Meanwhile, the percentage of Republican losers was precisely the same as the percentage of Cornerstone pledge signers or supported candidates who lost, meaning that Cornerstone’s issues were not a factor in their loss.

“I want to be the first one to warn the Republican Party about what course of action they take next,” McGinley said. “Republicans failure on Tuesday was not due to conservative, pro-family values, it was due to the party’s failure to properly address these issues and explain them to voters through their top-ticket candidates. If Republicans continue to ignore social issues as they did this election, these social issues will continue to be defined incorrectly by the Democrats for political advantage, whether Republicans like it or not.

“Cornerstone will continue to advocate for pro-family candidates in both parties, and we will continue to advance policies that protect innocent life, preserve liberty of conscience, emphasize the importance of the traditional family, restore parental rights and enact free market economic principles that operate independent of a limited, smaller government,” McGinley continued. “We hope that the Republican and Democratic parties come to their senses and help us advance these very American ideals, but if they do not, we will continue to advance them despite the efforts of the parties to ignore or diminish them.”

With election results in hand, Cornerstone will be working over the next several weeks with elected pledge signers and other supported winners to advance its Families First Legislative Agenda during the upcoming bill signing period. Clearly, Cornerstone does not expect to pass many of the policies in its agenda over the next two years, but we do intend to build a case for them so the people will truly understand where we’re coming from when the 2014 elections come around. Cornerstone will pursue every policy that has a chance of success and will count on its elected pledge signers and other supported winners to introduce these bills and advance their purpose.

“The time for Republicans to wake up is now,” McGinley said. “This is not a time to abandon principle but a time to stand by it and convince the people why it is the best way forward for our state. We think that effort will be successful come 2014.”

###

About Cornerstone Action
Cornerstone-Action and Cornerstone Policy Research are non-partisan, non-profit organizations dedicated to preserving New Hampshire’s traditional values, limited government, and free markets through education, information and advocacy. Our vision is to create an environment in which strong families—the foundation of our society—can lead New Hampshire into a new era of prosperity and strength. For more information, please visit nhcornerstone.org.

Cornerstone recommends support for ballot Questions 1 & 2, which are constitutional amendment proposals that the outgoing Legislature passed on for your approval. Cornerstone is urging you to use your conscience on Question 3.

Amending the Constitution in New Hampshire is difficult, so your attention to these questions is paramount. According to Part 2, Article 100 of the N.H. Constitution, amendments can be proposed by either a constitutional convention or a three-fifths vote of each body of the State Legislature, which is called the “General Court” in New Hampshire. Now that Questions 1 & 2 are on the ballot, each must be supported by two-thirds of the qualified, participating voters from the general public to be adopted. Question 3 only requires a majority vote of the qualified, participating voters from the general public to pass. The vote for all three questions will take place on Nov. 6, 2012.

Your vote on Question 1 will determine whether the state will permanently ban an income tax as a potential method of taxation. Your vote on Question 2 will determine whether the Legislature’s oversight over the Judicial Branch should be partly restored. These two questions were proposed by the Legislature, which passed each question with a three-fifths vote in the N.H. House and the N.H. Senate. Your vote on Question 3 will determine whether the people want to organize a Constitutional Convention for a more wholesale revision of the Constitution. The Constitution requires the Secretary of State to put this question on the ballot every 10 years.

The Secretary of State printed these three questions ahead of time on this downloadable PDF for your review, and he also produced this voter guide on the three questions for your consideration.

What follows is Cornerstone’s analysis to help you decide whether to support these three questions:

Question 1: Income Tax Prohibited

Cornerstone urges your support of Question 1 on the ballot, which would add a constitutional ban on a personal income tax in New Hampshire. The Legislature (known in New Hampshire as the “General Court”) passed the language of Question 1 on to the people for consideration via CACR 13, which reads as follows:

[Art.] 5-c. [Income Tax Prohibited.] Notwithstanding any general or special provision of this constitution, the general court shall not have the power or authority to impose and levy any assessment, rate, or tax upon income earned by any natural person; however, nothing in this Article shall be construed to prohibit any tax in effect on January 1, 2012, or adjustment to the rate of such a tax.

In every election cycle that passes, candidates at all levels are urged to sign the CNHT Taxpayer Pledge, among other similar pledges, which explains that the candidate will work upon their election to maintain New Hampshire’s low-tax structure by voting against, or vetoing, an income tax and other broad-based taxes. No candidate for governor has ever won without first signing this pledge, and both Ovide Lamontagneand Maggie Hassan have signed the pledge this election cycle. Even with the pledge, however, citizens in New Hampshire must be constantly vigilant to make sure candidates keep their promises once they’ve been elected. If Question 1 passes, elected officials will be forced to keep their promises by the State Constitution, and the people can turn their attention to fine tuning their government to make sure it continues to serve the people and protect their rights. In other words, Question 1 would add a section of the pledge to the N.H. Constitution.

An income tax, in particular, is a particularly damaging form of taxation because it allows the government to take a portion of the money a person earns as he or she is earning it. This type of taxation essentially punishes someone who works harder to earn more money by taking a greater proportion of that earned income as it comes in. Such punishment, in some cases, discourages people from working harder to earn more money and consequently dampens economic growth. States that don’t currently use an income tax have an economic advantage over states that use an income tax because they attract highly industrious and innovative people who want to keep the money they earn when they create new companies and new jobs through their efforts. Since New Hampshire is the only state in the Northeast without an income tax, it has developed what has been called “The New Hampshire Advantage,” which can largely be attributed to the economic advantages of not having an income tax.

As time has passed, momentum has grown among some crowds in New Hampshire to enact an income tax. Their argument centers around the idea that an income tax would supposedly generate revenue for the state that would offset revenue raised by the state’s property tax, and would consequently prevent future increases to the property tax. This argument has been proven false by other states that have used it to enact an income tax. For example, Connecticut income tax advocates used this argument to pass their state’s income tax. Following the enactment of the income tax there, Connecticut’s Legislature continued to raise both the property tax and the newly enacted income tax to pay for the government’s insatiable desire for more money and power. Now, Connecticut is ranked 40 of 50 states on the Tax Foundation’s 2013 State Business Tax Climate Index, and New Hampshire, which has so far resisted broad-based taxes, was ranked 7th of 50 states.

Small governments ensure the proper conditions for business development and job growth. To keep government small, the people of a state must keep it small by watching their representatives in the Legislature and making sure they do not agree to new spending programs that require higher taxes to pay for them. The principle behind Question 1 is that by permanently restraining the power of the Legislature to create an income tax, the Legislature will have to be more frugal with its use of money. As a result, government will remain small and responsive to the people it serves.

Question 1 requires a two-thirds vote of the people to amend the N.H. Constitution. The actual number of votes required to pass the amendment will not be known until the election concludes and the total number of voters can be tabulated. Cornerstone is advocating a “yes” vote on Question 1.

Question 2: Supreme Court, Administration

Cornerstone urges your support of Question 2, which would restore some oversight over New Hampshire’s Judicial Branch by the people through their Legislature. Due to an amendment in 1978, there is currently no oversight over New Hampshire’s court system, a very dangerous situation that this amendment would begin to address. The Legislature passed the language of Question 2 on to the people for consideration via CACR 26, which reads as follows:

[Art.] 73-a. [Supreme Court, Administration.] The chief justice of the supreme court shall be the administrative head of all the courts. [He] The chief justice shall, with the concurrence of a majority of the supreme court justices, make rules governing the administration of all courts in the state and the practice and procedure to be followed in all such courts. The rules so promulgated shall have the force and effect of law. The legislature shall have a concurrent power to regulate the same matters by statute. In the event of a conflict between a statute and a court rule, the statute, if not otherwise contrary to this constitution, shall prevail over the rule.

Specifically, Question 2 would amend Part 2, Article 73-a in the N.H. Constitution and restore some of the Legislature’s authority to direct the policies of the Judicial Branch. Originally, the N.H. Constitution gave the N.H. Legislature the power to create or disband the Judicial Branch court system with a simple majority vote. They did this several times throughout history when the court attempted to assume powers that the Constitution did not give it. This provided an important check on the court’s power and ensured the people’s ultimate power in their government through their elected representatives and senators in the Legislature, which is known in New Hampshire as the “General Court.”

Unfortunately, in 1978, the people passed Article 73-a to the State Constitution after a growing judicial influence convinced the public that the amendment was only ”a housekeeping effort.” Little did the people know how drastically the amendment would change the power structure of their government. Unintentionally, the article gave full autonomy to the courts to pass administrative rules that have “the force and effect of law.” This change led to rules that have become law without representation and gave the court a lawmaking power that was originally reserved only to the people’s Legislature. As a consequence, the Judicial Branch, which is an unelected group of five very powerful people, has become the most powerful branch of government. The Legislature, which is directly accountable to the people because representatives and senators are elected every two years, has become subservient to the unelected Supreme Court’s decisions.

For example, by passing Judicial Branch Rule 1.2, the Supreme Court has allowed the courts within the Judicial Branch to waive all rules. This essentially makes all law within New Hampshire arbitrary and capricious, up to the whim of a tyrant judge. This rule has been used in the family courts to waive the rules of evidence and allow hearsay evidence to be used against parents, for instance.

In another example, Judicial Branch Rule 1.9 gives the court discretion to deny appeals to the Supreme Court, despite the fact that the N.H. Constitution protects that right specifically in Part 2, Articles 77 and 91. When the same government body that interprets the N.H. Constitution is allowed to waive the Constitution by passing a rule, it makes the body untouchable. That’s where we are today.

Question 2 would make the Judicial Branch accountable to the people again by allowing the Legislature to pass laws that overrule court rules that go too far. This would restore checks and balances and make sure the court system answers to the people of New Hampshire again, through their elected representatives.

If you still have doubts about Question 2, Rep. Kevin Avard has put together a video series that discuss all the reasons why this constitutional amendment is needed. You may watch those videos by following these links:

• Question 2 Thomas More College Forum – Rep. Paul Mirski Part 1 of 5
• Question 2 Thomas More College Forum – Rep. Dan Itse Part 2 of 5
• Question 2 Forum – Rep. Gregory Sorg Part 3 of 5
• Question 2 Forum – Rep. Paul Ingbretson Part 4 of 5
• Question 2 Forum – Q&A Part 5 of 5

Question 2 requires a two-thirds vote of the people to amend the N.H. Constitution. The actual number of votes required to pass the amendment will not be known until the election concludes and the total number of voters can be tabulated. Cornerstone is advocating a “yes” vote on Question 2.

Question 3: Constitutional Convention

Question 3 simply asks, “Shall there be a convention to amend or revise the Constitution?” Part 2, Article 100 of the N.H. Constitution gives the Legislature the option to pose this question at any time to voters by a simple majority vote. However, if the Legislature does not pose the question within a 10-year period, the Secretary of State is required to put the question on the ballot. This year is the end of a 10-year period since the question was last posed to voters, so the Secretary of State is exercising his constitutional duty by putting Question 3 on the ballot.

Unlike Questions 1 & 2, which directly amend the Constitution upon a two-thirds vote of the people, Question 3 requires only a majority vote of the people to pass. If it passes, the Legislature will have the duty to set up an election for delegates to the Constitutional Convention within a two-year period, or the election will automatically take place at the same time as the next general election.

The election of delegates will occur in the same way as an election for representatives to the N.H. House of Representatives. So, if you live in a community that elects one representative to the General Court, you will elect one delegate to the Constitutional Convention. If you elect 10 representatives, you will elect 10 delegates. If you live in a community with multiple districts, your community will elect delegates for these multiple districts.

Once the delegates are elected, the Legislature will set up a time for the Constitutional Convention to meet. The delegates can pass any amendment or revision to the Constitution they choose with a three-fifths vote. Upon a successful vote, the adopted amendment would then go on the next general election ballot for a vote of the people. Just like constitutional amendments that are passed by a three-fifth vote of the Legislature, an amendment passed by a three-fifth vote of a Constitutional Convention will require a two-thirds vote of the general public to become part of the N.H. Constitution.

The advantage of the Constitutional Convention method of amending the N.H. Constitution is that delegates can devote all of their time and attention to the Constitution and whether our current form of government is working for the people. Amendments will have greater deliberation in a Constitutional Convention than they would in the Legislature, which must also attend to passing a budget and other laws as the public good may require.

Cornerstone is taking no position on Question 3.

As you prepare to vote on Tuesday, please download, print, use and share Cornerstone’s Families First General Election Voter Guide (PDF), and download and read the Secretary of State’s guide to the 2012 Constitutional Amendment Questions.

Rep. Larry Gagne, who voted with Cornerstone 97 percent of the time, served as vice chairman of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, which lived up to its name this past term by ensuring law-abiding citizens could protect their families from those who would do them harm wherever they have a right to be (SB 88). Cornerstone is supporting Rep. Gagne for re-election in Manchester Ward 6 (Hillsborough 13), along with Rep. William Infantine.

Rep. Gagne, who clearly supports family values according to his voting record, was a co-sponsor of a bill (HB 544) that made it clear that local communities could not pass gun or knife ordinances that are stricter than state law. This important bill will ensure uniformity in the law across the state so that law-abiding citizens can protect themselves without worrying about whether a specific community has different rules than the next one.

He also co-sponsored the bill that allows local communities, such as Manchester, to adopt tax caps by popular initiative (SB 2). This bill will help cities and towns keep tighter controls on their local budgets to stabilize property taxes and increase the opportunity for business development and job growth.

He voted in favor of important efforts such as HB 329, which requires parental notification before a teen girl can undergo an abortion; SB 318, which ensures integrity during elections by requiring voters to show an ID; and HB 1607, which allows businesses to write-off some of their taxes by donating to a scholarship fund that helps lower-income children go to private schools or take part in a homeschooling program.

Rep. Gagne opposes tax increases and supports low spending to ensure that government remains small and businesses can grow and flourish in New Hampshire. He intends to keep working to make New Hampshire the best place to do business and raise a family in the United States.

Rep. Will Infantine, who voted with Cornerstone 88 percent of the time, served as the vice chairman of the House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services Committee, which worked on the Right to Work bill (HB 474) and other important job-creating efforts throughout the past session. Cornerstone is supporting Rep. Infantine for re-election in Manchester Ward 6 (Hillsborough 13), along with Rep. Larry Gagne.

Rep. Infantine, president of Aspen Insurance in Manchester and co-host of the Will & Joe Show, was responsible for 18 successful bills during the past two years. Among those efforts, Rep. Infantine co-sponsored a bill that requires employers to disclose a non-compete agreement when making a job offer to ensure people don’t sign away their right to pursue their line of work in a different venue (HB 1270), a bill that requires the labor department to warn companies about labor law violations and give them time to comply before imposing expensive fines (SB 86), a bill protecting the right of cities and towns to create tax caps (SB 2), a bill prohibiting the department of safety from revoking a N.H. drivers license for the failure to pay out-of-state taxes (HB 1701), and a bill to prohibit requirements for fire sprinklers in single and two-family homes (SB 91).

Rep. Infantine is the type of person who is able to develop positive relationships with people regardless of their background, and this has served him well in the State House where such relationships help advance causes important to families and businesses. Among those relationships, Rep. Infantine is on good terms with several state commissioners and has successfully used those relationships to benefit his constituents and local businesses. At the same time, Rep. Infantine often stands on principle, which is underlined by his admirable Cornerstone voting record.

Rep. Infantine, who lives with his wife Christine and two daughters in Manchester, is a member of many trade associations, including the Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors, The New Hampshire Home Builders and the Electrical Contractors Business Association.

Upon re-election, Rep. Infantine will continue to advocate for policies that advance economic development and job growth and support family values.

Tim Prescott, who won a write-in campaign on the Republican ballot, is now one of the three people Cornerstone is supporting for Hillsborough 43, which includes Manchester Wards 4, 5, 6 & 7. Cornerstone is also supporting Rep. Kathy Souza and Roy Shoults within the district.

As a Families First Pledge signer, Prescott has said he will work in office to advance citizens’ rights of conscience and religion, protect innocent human life, defend the natural family and traditional marriage, restore the natural rights of parents to raise, educate and care for their own children, and enact free market economic policies to ensure prosperity in New Hampshire.

Additionally, Prescott said he is running for a state representative seat to keep taxes low by making sure the state never creates an income tax and by making it harder for politicians to raise taxes in general. Clearly, Prescott would also be a supporter of low spending and a balanced budget much like the one just passed by Republicans under Speaker William O’Brien. He said he’d also focus on job creation by passing a Right to Work law that will bring more job-creating companies to New Hampshire and get the state’s economy going again. Finally, he said he would support citizens’ constitutional rights, especially the right to bear arms, by working to prevent government officials from exceeding their constitutional authority.

Prescott, who lives with his wife Lisa in Manchester, owns and operates Steam Kings Carpet & Upholstery LLC. He said he has noticed the economy taking a toll on his business and wants to work on creating the conditions necessary to create longtime prosperity for New Hampshire businesses and families.