New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte joined nine other Republican state Attorneys General on Thursday in opposing California's court ruling on gay marriage, claiming it would create an administrative burden on her office. By Saturday she withdrew, explaining that New Hampshire's civil unions law already specifies that the state will recognize California same-sex unions. The law didn't change between Thursday and Saturday...
Ayotte is regularly mentioned as a rising star in the state Republican Party, most recently in today's Nashua Telegraph:
Anyone banking on the political future of the state's first woman AG today wears a broad smile.
She was originally appointed by former Governor Craig Benson after he engineered the resignation of Peter Heed. In 2005 she was re-appointed by Governor Lynch, who faced a Republican majority on the Executive Council at the time.
Ayotte has a history of using her office to promote high-visibility right-wing political causes, most notably in losing the parental notification case Ayotte v Planned Parenthood before the United States Supreme Court.
This weekend's episode raises several questions about her management style, her partisanship, and her legal competence.
Where did the idea for the letter originate? In her office, in the office of another state's Republican AG, in a Republican campaign office? From some other source?
Where do California state court rulings fall on the priority list of the NHDOJ - compared to, for example, prosecution of crimes, responding to citizen complaints, analysis of proposed New Hampshire laws, and courthouse security? If it is high on the priority list: why? If it is low: is the NHDOJ overstaffed and overfunded, given that it was able to spend time on this?
The amicus brief itself asks the California Supreme Court to delay action on its ruling because it could create an administrative burden in other states (that's not true in New Hampshire, which is why she quit the brief). New Hampshire has established civil unions as a matter of basic human dignity and fairness. How does Ayotte balance the convenience of bureaucrats with the rights of citizens?
Did she even re-read the New Hampshire law before she signed the letter? If so: what was unclear to her? If not: what are her standards for joining in amicus briefs?
Did Ayotte ask any New Hampshire Department of Justice (NHDOJ) employees to make a recommendation on whether to sign the letter? If so, what did they say? If not, why not?
New Hampshire's civil unions law has been in effect for five months. How much time has Ayotte spent since Jan 1 on questions dealing with Vermont civil unions or Massachusetts marriages? If significant time: why didn't that teach her what the current law says? If none: why didn't a light dawn on her that maybe there is no problem here?
What testimony did NHDOJ provide when the civil unions bill was before the General Court? Did that testimony demonstrate the same ignorance of the bill's provisions as does Ayotte's original decision to join the brief? If so, why didn't we (the press, BlueHampshire) flag it earlier? If not, how did NHDOJ get more ignorant since then?
Did Ayotte consult with her neighboring AG peers in Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, or Rhode Island about the effect of the California ruling on their own work? If so: what did they say? If not: Why not?
Did Ayotte consult with Governor Lynch before signing this public letter, which purports to speak for New Hampshire?
Landrigan wrote about the "broad smiles" of Ayotte supporters before this incident. If they are paying attention, those smiles are gone.
