About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Search




Advanced Search

The Masthead
Managing Editors
Dean Barker
Laura Clawson
Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
John DeJoie
Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

House Does Not Concur on HB73

by: Jennifer Daler

Wed May 20, 2009 at 15:27:44 PM EDT


Wow! The NH House just voted 186-188 not to concur with the Senate Amendment to HB73. The question is why this failed. Was Steve Vallaincourt successful with his argument?

We'd have to consult the various roll calls to see who changed their votes and ask why.

I'm listening to the streaming audio as I'm typing. Shawn Jasper, a Republican, made a motion to indefinitely postpone the bill, which basically kills it for the biennium. It would then need a 2/3 vote to be brought up again. Andy Peterson did this with the Governor's first school funding amendment. The indefinite postponement is of the motion by Dan Eaton to non concur and request a committee of conference. The motion failed.

It's going to a Committee of Conference.

What will happen now?  
Jennifer Daler :: House Does Not Concur on HB73
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
House Does Not Concur on HB73 | 94 comments
What does this mean? (0.00 / 0)
Fox (i know, it was randomly on) just said the bill was killed? Completely?  
As usual, Fox is wrong. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
No... (0.00 / 0)
My heart just sank.
Ah, life as a gay person (4.00 / 5)
when on a daily basis, basic civil rights are a political football.

[deleted incredibly bitter statement]

I can't stream, so a question (0.00 / 0)
Are they still talking about it? I know something similar happened the first time HB436 was voted on in the House. Can we still hope?
Absolutely there's still hope (4.00 / 1)
No they're not talking about it now.  The next step is a conference, where the house and senate will each send members and come back with unified language that cannot be amended by either house.  Up-or-down vote in both houses then for passage of HB73.  Then it's up to Lynch.
[ Parent ]
Ugh... (0.00 / 0)
Alright. Now I'm gonna have to stress about Lynch all over again.

How long do these conferences last?

[ Parent ]
Thank you for the details! (0.00 / 0)
There are two Rs in the House who just seemed to indicate that they would support revised language. I think the Senate is probably good, actually...not that we should let up on them when the time comes, but Senators are responsible to more constituents and belong to a less fluid body than the House. Also, we may need the votes of a few Rs in the House, and it seems there's no danger of that in the Senate.
[ Parent ]
What was the issue... (0.00 / 0)
with the proposed changes that they couldn't agree to pass, and now need to have a conference on? I'd like to know the specifics of why they couldn't just pass this today, and when this conference will be happening? This really is ridiculous at this point.
The specifics are (0.00 / 0)
That the House voted against concurrence with HB 73 by a vote of 186-188. That the House voted to send the bill to conference committee with the Senate by 207-168 (I believe). It is clear that at least one Representative, Steve Vaillancourt, voted against concurrence but is a supporter of equality. Others certainly voted against for other reasons. There is no reason why "they couldn't just pass this today" other than the vote failed.

I believe the conference committee will happen as scheduled by the leadership; I suspect quickly (as they have acted so far) but really have no idea.

[ Parent ]
Parliamentary maneuver (0.00 / 0)
Sorry if this is perfectly obvious to all of you, or moot because you know Rep. Vaillancourt at least by reputation (and I don't).

There's a parliamentary maneuver used when a bill is likely to be defeated. One of the bill's supporter's is designated to vote no, because only a "no" voter on a defeated bill can ask for the bill to be reconsidered. Maybe this applies to Rep. Vaillancourt, maybe not. Maybe that's giving him too much benefit of the doubt.

[ Parent ]
Issues: (4.00 / 2)
Vaillincourt (and a handful of others) want(s) to play hardball with Lynch and strip out most/all of the religious exemptions; the majority of the Republican caucus would rather see the bill dead; the majority of the Democrats want the bill passed.
After the bill was defeated initially, sending it to conference was the way to keep it alive (and let Vaillincourt play his games).
It's high-stakes chicken - but my intuition says that the conference report will come out within 2 weeks and pass both houses (by margins similar to HB 436), and Lynch will sign, as long as the changes made in conference are moderate in scope (and preferably in-line with VT and CT's exemptions).
[ Parent ]
Vaillancourt won't be able to play "hardball" (0.00 / 0)
there is no way on Earth Mr. V. gets on the committee-of-conference, so he will not be in a position to dictate any of the compromose language.

[ Parent ]
Vaillancourt called it a homophobic bill (4.00 / 1)
He is such a jerk.

'Aints no more
[ Parent ]
Steve Vaillancourt (4.00 / 3)
is a disgrace. He only opposed the bill because he was unhappy the governor tried to take both sides. If he really supported equality, he would have supported the bill. He is beyond pathetic and a mockery of what this country stands for. He doesn't vote his conscience on bills but instead uses them for his own political benefit. He has no concern his selfishness will only further the unhappiness of many. Finally, he'll come to this site touting how everyone should have listened to him and act as if he is a decent human being, act it so well that everyone may believe him--except me, because I know how rotten he is.
[ Parent ]
The Governor (0.00 / 0)
Now walks away appearing to befriend both sides. Isn't that special.
He sails through unscathed, the anti's may see him as their hero, having already dismissed and dealt with the equal marriage side.
One sickening football.  

No'm Sayn?
You are blaming the wrong person (4.00 / 1)
See, JonnyBBad's comment above.


"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    
[ Parent ]
I hope you are right, Kathy (0.00 / 0)
Why do I get the image of an eel?

No'm Sayn?
[ Parent ]
Wrong person (0.00 / 0)
See, Todd's comment above.

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    
[ Parent ]
Did You Ever Consider (4.00 / 4)
He could have just signed the bill?

His amendment language was totally redundant and unnecessary, the churches were already completely protected, everyone knew that.

His motivation was obviously not to make a better bill but simply to cover his ass. No more no less.



No'm Sayn?

[ Parent ]
Doesn't change the fact (4.00 / 4)
Steve Vaillancourt is a horrible individual. Let that be known from this, whatever happens. If anything else, let that be known. He'll come here with his childish signature: "Kathy the S's least favorite marriage equality supporter." He is a hack and a caricature of a qualified lawmaker. He isn't a supporter of equality. He is a supporter of advancing his own political means at the expense of others.
[ Parent ]
Vaillancourt is a very complex person (4.00 / 2)
We had a few tussles last session, mostly over taxes and differences in revenue estimates. In my dealings with him I found him to be bright, but quick to take offense. He reminds me of a malevolent child at times, and he clearly has very, very deep emotional scars.

I feel sorry for him. Of all the people I met in the legislature, there is nobody else whose shoes I would rather not have to walk in.

[ Parent ]
that may all be true (4.00 / 1)
but Lynch should have signed the bill 2 weeks ago. This little tapdance was completely unnecessary, and risky. So risky that one wonders if this was the kind of outcome Lynch was hoping for.  
[ Parent ]
Not at all (4.00 / 3)
The Governor was not hoping for this outcome.

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    
[ Parent ]
Curious Kathy (4.00 / 1)
You actually know he was not hoping for this outcome? How do you know this, pray tell?

If he was hoping for a different outcome, like, the bill passing, he could have, dare I say, signed it.

No'm Sayn?

[ Parent ]
Oh, Burt n/t (0.00 / 0)


"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    
[ Parent ]
This Isn't About John Lynch... (4.00 / 3)
...it's about delivering on a request that the Governor has legitimately made asking for clear statutory language protecting the freedom and independence of religion.  Let's make that work.  And let's keep an eye on the big picture:  to see House Bill 436 become law, we have to pass House Bill 73.  

It does no good to carry on a discussion about why people do what they do.  We have to use all our voices, all our typing fingers to find a way to make this work.

What this IS about are tens of thousands of New Hampshire gays and lesbians who are knocking on the door of equality, but will only get it if we don't lose focus at this point.

[ Parent ]
It's Our Constitution Which Is At Stake (0.00 / 0)
It Protects Everyone Or No One    

'Aints no more
[ Parent ]
Statutory Language... (0.00 / 0)
...to clarify protections for all groups is also important.  Otherwise, would we ever need anything more than just a Constitution?  
[ Parent ]
okay then (0.00 / 0)
please support not allowing state workers (on overtime) to put up the Christmas tree on the statehouse lawn. We pretend to be secular but have a creche and a Christmas tree...then we get told its 'not religious'. I want protection from that load of illogic.

'Aints no more
[ Parent ]
Oh, Burt (4.00 / 3)
You may think it was not necessary, but others did not, so please don't say "everyone knew that".

I appreciate the need to vent, but the goal here is to get the votes necessary to pass the bill when it comes out of conference committee, so let's not fight with each other, let's get to work!!  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

[ Parent ]
He sent a narrowly passed bill (4.00 / 3)
Back for meaningless changes.

I'm sorry, but that is his fault. Blaming anyone else is ridiculous.



[ Parent ]
Agreed... (0.00 / 0)
I don't think he's the only one to blame by far here, but the changes do seem very insignificant and he must have known there was a chance something like this would happen. I don't know if there's a political motive here or not, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but if he really is willing to support this, I really wish he would have just signed it last week and avoided this whole mess.
[ Parent ]
I disagree and I agree (4.00 / 4)
I disagree that the changes were meaningless, and I disagree that it is the governor's fault, but I agree that blaming anyone is ridiculous.

Let's stop bickering and get to work getting the bill passed.  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

[ Parent ]
Facebook Comment from NH Freedom to Marry (4.00 / 4)

New Hampshire Freedom to Marry remains confident of final passage of the marriage bill this session. We very narrowly missed today, but the House voted by a wide margin to keep the bill alive and to work out remaining concerns. We expect to see another vote in the next two weeks, and there is very good reason to remain positive. Please continue to contact your House and Senate members. Stay tuned!


'Aints no more
Roll Call Results Up (0.00 / 0)
Voting Against bill but For Conference:

Beauchamp, Belvin, Boisvert, Buco, Carlson, DeStefano, DiFruscia, Dokmo, Donovan, Garrity, Jeudy, Kidder, Movsesian, Owen, Pilliod, Rhodes, Rokas, Shaw, Soucy, Sullivan, Vaillancourt

Of these, (4.00 / 2)
Vallaincourt, Pilliod, Dokomo, Beauchamp, Owen, and Shaw were the only ones to vote yea on 436, but nay on this. There are Two Sullivans and two Garritys, so I don't know which ones are being referred to. It seems as though the others were against 436, and also against the compromise, but didn't want the issue to die.
[ Parent ]
thank you! n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Even more detail (0.00 / 0)
Daniel Sullivan and Patrick Garrity.

I also looked at the 436 history - taking into account both votes on 436 (before it went to the Senate and after), Vaillancourt and Dokmo were the only ones to vote nay this time and yea both other times.  If both had swallowed their pride just a little, this bill would have passed.

[ Parent ]
I don't believe it was a "pride" (0.00 / 0)
issue for Cynthia Dokomo. She is a lawyer and an intelligent person. She must have had her reasons for voting the way she did on the Senate Amendment.
[ Parent ]
Also, keep your eyes pointed here: (4.00 / 1)
For the updates on the conference committees.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...

(as well as the bill docket itself, here:) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...

Elections Matter (4.00 / 1)
We lost 17 Democratic seats in the State House in '08. This vote would have looked very different if we had held those seats, and perhaps gained a few more.
Dropped the ball (4.00 / 2)
Another note to check was that we lost the vote of the recently appointed Commissioner, there were other absences on the Democratic side (at least three supporters). On the Republican side there were seats filled that haven't had an occupant all session and a newly elected Rep. These are the vagaries of the citizen legislature, (which is far more of a fact than was stated upthread). The opponents made sure their votes were in the house.  
[ Parent ]
The House voted strongly against killing the bill (4.00 / 1)
It hasn't been mentioned here yet, but there was a motion to "indefinitely postpone" voting on the bill, which would have killed it.  That vote failed 172-202 (!)  Clearly, there the votes to pass a marriage bill (again) in the House if we just come up with the right language that enough people (including the Governor) can support.

I'm sorry to say it, but we are going to be in for two more weeks of robocalls.

you are right (0.00 / 0)
it will be good news for the robocall industry...but it will pass, through Committee and be signed in this session with proper language to satisfy the narrow differences in the reading of existing law.

'Aints no more
[ Parent ]
hope (0.00 / 1)
one can only hope it will pass!
i'm sorry if i sound snappy or what not, but this is exactly why it failed. people were sure it would pass, sat on their asses and did nothing.
all that was needed was 1 vote.
and here we are, our lives up to other people's choices. again.
the pain. the anger.
[ Parent ]
It's early (4.00 / 4)
But from who voted against, it doesn't look to me to be a case where people "sitting on their asses and doing nothing" played into it at all.

This looks more to me like the somewhat chaotic actions that can happen when narrowly passed compromises are sent back.

Remember -- this is essentially the third time this has been in front of them -- the Senate changed it to suit their purposes, and then Lynch had to have his changes. Human nature dictates that reopening compromises is going to be a risky business.

We've done it here twice now, so that the Governor could have his Kabuki, and the Senate could have theirs. Are we really surprised that now certain people in the house want to make their own little drama?



[ Parent ]
i hope (0.00 / 0)
you will be proved right. i really do. i hope the democrats (and the republicans) who supported this from the beginning can work something out. especially so close to the finish line...
[ Parent ]
It was mentioned in the diary (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Yes, but it was the 30 vote margin that was important to point out (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Does it really matter if HB73 gets killed? (0.00 / 0)
It's not HB436.  HB436, as I understand it, is in some kind of arcane procedural holding process immediately preceding its presentation to the Governor.  Voting on HB73 doesn't affect the final outcome of HB436, which could sit there and wait while the legislature attaches the Lynch amendment, with any compromises, to this or anything else.  If HB73 is procedurally gone beyond repair, can't we just attach amendment language to something else while HB436 is still pending?
This is a good point (4.00 / 1)
Although I don't think the governor has what it takes to now say "OK, give me the compromise or I sign HB436 unamended and you can write up whatever amendments you want next year."

I'd be impressed if that was the case, but nothing I've seen with Lynch indicates he's capable of such action.  


[ Parent ]
Can you link me to text on the arcane procedure (0.00 / 0)
by which HB436 is being held?

Can Lynch sign it at will? What has to happen?


[ Parent ]
The clock on his sign/veto period starts when the Speaker and Senate President send him the bill. (0.00 / 0)
My understanding is that they can delay (and are delaying) this indefinitely by postponing the completion of some procedural technicality (like getting the Secretary of State to enroll the bill), meaning HB436 can sit there and wait, neither signed nor vetoed, until companion legislation is ready to go at the same time.

It might be more complicated than that; I don't claim to have an sufficient understanding of the post-legislative limbo phase.  Input by someone who knows more than I do would be greatly appreciated.

[ Parent ]
What Has To Happen (4.00 / 7)
What has to happen is the Governor's requested language to protect freedom and independence of religion has to pass into statute, and that means House Bill 73 has to pass.  The good news is that we can do this -- the House by a vote of 207 to 168 said that we should have a Committee of Conference to find a way to do this.

The Committee will be created next Wednesday when the State Senate agrees with the House on the motion.  THEN the CoC will be appointed -- three or four House members, and three or four Senate members.  They will be members appointed by the House Speaker and Senate President.  It will have members dedicated to finding a solution.  

The House and Senate next meet together in two weeks, on Wednesday, June 3rd.  The CoC will report back then, possibly with some new language in the bill.  

Between now and then, our job -- your job -- for this to succeed will be to take a careful look at those who have not yet supported us, and ask them to do so.  Since last Thursday, when Governor John Lynch announced his support for marriage equality and House Bill 436, and offered his requested new language for HB 73, we have only had four days to communicate it.  NOW we have 14 days.  We can win this when more House members hear about why they should support the Governor's language.  

[ Parent ]
So when do you expect a conference report to be submitted back to the chambers? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
June 3rd... (4.00 / 1)
Wednesday, June 3rd is the next time the House and Senate will meet on the same day.  Senate meets next Wednesday; the House does not. We have other work to do in Committees, however, so we're not loafing.
[ Parent ]
Sounds like a fiasco to me (0.00 / 0)
How could supporters have allowed this to come to a vote with members who would vote in favor absent when the outcome was in doubt?

Someone or some group really snookered supporters.
Whomever was responsible for pulling this off must be dancing in the streets.

[ Parent ]
No one "pulled this off" (4.00 / 2)
The fact is that the House had high attendance compared to a typical day at the statehouse.  Both sides tried to get all of their supporters out.  Every vote taken on this bill has been razor thin and I certainly wasn't expecting this one to be any different.  It's impossible to do a vote count accurate enough to determine how a vote like this will go.  There is a random chance no matter what day you hold the vote on.
[ Parent ]
This says you're wrong (0.00 / 0)
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo...

Claims the anti forces did a better job of getting their members to be present.

Someone dropped the ball.  The previous vote had a margin of 11.  That's not razor thin.

[ Parent ]
And Will YOU... (4.00 / 1)
And will YOU help us win next time?  Maybe you can pick up that ball?  We need your work.  Let us know your plan.  We're listening.  Thank you.
[ Parent ]
your (0.00 / 0)
concern is interesting.  
[ Parent ]
TPM is excellent. (0.00 / 0)
But there are a very large number of commenters here who have each forgotten more about this particular issue and process in NH than the entire TPM staff combined has ever known.

And this question

How could supporters have allowed this to come to a vote with members who would vote in favor absent when the outcome was in doubt?

indicates that you do not understand how the NH Legislature operates.  If you're an out-of-stater, that's fine, we won't hold your assumptions about legislative procedure against you.  Just know that the NH legislature is not Congress, and does not act like Congress, and that is a good thing.

[ Parent ]
Thank you (0.00 / 0)
The most credible voice on this topic has spoken!

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    
[ Parent ]
Thank you Rep. Splaine... (0.00 / 0)
... for your tireless efforts.

What's going on here is PERSONAL (not party) politics, presumably between Reps. Vaillancourt, Dokmo, and one or more people in the Lynch administration. I am 100% sure there is plenty of blame to go around, on several people.

Whatever. It's disappointing, but we need to continue pushing this issue. I am reasonably confident we'll see marriage equality in NH this session. And I'll do whatever I can to help.

Oh, and... first post. Hey everybody :)

I completely reject the use of violence to effect social and political change.
End the wars. ALL OF THEM.

[ Parent ]
I'm not a fan of your signature. (0.00 / 0)

I completely reject the use of violence to effect social and political change.
End the wars. ALL OF THEM.

You've declared war on war itself.  I say, give peace a chance.

[ Parent ]
war (0.00 / 0)
Waaaay OT, but... I guess you could say I have declared "war", of a sort, on the one institution that instigates and propagates wars.

Not really "war", of course. Debate, information, and nonviolent noncooperation are the weapons I'm using.

The initiation of violence is never an acceptable solution, no matter what the problem.

I completely reject the use of violence to effect social and political change.
End the wars. ALL OF THEM.

[ Parent ]
A Colossal Failure of Leadership (4.00 / 5)
I'll just say this once: When John Lynch said he would not sign the bill as it stood, and was in fact willing to veto the bill in its form two weeks ago, he empowered the opposition by sending a clear signal that he would not fight for the bill. Instead he forced the supporters (those of his own party, who had already fought long and hard) to fight again.

Regardless of what he wanted or intended, he dropped the ball by failing to lead. Focus on Steve Vaillencourt if you like, but blaming the GOP for defeating a bill that nearly all Republicans oppose is like blaming the Yankees for having a batting lineup.

And the protections he asked for? They couldn't wait until next session? Local Catholic and Baptist churches were going to be flooded with gay marriages?

This is absolutely and completely John Lynch's fault. If a new bill passes in two weeks, and I hope it does, it will be despite the governor's intervention, not because of it. He literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

This is a sad day for the Democratic Party, and not just in New Hampshire. Nationally.


I wish I could rec this more times (4.00 / 3)
Yes, a failure nationally.

Were the changes meaningless? I think so. Some disagree -- fine. But no one argue that the unamended bill posed some sort of present danger. It could have been tweaked next session were it not for Lynch's need to -- well, whatever. I'm done attributing motives to people for their failure to lead.

And yes, nationally. That can't be repeated enough.

I keep hearing this "it's stupid to blame anyone for this" mantra.

Well, no. Blame is Anglo-Saxon for accountability -- and if you don't believe in accountability, I'm not sure what political discussion could possibly be about.

Hold on for two weeks and see where this is -- sure. But not mention the massive FAIL this represents? I don't really see how we can't.  


[ Parent ]
Thanks Mike (0.00 / 0)
I left that way about your comment above.
[ Parent ]
Felt (0.00 / 0)
Not left. Freudian slip.
[ Parent ]
"Blame is Anglo-Saxon for accountabilty" (4.00 / 3)
It doesn't really matter whether that's original with you, 'cause I'm gonna steal it outright anyhow.
[ Parent ]
House Does Not Concur on HB73 | 94 comments
Connect with BH
     
Powered by: SoapBlox