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 Editor
Mike Hoefer

Editors
elwood
susanthe
William Tucker
The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch paper
Democracy for NH
Granite State Progress
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Pickup Patriots
Re-BlueNH
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
New Hampshire Labor News
Chaz Proulx: Right Wing Watch

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Landrigan
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes

Campaigns, Et Alia.
NH-Gov
- Maggie Hassan
NH-01
- Andrew Hosmer
- Carol Shea-Porter
- Joanne Dowdell
NH-02
- Ann McLane Kuster

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

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

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

Mirski: I've Read The Constitution; Boy, Are We In Trouble

by: Kathy Sullivan 2

Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 09:24:36 AM EST


(Yet another outrageous attack on the state constitution's separation of powers doctrine to make the judicial and executive branches subservient to the legislature. - promoted by William Tucker)

Another day, another attempt to recast New Hampshire's form of government into a legislative oligarchy.  Today's featured oligarch is Rep. Paul Mirski, who has declared that he has read the NH constitution, and based on his reading, legislative redistricting will be done by  concurrent resolution of the house and senate, not a bill, so that the Governor cannot veto a redistricting bill.  The story is in today's Nashua Telegraph.

Mirski said he's read the constitution and believes it defines redistricting as a purely legislative function.

Rep. David Hess, R-Hooksett, a committee member and former state prosecutor, agreed.

"Redistricting of the body is delegated to ourselves," Hess said.

Kathy Sullivan 2 :: Mirski: I've Read The Constitution; Boy, Are We In Trouble
Let's look at the Constitution. Part 1, Articles 9 and 26, state that the legislature shall make an apportionment for house and senate districts based on the last general census every ten years.  

However, Rep. Mirski and Rep. Hess need to read the rest of the Constituion. Article 11-a refers to a "law" providing for apportionment to divide towns into representative districts upon request of the town referendum. Artticle 9-a refers to the power of the general court by "statute" to make adjustments to the census on account of temporary non-residents. Article 26-a, refers to a "a law" providing for dividing towns and cities into more than one senate district.

And then there are the provisions relating to the Governor's authority. Article 44 gives the governor the authority to veto every bill passed by both houses. Article 45 states that "every resolve shall be presented to the governor, and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved...shall be repassed by the senate and house of representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill."
Not sure how they plan on getting round Article 45.

Rather than coming up with a fair redistricting bill that the Governor would have no reason to veto, Mirski would prefer to usurp the Governor's authority. When one representative questioned Mirski's opinion, Mirski's response was to order a legislative researcher to look at how it is done in the other 49 states. Suggestion to Mirski: why not just look at how it has been done since the last time Article 11 was amended here in New Hampshire? It would save time and resources. But he probably is afraid he won't like the answer.

Nashau Telegraph story: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com...  

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Actually, I take this is a great sign for the future.. (4.00 / 5)
When your opponent's first reaction is to cheat, they are telling you that they can't win any other way.

The NH Republican Tea Party lied their way into office in 2010 and the public is not going to forgive them in 2012. Their only path to power is to cheat.

Have you told a stranger today about Bill O'Brien and his Tea Party agenda? The people of NH deserve to hear about O'Brien  and his majority committed to destroying New Hampshire and remaking it into a armed survivalist preserve.  


2010 proved something about the NH legislature (4.00 / 3)
It's much more susceptible to waves than is the Congress.  That's true for a variety of reasons, but the result is that these extremist majorities can be washed away as quickly as they came.  They're giving the public every reason to do that. All NH Democrats have to do in the next two years is remind people who's serious about governing and who's just playing games.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner


[ Parent ]
HCO1 is pretty interesting (0.00 / 0)

Take a look at Mirski's House Concurrent Order HCO1 where he lays out the justification for saying only the legislature has the right to apportion the districts for itself.  It orders(!) the secretary of state to draw up districts as it defines them.

The last time a House Concurrent Order was submitted was in 2002, also over redistricting. The same rationale for assigning this power to the House was used, and it passed the House then, but was killed in the senate.

I've  never heard of a "House Concurrent Order" before. What the heck is it, and where is this defined? Apparently Mirski thinks it has the force of law without the Governor's signature. Is that possible?


Mirski is making it up (4.00 / 6)
Part II, Article 5 says that the legislature has the authority to make "orders, laws, statutes, ordinances, directions and instructions", as are not repugnant to the Constitution. Article 44 grants veto power to the governor over "every bill" - a term not used in Article 5.  Article 45 gives the governor veto power over resolutions. I think that the legislature, if it follows Mirski's proposal, would be overstepping its constitutional authority, especially in light of this statement in Opinion of the Justices, 121 N.H. 552 (1981):

Under our constitution, all bills, N.H.Const.Pt. II, Art. 44, or resolutions, N.H.Const.Pt. II, Art. 45, must be presented to the executive for his approval and are therefore subject to his veto. There is no reason to treat rules proposed by administrative [431 A.2d 789] agencies, yet effective only upon approval of both houses, any differently from bills or resolutions. See Opinion of the Justices, 96 N.H. at 521, 83 A.2d at 740-41.
 

Also, in Opinion of the Justices 96 N.H. 517 (N.H. 1950)

There can be no doubt that the traditional method of enacting laws by the passage of bills or resolutions calls for separate action by each house by a voting of its members 'for or against' the bill or resolution. No precedent for any other method of adoption of measures affecting the State as a whole which could have been contemplated by Articles 44 and 45 of the Constitution has been called to our attention.

With all due respect, Speaker O'Brien showed poor judgment when he chose some of his committee chairs and vice chairs.  They have what can be charitably called eccentric interpretations of the Constitution, based on the theory that the legislature has supreme authority over the executive and judicial branches.  

I know that the constitutional debates are not as exciting as some other issues, but the effort to rewrite the Constitution by legislative decree is a dangerous assault on our system of government, a system that has worked well for a couple of hundred years.    



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


[ Parent ]
Really? (0.00 / 0)
With all due respect, Speaker O'Brien showed poor judgment when he chose some of his committee chairs and vice chairs.  They have what can be charitably called eccentric interpretations of the Constitution...

I think he chose these guys because of their eccentric views.

Someone here said the new GOP House leaders are reactionaries. I think just the opposite is true. O'Brien, Bettencourt, Itse, Mirski, Balboni, et.al. are radicals.

But do you know what the legal meaning is of a House Concurrent Order like HCO1? as far as I can see, it has only been used one time in the past, in 2002.


[ Parent ]
If you could be jailed for stupidity (4.00 / 2)

The entire Republican leadership would be behind bars.

If Stupidity Hurt, (4.00 / 1)
a lot of them would be crying all the time.

Sure, I voted for less government and less government spending...just NOT the parts that I benefit from!

[ Parent ]
It's gotten to where I (4.00 / 5)
expect a new story of crazy every work day, and sometimes the weekend.

I honestly can't keep up.

(Which, as I've said before, is I'm sure part of the plan.)

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker


I have no doubt (4.00 / 3)
that this is to wear us down.
As we say over and over, Republicans complain that government doesn't work, and when they get elected, they make sure that that's true.  They are like the children who wait til their kindergarten comrades have built a nice block tower, and then knock it down, over and over.  Great at getting elected, incapable of governing.  

[ Parent ]

Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox