(400 - 3) * (2/3) =

I sure hope you aren't. (0.00 / 0)

Let's keep our eyes open, O'Brien could call for that vote even before the 25th.  

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Wed May 11, 2011 at 19:43:46 PM CDT

Attendance (0.00 / 0)

I would guess Lord Vader O'Brien is going to be taking attendance minute-by-minute and calling for the vote at an odd time (shades of Wisconsin...)

Before the vote, House leadership was able to flip 5 Republicans who voted against RTW in February.

There was only one Republican who flipped to oppose RTW in May, and several Republicans who voted against RTW after missing the first vote. I'm sure they're all receiving the Spanish Inquisition treatment.

Of the 32 members who did not vote on 5/4, 13 of them previously voted against RTW. 11 Republicans who voted for RTW were absent that day, and 8 Republicans didn't vote either in February or May.

---

by: dooper @ Wed May 11, 2011 at 20:23:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Granite Grok has a list (0.00 / 0)

The righting loonies at GraniteGrok posted lists of Republicans who flipped (32) & Republicans (21) who didn't vote on HB474 last time.  (9 Democrats didn't vote, but they were considered irrelevant.)

I see a few categories in the 21 noshows:

Firefighters & EMTS:
Jenn Coffey, Will Panek

Former Public Employees:
Gene Charron, Stephanie Eaton, Rick Ladd

Never/Rarely-Shows:
Tom Beattie, Sean Coughlin, Timmy Hogan, Bruce Marcus, Robert Moore, Michael Reed

Relatively Sane Republicans:
Larry Emerton, David Hess, Sherm Packard, Barry Palmer, Frank Sapareto, Marie Sapienza, Ross Terrio

Just Plain Missed the Vote:
Paul Mirski, Stephen Schmidt

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Sat May 14, 2011 at 10:05:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So basically he has to get all 23 absent GOPers to show up and vote yea, (4.00 / 1)

AND flip 17 others.

And just to be clear, b/c I have heard differing opinions: if 50 reps decide to sleep in on voting day, he still needs (400 - 3) * (2/3) votes, not (350 - 3) * (2/3), correct? The total sum from which 2/3rds is required is the total number of reps, not the total number of reps present, right?

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed May 11, 2011 at 20:14:40 PM CDT

I'm not sure - (4.00 / 1)

There seem to be three ways of describing voting thresholds in the federal and state constitutions:

1. Specifically saying "of those present" as in Article I, Section 3 of the US Constitution
2. Specifically saying "of the entire membership" as in Article 100, NH Constitution
3. NOT specifying as in this case ("two-thirds of that House")

---

by: elwood @ Wed May 11, 2011 at 20:26:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Potential legal battle (4.00 / 2)

But it says 'two-thirds of that house shall agree' - not 'two-thirds of members voting at a given time,' etc. Two-thirds of the total membership of the house seems like the natural reading to me.

Only the left protects anyone's rights.

---

by: RealNRH @ Wed May 11, 2011 at 20:48:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If there has ever been a bill (0.00 / 0)

that was vetoed, then "overridden" by votes that were over 2/3s of those present but under 2/3s of all members, and was then challenged in Court: THAT would tend to settle the matter.

Precedents in which one chamber "overrode" by a gray margin, then the other chamber took up the matter but didn't override, are not particularly helpful.

---

by: elwood @ Wed May 11, 2011 at 20:57:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

this could be an issue (4.00 / 3)

If the vote total falls between 2/3 of those who show up for the vote (at most 254 out of 385, perhaps as few as 200 out of 300) & 2/3 of the total membership (265 out of 397), we might have a situation on our hands.  As much as O'Brien hates the judiciary, he might have to go to court to save his precious bill.

We haven't heard much here from Jennifer Daler while she is busy running for O'Mead's old seat, but it might make a big difference if she is sworn in or not by the time the vote happens.  (She has pledged, to no ones surprise, to support the governor's veto.  I hope there is nothing the Speaker can do to delay the swearing-in of a duly elected rep once the Secretary of State certifies her as the winner.)

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Wed May 11, 2011 at 21:03:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Surely this has been litigated? (0.00 / 0)

There must have been close votes to override vetoes before, right?

I could see this lot trying to change a "traditional" interpretation that wasn't in their favor, claiming that the House is the arbiter of its own rules, but this isn't just a House matter but an interpretation of the state constitution.

There must be some members of the NH bar reading this...

---

by: daveMB @ Wed May 11, 2011 at 21:00:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There is at least one case in which the Supreme Court held that it was 2/3 of those present, not 2/3 of the whole body. (4.00 / 4)

I got interrupted while looking at this, and there may well be a later case saying the opposite, as the wording of the constitutional provision seems to indicate that it would require 2/3 of the whole body due to the failure to include a phrase like "of the members then present". In the one case I looked at, the court relied on the fact that a veto was overturned on a vote that was short of the 2/3 of the body in the years right after the adoption of the constitution. While that is a relevant factor, it would seem that a deeper inquiry might lead to a different result.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu May 12, 2011 at 05:41:41 AM CDT

IMO I agree, 2/3 present (4.00 / 1)

are required to override a Governor's veto.  Based on my research, the most relevant case on point is Warburton v. Thomas, 136 N.H. 383, 616 A.2d 495 (1992).  I don't believe the Court has revisited the subject since then.  

In normal times and dealing with rational actors, this would pretty much settle the question. But given the Speaker's argument that Gov. Lynch is using veto power to act as some sort of third chamber of the legislature (which is laughable but certainly isn't funny), who knows if this will end up in Court or not.

---

by: NH_expat @ Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:18:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The NH Constitution has provisions on quorums (4.00 / 2)

[Art.] 20. [Quorum, What Constitutes.] A majority of the members of the house of representatives shall be a quorum for doing business: But when less than two-thirds of the representatives elected shall be present, the assent of two-thirds of those members shall be necessary to render their acts and proceedings valid.

June 2, 1784

It seems nonsensical that, if a bare 277 members meet, it takes 178 votes to simply PASS a bill, and 178 votes is also enough to meet the 2/3 requirement for a veto.

But I'm applying logic where precedent is the trump suit...

---

by: elwood @ Thu May 12, 2011 at 17:53:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think that it is worth taking a hard look at the constitutional convention journals of 1784 and 1792 to see what if any understanding is reflected there. (4.00 / 3)

But given the amount of craziness coming out of the capitol, it may have to get in line and wait until we see the numbers of the actual votes.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Fri May 13, 2011 at 04:59:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

we can ask Rep. Mirski (0.00 / 0)

Paul Mirski doubtless knows the legislative history of this provision of the state Constitution.  After all, he was there when it was written: he was a member of the Constitutional Conventions of 1784 or 1792.  Or, at least, he talks like he was there.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Fri May 13, 2011 at 06:10:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks Tim (0.00 / 0)

for giving me a giggle.  Was Itse there too?

---

by: Marjorie Porter @ Fri May 13, 2011 at 17:10:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]