The HB436 Democratic State Senator Scoreboard

I wouldn't bet on D'Allesandro (0.00 / 0)

He is playing a high stakes hand, right now.

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 20:02:49 PM UTC

I just love when our equal rights (4.00 / 6)

are someone else's poker chips.

---

by: beverlywoods @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 20:08:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Would (4.00 / 2)

For better or for worse, Lou has a sense of history.  I think he'll relish the chance to make it next Wednesday.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 03:24:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sen. Merrill (4.00 / 2)

I am pretty sure that Sen. Merrill was involved with the UNH Dems in their efforts to gain support for HB 436. Although I may be mistaken, I would have to double check.

---

by: sdoyle @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 21:19:19 PM UTC

Sean if you can confirm I would happily make her green. (0.00 / 0)

Hope >> Fear





Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 22:26:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sen Merrill (0.00 / 0)

Senator Merrill has not been actively involved with the UNH Dems on this issue. Although she has taken a lot of her time to listen to us, as well as the newly formed Queer Politics Campaign of UNH.  

---

by: John Barriere @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 23:04:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What happens in a 12-12 split? (0.00 / 0)

And does the presiding officer vote?

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 22:19:47 PM UTC

If I remember correctly (0.00 / 0)

In case of a split vote, it is re-voted on.

---

by: sdoyle @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 22:52:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's almost as ridiculous as opposing marriage equality. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 22:54:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They May have changed the rules but (4.00 / 1)

When I was there, a 12-12 loses. The bill dies.
There may be other options left, though.

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 22:55:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So if we don't get all seven fence-sitters, we lose? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 22:56:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

12 12 (0.00 / 0)

does not = majority
Tie = loose

Hope >> Fear





Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 23:23:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whip Count is Up (4.00 / 3)

Senators or their representatives may contact me at mhoefer @ gmail if we are representing their positions inaccurately. Regulars with solid intel may contact me as well or post here in this thread.

Is it safe to assume as I have that all R's are against it?

I am also assuming Sen. Reynolds will stay consistent to her committee vote.

Hope >> Fear





Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 22:25:36 PM UTC

Can you add "marriage equality" (or something similar) to the title? (0.00 / 0)

Casual observers might not know the bill by its number.

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 22:32:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bragdon has come out publicly (0.00 / 0)

in the local newspaper against it. I don't see him changing his position.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 22:32:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I just spoke to him (0.00 / 0)

I'm a constituent.

He "plans to vote against" both 415 and 436, but was friendly and receptive to listening to what I wanted to say to him as my representative.

-Mormo

---

by: Mormo @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 00:20:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks! n/t (0.00 / 0)

Social Media Director for Jackie Cilley for Governor. Follow her on Twitter & Facebook!

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 01:16:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Assuming Sen. Reynolds will stay consistent (0.00 / 0)

...constant as the Northern Star
Constantly in the darkness - where's that at?

---

by: elwood @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 01:20:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Proud to be a Hamster! (4.00 / 2)

This whip count is a bold line.

BLOG ON!


"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 01:34:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fat Gatsas in 16 (0.00 / 0)

what can I say...sorry about him. Bob Backus would have voted for Equality you can be sure of that !

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 22:34:59 PM UTC

Unfortunately, every business on DW Highway had a massive GATSAS sign last fall. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 22:38:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whether they wanted it in their yard or not. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: sdoyle @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 22:53:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 22:54:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gatsas is famous (4.00 / 1)

in SD16 for placing signs in yards that are good locations, including yards of people who have never voted for a republican.

---

by: sdoyle @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 22:59:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

well then,,, (4.00 / 1)

Most of the folks who put up Gatsas signs are probably Democrats... he owes those people a favor... he should flip and vote OTP on marriage equality!

I doubt that's how he sees it, but if you live in his district, please pressure him :-)


sitting state rep: running for re-election in 2012.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 23:03:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I live in SD16 and hadn't heard that. (0.00 / 0)

How do you have a six-foot sign in front of a prominent business all season and not have them take it down, call the police, etc.?

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 01:29:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

meant the yard signs (0.00 / 0)

---

by: sdoyle @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:56:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ah yes, Republicans in Manchester love their lawn sign antics. (4.00 / 1)

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:59:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Contribute (4.00 / 3)

Send ActBresler 100K in umarked bills and I'll smoke his fat ass.

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 23:34:01 PM UTC

Don't sell yourself short. . . . (4.00 / 2)

Bresler for Emperor!

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 03:27:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I hear the FEC red tape for that is brutal. (4.00 / 3)

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:01:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't typically write (4.00 / 2)

my legislators, but I just did my civic duty on this. I wrote an e-mail to my state senator on marriage equality, and hope any readers who might have any feelings--not strong feelings, but any feelings-- on this issue, which will be close, do the same.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 23:37:46 PM UTC

I would like to point out... (0.00 / 0)

that gay rights groups across New England helped Vermont override the Governor's veto. Maybe they could help you out as well?  

---

by: smith @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 00:41:16 AM UTC

Don't Count on it (0.00 / 0)

For some reason, we're on our own out here. HRC did send someone to help Bud Martin, but they've been pretty useless otherwise.

---

by: xcjm @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 02:49:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two choices or three? (0.00 / 0)

So technically, do Senators have to either vote yea or nay, or is there some third option like voting "inexpedient to legislate"?  I don't think anyone should do so but I'm wondering if "not in favor of" necessarily means a vote against the bill.

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 03:22:47 AM UTC

In my understanding, "Inexpedient to Legislate" is a separate motion. (0.00 / 0)

As in, you can motion to vote on whether a bill is inexpedient to legislate, or you can motion to vote on whether the bill ought to pass, and on either of those things, you have the option of "Yea" or "Nay".

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:00:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Inexpedient to Legislate (0.00 / 0)

My understanding, which could be wrong:

Committees cannot kill bills. Every bill must reach the floor for a full vote. So the committee vote is not a separate hurdle as it is in the US Congress. Instead the committee vote is a recommendation to the full chamber.

In that context, committees can report "Ought to Pass" or "Inexpedient to Legislate." These are not votes to pass or kill, they are recommendations.

When a bill reaches the floor those choices disappear and House members or Senators vote 'Aye' or 'Nay.'

---

by: elwood @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 10:57:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Close. (4.00 / 2)

When a floor vote comes on a particular bill, the vote is not on the bill itself, but on the committee's recommendation, or report.

What we want to happen with HB436 is that the full Senate votes "Nay" on the "Inexpedient to Legislate" report from the Senate Judiciary Committee, and then a Senator can make an "Ought to Pass" motion. Then the Senate as a whole votes "Yea" on "Ought to Pass" and the bill heads to the Governor's desk.

That is why it gets confusing looking at legislative votes: nay can mean "yes" and yea can mean "no" depending on the committee report.

Also, on all bills, a member of the committee writes a "blurb" which is published in the calendar of that body. The "blurb" reports the reasoning behind a certain position. On bills where there is disagreement, there is a majority blurb and a minority blurb. It would be interesting to look those up .

Here is the link for the NH House.

And the Senate.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 11:28:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Close (4.00 / 3)

The Senate does not include blurbs in their calendar. Each bill reccomendation is made by a Senator from that committee on the floor of the Senate. Unlike the House where we have blurbs in our calendar, the Senator making the motion in executive session has to explain to his/her colleagues why the committee voted the way they did on the floor. Senators do like to hear themselves speak!

I have refrained from commenting on all of this so far because I wanted the dust to settle, and I don't like to respond in anger (it always come back to bite me)! I was proud to support both HB 436 and HB 415 because I believe that discrimination has no place in our state's sttatutes. Am I surprised by the vote out of the Senate committee, no. Do I believe that the committee report can be overturned, yes. I'm new to replying on this site, but I would think a much better use of our time would be to offer constructive comments to our friends in the Senate that are undecided, and to forgive and move on with the ones that do not share our vision for New Hampshire. Debbie Reynolds is a good person, and a good Senator. Do I agree with her assesment that NH is not ready for marriage equality, no. That being said, I do agree with her on many, many other issues and don't believe that we will change her colleagues minds in the Senate if we attack her constantly.

I know a thing or two about personal attacks. I was riduled by the far right for not supporting HCR 6 (the seccessionist resolution). Those folks threw everything at me, including the kitchen sink! But they failed. In the end, even some of the most ardent supporters of the resolution came to me privately and said how sorry theu were for the actions of their friends. What does this have to do with marriage equality? On its face nothing perhaps, but when you peel back the layers, there is nothing in NH politics valued more than civility. Let us never forget that we can disagree without being disagreeable. Thanks for reading my rant!

---

by: mrollo @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 15:49:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am taking Reynolds' 'no' vote on HB 436 personally (4.00 / 4)

Reynolds is saying that she does not believe the state is ready to accept my marriage. That's a bunch of hooey.

As Jim Splaine said in a previously posting, "...the politics of it all is an argument that should hold no water.  It is a selfish argument.  The finger-in-the-wind argument might be okay for budgeting and spending issues, or whether to vote for or against a specific tax, but never -- never ever -- is it okay on a matter of discrimination, equality, human rights, or fairness of treatment." http://www.bluehampshire.com/showC...

This is a personal attack on me and my husband. It is a personal attack on my identity, who I am and how I live.

This vote is not about an abstract concept. This vote is about me.

---

by: Putney Swope @ Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 19:24:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Putney, You're Correct... (0.00 / 0)

...and I take the "no" votes personally too.  And by saying so, that's not a personal attack on a Senator -- that's pointing out that once again, we're on the receiving end of the nail.  

Some straight people can't quite get exactly how insulting to us a "no" vote on House Bill 436 is IF that vote is taken because of politics -- or because of a fear of how it might affect one's reelection.

IF someone is opposed to HB 436 because of their faith, I can actually respect that.  And IF someone is opposed because they really, absolutely don't believe we should be "equal," I can at least understand that.  We are the product of our faith and upbringing, and if that's someone's viewpoint, I have to accept that.  I'd like them to be honest with us though.

But IF someone is voting against HB 436 because they think their political career or re-election is more important than the equality and fairness of tens of thousands of New Hampshire residents -- well, then I might not be so understanding.  

[I'm a former has-been House member and State Senator, but I keep "Rep." on my ID name for easy reference of previous posts.]

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 04:07:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

An important difference is (0.00 / 0)

the "far right" will never ever vote for you no matter what you do. You are a Democrat. You can take their side on any vote. They will not vote for you. Period. They will not work for you. They will never give a penny for your campaign.

Deb Reyonlds may have made many social conservatives happy with her vote in committee, but in my opinion, those people are unlikely to return the favor to her come election time. And I don't believe she is being personally attacked. Also, I don't think you can compare civil rights to a resolution calling for NH's secession from the union.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 02:59:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Think Mike Is Correct That We Should... (0.00 / 0)

...avoid the personal attacks.  But saying I find it "shameful" that the Senate Judiciary Committee made the decision it did -- or any of us being seriously upset that any politician -- any office holder -- would put their finger to the wind on an issue of human rights and equality -- isn't a personal attack.  

I find it insulting that those of us who are gay and lesbian continue to be bashed, this time by politicians.  Am I "insulting" State Senators for their "no" vote by calling it bashing?  No, I think we're the insulted ones.  

If any State Senator votes against House Bill 436 because they don't like my chosen words of passion on this issue, that tells us more about them than it does about me.  Actually, I think I've been quiet calm up to this point, though that's been tough.  But no one of us is the issue -- this is about tens of thousands of New Hampshire gay and lesbians.  Our neighbors, coworkers, colleagues, friends, and family members.  

For ANY Senator, Democrat or Republican, to vote politically on this is like them saying that their own re-election or political career is more important than our equality.  THAT I can take as an insult.  I'm not personally attacking someone when I say that.  

We should avoid the personal attacks, as Mike says.  But that doesn't mean to shelve our passion.  And BTW, for years Mike Rollo has been a solid supporter of gay and lesbian rights and equality, and we should thank him -- as we should  thank all State Senators who have been supporting equality in the past, and will on Wednesday.  

[I'm a former has-been House member and State Senator, but I keep "Rep." on my ID name for easy reference of previous posts.]

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 03:18:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The most shameful thing (4.00 / 1)

will be the folks that are still unknown as of the vote.

Hope >> Fear





Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 00:35:44 AM UTC

I am behind the times (0.00 / 0)

If Teddy runs for Mayor of Manchester, who's going to be the D-16 Republican Candidate for State Senate ?

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 20:58:35 PM UTC

Still him. (0.00 / 0)

He's been both a Senator and an Alderman for quite some time.

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 02:03:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Full time ? (0.00 / 0)

No one can be Mayor of the biggest city in the State, and a State Senator, and do both sets of constituents justice. No way.

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 03:18:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Strike the third part. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 06:33:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]