It's easier to amend the state Constitution...

Everything on there sounds good. (0.00 / 0)

Might also look at making the House more professionalized. Cut down in size. Also, an elected Lt. Governor.

Of the suggestions, I think people might actually consider lengthening the governorship. I think even the voters get exhausted with this. You could roll up the EC suggestion into the same amendment if you wanted, but I think you might really have a shot with lengthening the governorship.

The one argument against it is we would have had to wait 2 more years to get rid of Benson...

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 18:07:07 PM UTC

While you're at it (0.00 / 0)

Elect the AG, too. But have the SoS be appointed by an independent commission (say, of retired judges). "No More Blackwells," etc.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 05:23:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Both of those positions (0.00 / 0)

have done all right as is.

There is a long tradition of top-notch AGs, dating at least to Pappagiannis (?). Rudman, Rath, Souter. And SoS Gardner is considered fair by both parties.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 11:58:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like the first one... (0.00 / 0)

But i don't see the need for the others.

I know our two year terms, executive council, and lack of lower statewide office are very different from other states, but I'm not convinced we need to change them.  I generally need to have a good case presented to me before I would vote to change the constitution.

Remember, two year terms let us get rid of Benson fairly quickly.

Executive council?  Wouldn't it be nice if GW Had to get all his appointments and executive expenses approved by an elected executive body?

And, I don't see the point of electing four statewide senators.  We don't need a Lt. Governor because of the executive council.  Maybe we could elect Secretary of State or some other statewide office.

Then again, I voted against both of the amendments.  I tend to believe that the constitution is something that should be amended rarely, and onyl when a good case has been made for the need.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 21:23:17 PM UTC

I voted against both amendments, too (0.00 / 0)

The idea of a few at-large Senators is an attempt to create a bench of credible political figures with statewide visibility -- without fragmenting the Executive Branch even further, as an elected AG or LG might do. I'm not aware of that model being used anywhere, though.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 22:37:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah... (0.00 / 0)

It would be nice for the political aprties to have a slate of statewide candidates with the name recognition to move up, but how does that benefit the citizens?  How does that lead to better governance.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 23:12:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

By giving us an alternative (4.00 / 1)

to the random millionaires with minimal experience in public policy who currently dominate statewide races on both sides of the aisle: Humphrey, Benson, Rauh, Lynch.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 23:24:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with you, but... (0.00 / 0)

I don't think many New Hampshireites see that this is a problem. 

Very few people understand how the New Hampshire government works, so they won't see its disadvantages as a problem.

Also, if Democrats attempt major institutional changes, it will play right into the narrative that we are "radical activists" instead of pragmatists.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 00:13:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is more a 'good government' list (0.00 / 0)

than a radical prescription for change, IMHO.

This wouldn't tilt power to the Dems; as Mike pointed out, the complaint would be that we would be stuck with a Craig Benson for longer. But it would make the state government more responsive to the voters.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 00:49:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He does (0.00 / 0)

Wouldn't it be nice if GW Had to get all his appointments and executive expenses approved by an elected executive body?

It's called the Senate. And now it might actually be able to do its job.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 05:24:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nice list! (0.00 / 0)

Here are my thoughts:

1) I agree with it, by why would an amendment be needed?

2) Absolutely.  You've got my vote.  Two years = too cautious, and too much campaigning.  Having it off of the presidential is also very wise for a number of reasons, one of which would be to drum up interest among drop-off voters in voting for a mid-term election.

3)  I'm so conflicted on this one.  I don't like the idea of a n EC in practice, but in theory I'm appalled at what seems to be an out of control executive branch federally.  I don't like it when people assume how the Founders would feel, but I gotta say, I think they would be appalled at the executive's overreach in the 20th-21st century. 

I need to learn more about the EC historically in NH.  You or I or both should really do a series on this.

4) Yes.  But can we subtract the same number from the House? :)

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 00:31:49 AM UTC

The gas tax (4.00 / 1)

In 1938 the following was inserted into the state Constitution:

[Art.] 6-a. [Use of Certain Revenues Restricted to Highways.] All revenue in excess of the necessary cost of collection and administration accruing to the state from registration fees, operators' licenses, gasoline road tolls or any other special charges or taxes with respect to the operation of motor vehicles or the sale or consumption of motor vehicle fuels shall be appropriated and used exclusively for the construction, reconstruction and maintenance of public highways within this state, including the supervision of traffic thereon and payment of the interest and principal of obligations incurred for said purposes; and no part of such revenues shall, by transfer of funds or otherwise, be diverted to any other purpose whatsoever.

It's outrageous that this restriction was put into the Constitution; recently, the state DOT wanted to fund a light rail system between Nashua and Lowell but this prohibited using gas tax receipts for that purpose.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 00:39:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I absolutely agree (0.00 / 0)

We should be able to use a Gas Tax to fund mass transit.  It would help the state in a number of ways.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 00:53:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow. That one and Article 6-b on the lottery (4.00 / 1)

strike me as completely out-of-place in the constitution.

It's almost like the two dicta got uppity and demanded entrance into a more august setting than simple legislation.

I'm guessing that both were bumped up into the Const. to prevent others from repealing them easily in future sessions of congress.  But still.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 01:12:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My guess (0.00 / 0)

I think it was a compromise in both cases. Absent the "lockbox" Constitutional provisions the gas tax and the lottery would have been voted down.

But yes, we are now ruled by the cold dead hands of those compromisers...

---

by: elwood @ Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 01:21:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Off topic sorta (4.00 / 1)

Want to know something really funny? At the Lowell train station, there was a sign, like those maps you see of the T or commuter rail...showing the purple line from Boston through Lowell and all stops in between...then going up through Nashua, Manchester and Concord. It was a solid line too, not a dotted one to indicate future expansion or construction. Freaked me out, because I was like, "I know that was supposed to happen, but did it happen already without me knowing about it??"

Must have confused infrequent passengers too, thinking they could get to NH on the train.

I haven't looked lately to see if it's still there.

My MA blog: Left in Lowell

---

by: Lynne @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 21:35:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

BTW (4.00 / 1)

If the train went up to Nashua/Manchester, I so would be a fairly regular passenger. My family's in Manchester and it would be nice to go visit without driving.

Idiots...this should have been approved and finished years ago.

My MA blog: Left in Lowell

---

by: Lynne @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 21:36:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Absolutely, at least to Nashua. (0.00 / 0)

And with all this construction around the MHT Airport, One would think Manchester is a no-brainer as well.

Heck, if you could cut into the thousands of cars that drive from Merrimack locations to Spitbrook Road offices each day that'd be worth it alone.

This is a wonderfully small state with some fairly well defined corridors, I really wish we'd get some "NH Advantage" in that direction.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 00:12:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The amendment most pundits expect (0.00 / 0)

is a school funding amendment -- either a broad one, saying 'Local education is the responsibility of cities and towns and the state has no obligation to provide funding' or a more narrow one. Gov. Lynch has said that he is open to a narrow amendment.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 01:04:49 AM UTC

BTW: Check out Article 11: (4.00 / 2)

...Every inhabitant of the state, having the proper qualifications, has equal right to be elected into office.

That is the language that led the state Supreme Court to rule that the law giving preferential ballot position to the party that did best in the previous election, was unconstitutional. There's no equivalent right at the national level.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 01:35:37 AM UTC