No, this is a nationwide effort at creating unnecessary roadblocks for certain groups of people. The latest nationwide “outrage” is the possibility of non-citizens voting in our federal elections. Earlier this month Republican House Representatives Mike Johnson (La.), Chip Roy (Tx.) and Republican Senator Mike Lee (Utah) proposed a bill that would require people to show approved proof of American citizenship in order to register to vote in federal elections. This would include a birth certificate, a military ID, a naturalization certificate, a US passport or a government-issued photo ID card showing the person’s birthplace was in the US.

According to Rep. Johnson, “We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections, but it’s not been something that is easily provable. We don’t have that number.”

(Intuitively: by means of direct perception, an instinctive inner sense, or gut feeling rather than rational thought.)

No, we don’t all intuitively know any such thing.

“It’s not provable because there’s no proof,” stated Democrat Rep. Joe Morelle (NY).

However, there are known estimates that have shown to be exceptionally low. A nationwide survey found the amount of noncitizens suspected to have voted in the 2016 election was about 30. Out of millions of voters! This federal bill sounds more like a solution looking for an “intuitive” problem.

A voter advocacy organization called “Voting Rights Lab” has determined that since the 2020 election, elected officials have rewritten rules that govern our democracy and elections. According to a report from the Voting Rights Lab, more than 560 new laws concerning elections are now in effect since 2020.

Which brings me to what was reported about New Hampshire. Voters will have a lot less access to the ballot box this year than we did in 2020. After getting rid of the temporary expansions during the pandemic, NH has now become one of three states where the only option for most voters will be to vote in person on Election Day.

That should go over well for those who have no car/don’t drive or are handicapped.

Additionally, a lot of these new potential rules make it more likely that people who register to vote on Election Day will have their ballots rejected as they will not have the newly required documentation with them. 

Here’s something to remember before this very important election cycle. We seem to be struggling still . . .

“Someone struggled for your right to vote. Use it.”

— Susan B. Anthony, women’s rights activist during the suffragette movement in the early 20th century. 

“The vote is precious. It is the most powerful non-violent tool we have in a democratic society, and we must use it.”

— John Lewis, late civil rights activist and member of the US House of Representatives for Georgia.

Former Rep. Ross Berry (R), Liberty Alliance and Young Americans for Liberty member, resigned last week from the New Hampshire House. The day before his resignation, he was removed as Chair of the Election Law Committee. So, what happened?

Apparently, Berry plotted an elaborate ruse to have Democrat legislators elsewhere when a committee meeting was going to be held. The meeting of the Election Law Committee was to reconsider CACR 22, which was a constitutional amendment to enshrine NH’s status to hold the first presidential primary in the nation. Without the Democrats at the meeting Republicans would be assured of the majority vote. 

In a nutshell, on May 9th, Speaker Packard requested of the House members they stay in their seats to attend a “Safety Briefing” about an evacuation plan for Reps. Hall in the event of an emergency. He stated it was important for everyone to attend. Everyone did, except, you guessed it, Republican members of the Election Law Committee. 

According to the complaint that was filed with Speaker Packard, “When the first 4 Democrats entered LOB 306 for the meeting at 11:58:46 AM, all the Republican members were already seated and waiting for the meeting to start. The instant that 4 Democrats entered the room and before they had a chance to be seated, Chair Berry opened the executive session – immediately calling for a voice vote for reconsideration of CACR 22. The vote took 17 seconds, at which time Chair Berry recessed the executive session.” 
“When the 6 remaining Democrats entered the room at noon, they were unaware that a vote had been taken prior to their arrival.”

The complaint emphasized several important issues, among them: 
- Berry’s refusal to clarify procedural queries and maintain decorum; 
- failure to inform the committee about the reconsideration of CACR 22 beforehand;
- the rushed timing of the votes. 

According to the complaint, this was a calculated attempt to manipulate the committee’s recommendation process by holding the executive session during the Safety Briefing and lunch break, making sure the reconsideration vote took place before all Democrat members arrived. 

To make matters worse, again according to the complaint, Berry admitted what he did was to retaliate against what he thought was Democrat manipulation on a previous bill, weakening bipartisanship and trust in the committee.

Shortly after the complaint was given to the Speaker, Berry was removed as committee chair, resigning from the House the next day.

Here’s another example of half a dozen bills that were defeated by those in the majority in Concord:

HB 1199 would direct New Hampshire’s Office of the Child Advocate to identify and develop programs meant to support young people who are experiencing homelessness. The prime sponsor was Democrat Rep. Patrick Long. Republican Liberty Alliance member Joe Sweeney brought it to a vote to indefinitely postpone, which means the bill was basically defeated.

HB 1322 addressed raising the minimum wage. The prime sponsors were Democrat Reps. Kathy Staub, Christine Seibert, Timothy Horrigan, Tony Kaplan and Kristina Schultz. Republican Liberty Alliance member Joe Sweeney brought it to a vote to indefinitely postpone, which means the bill was defeated.

HB 1470 was meant to create a committee to study the practicality of using tax credits to motivate construction of low-income and workforce housing. The prime sponsors were Democrat Reps. Matt Wilhelm and Hope Damon. Republican Liberty Alliance member Joe Sweeney brought it to a vote to indefinitely postpone, which means the bill was defeated.

HB 1520 would have established a family assistance car ownership pilot program for those who take part in the Bureau of Family Assistance (this would be through the NH Dept. of Health and Human Services.) The prime sponsors were Democrat Reps. Joe Schapiro, William Palmer and Kristina Schultz. This bill was defeated.

HB 1611 would have created a childcare workforce fund, meant to build up the amount of much needed employees in the field of childcare. The prime sponsors were Democrat Reps. Amanda Toll, David Paige, Rebecca McWilliams, David Preece, Candace O’Neil and Mary Jane Wallner. This bill was defeated.

We can see time and time again the types of bills brought forth by representatives who want to improve lives or lend a helping hand to those who may only need temporary assistance. From children who are homeless to those seeking safe, affordable (sometimes non-existent) childcare, only one group of representatives continuously turn a blind eye to fellow human beings who are down on their luck and just need that occasional helping hand.

Let’s reverse this trend in November.

Whether it’s local, state or federal, this year’s upcoming elections will determine if New Hampshire, along with the rest of the United States goes full blown fascist or works to strengthen our democracy which has been under attack. 

As many of you know, I have written about the Free Staters, members of the Liberty Alliance and Young Americans for Liberty organizations here in New Hampshire. There have been articles showcasing how many of these members, who are in our local government, have voted. A majority of these votes are to the detriment of the average citizen. 

But how can one determine if the candidate, running for re-election or is a first timer, is anti-democracy? The following checklist is from “Granite State Matters”:

How to Identify Anti-Democracy Candidates

Watch for a candidate who wants to:

• DEFUND, CLOSE OR TOTALLY DEREGULATE what they’re elected to run. For instance, a zoning board candidate might point out a harmful zoning law and then conclude that all zoning regulations should be repealed.
• HARASS OR THREATEN those managing the town, county, or other employees. For instance, they may demand extra reviews, audits, copies, meetings or forms.
• PROMOTE anti-intellectual and anti-scientific attitudes and policies. (Ivermectin, sunshine and bleach immediately come to mind. My words, not Granite State Matters.)
• HIDE FROM TAXPAYER SCRUTINY the use or outcomes from taxpayer spending, such as educational vouchers.
• MAKE ELECTIONS AND VOTING MORE DIFFICULT by requiring hand counts, unusual documentation, complicating absentee voting and so on.

Simply put, know your candidate to the best of your ability.

“Mere passive citizenship is not enough. Men must be aggressive for what is right if government is to be saved from those who are aggressive for what is wrong.”   

Robert La Follette, Aug. 11, 1924, a lawyer and Republican politician from Wisconsin.

Recently, HB 1569 was passed in the New Hampshire House. The goal of this legislation is to make voting harder. If a voter affidavit was needed as proof of identification at a polling place, that process has now been taken away. This bill now heads to the state Senate on Thursday, May 16 for a vote there. What could happen if the Senate passes it?

Imagine if you were taken off your town’s checklist (unbeknownst to you) and you go to vote. But you don’t have the now required documents with you that confirm you are a citizen, such as naturalization papers, a passport or birth certificate and have no easy access to them. Because who carries those documents around with them? Perhaps you think your NH driver’s license (including the REAL ID) is enough, but no, that does not prove citizenship. Or you are a young, new voter who has never had a passport and doesn’t know where the birth certificate is. There are now no affidavits that you can sign attesting to your citizenship, so you can’t vote.

This is another version of voter suppression, which could prohibit any citizen the right to register and vote in any election simply because they do not have the required documents or if said documents can’t be located in state databases. Proof of citizenship has never been required before and could therefore create a huge burden, possibly depriving thousands of citizens from exercising their right to vote. This bill would also revise the state’s voter challenge system by requiring challenged voters to appear in superior court, just so their ballots can be counted.

That would mean time or a day out of work. 

This proposed legislation would set up a new, unproven and untested verification hotline system to be used by election workers. The election workers would need to call a “hotline” in order to verify the qualifications of citizens who do not have the required documentation with them. Good grief! And where does the money come from to pay for this new “hotline system?” 

Yup. Taxpayers. 

Studies have shown NH’s elections are run safely and securely. Even David Scanlan, the Secretary of State has stated there is “no evidence” of voter fraud. According to a recent UNH poll, 93% of voters were confident that the ballot counts were accurate as of this past Feb. 

HB 1569 is simply a bill in search of a problem and not needed. 

Contact your state Senator by sending this (linked) email urging them to oppose this proposed legislation. Takes only 

Moving right along with the methodical destruction of public education at the hands of “Education Commissioner” Frank Edleblut and the state’s Republican legislators, here are more bills that were proposed and subsequently voted on.

HB 1093 was proposed legislation that would forbid school districts from enacting a mandatory mask policy during public health emergencies. Something like the recent COVID pandemic immediately comes to mind. The prime sponsors of this “we don’t care about your child’s health and safety at school” legislation were Republican Reps. Kristin Noble, Arlene Quarentiello, Mike Belcher, Emily Phillips, Kelley Potenza and Aiden Ankarberg. All six sponsors are members of "Young Americans for Liberty" (YAL) while Noble, Potenza and Quarentiello are members of "Liberty Alliance." This bill passed.

Why this proposed legislation keeps coming up is anyone’s guess, but HB 1652, sponsored by “Liberty Alliance” and “YAL” member Kevin Verville would have established a local school voucher program. Luckily, it was defeated.

HB 1419 was proposed legislation that would have forbid “obscene or harmful sexual materials in schools.” Your basic, run-of-the-mill book banning bill. Sponsored by a plethora of puritanical Republicans, most of whom having sponsored some of the above mentioned bills, this one was defeated. 

HB 1512 was proposed legislation meant to limit funding for school vouchers (taxpayer dollars) to budgeted amounts each biennium (every two years.) The prime sponsors were Democrat Reps. Mel Myer, Pat Cornell and Peggy Balboni. This bill was defeated. 

HB 1212 was proposed legislation meant to raise the eligibility for free and reduced price school lunches to 250% of the federal poverty level. Sponsored by a plethora of Democrat Reps. who are bothered by the thought of any child going hungry during the school day because their low income family can’t afford it, this bill was defeated. As a side note, Republican sponsored bill HB 1665  increased school voucher eligibility up to 500% of the federal poverty level as that bill was passed.

HB 1311 was proposed legislation that was basically anti-book banning. The bill is meant to stop books from being banned (removed) because of the identity of the author or persons depicted in a book. “Challenged” books can remain available and leaves the decision making to the local level. The prime sponsors were seven Democrats and two Republican Reps. Mike Bordes and “YAL” member Dick Thackston. This bill was passed.

And then there’s this little gem.

SB 359 was proposed legislation that would raise the age of marriage to 18. The prime sponsors were Democrat Sens. Debra Altschiller, David Watters and Lou D’Allesandro along with Democrat Reps. Patrick Long, Gaby Grossman, Candace O’Neil, Cassandra Levesque and Peter Petrigno. The bill did pass but not before Republican Rep. and “YAL” member Jess Edwards made headlines with his remark defending his opposition to the bill, “teens are of a ripe, fertile age.”

Oh yuck . . .

Continuing on the path of transparency concerning how our elected representatives vote on such important issues as gun violence prevention, women’s reproductive rights and voting rights, this article showcases the slow, but methodical, dismantling of our public education system. Under the questionable “leadership” of Education Commissioner Frank Edleblut, a man whose seven children were home schooled and who has never taught anyone in a classroom setting, one common sense education bill after another has been defeated while bills such as those damn vouchers move merrily along and are passed. 

There is quite a list of bills, which means there will be two articles devoted to this issue alone. Saddle up! Here we go . . .

HB 601 was proposed legislation that would have made all school children who are eligible for Medicaid to automatically become eligible for free or reduced price lunch. The prime sponsors were Democrat Reps. Mary Heath, Patricia Cornell, Kate Murray, Mary Freitas, David Luneau and Jacqueline Chretien. The lone Republican sponsor was Rep. Rick Ladd. This bill was defeated.

HB 1084 was proposed legislation that would have required certain minimum credentials for the position of Education Commissioner. The prime sponsors were Democrat Reps. Loren Selig, Corinne Cascadden, Mary Heath, Maria Perez, Pat Cornell, Mel Myler, Peggy Balboni and Nick Germana. This bill was defeated.

HB 628 was proposed legislation that would have required “certain non-public schools or education service providers that accept public funds (taxpayer money) to perform background checks on all employees and volunteers.” The prime sponsors were Democrat Reps. Linda Tanner, Mary Heath, David Luneau, Pat Cornell, Sallie Fellows and Hope Damon. And yet, RSA 189:13-a requires that the school administrative unit (SAU), school district, or chartered public school complete a criminal history records check on every selected applicant for employment in any position in the school. The proposed bill was not outside of the already established law (RSA 189:13-a) but it was defeated anyway.

The “Divisive Concepts Law” was passed in NH in 2021. It bans public school educators from endorsing established positions in relation to gender, race and other protected classes. The fallout has been uncertainty for teachers who struggle with knowing how to manage assignments that may mention “sensitive” topics. HB 1162 was proposed legislation to repeal this law. The prime sponsors were ten Democrat Reps., most of whom have been listed in the above mentioned bills. Needless to say, this bill was defeated.

HB 1592 and HB 1594 were two pieces of proposed legislation having to do with those damn school vouchers again! HB 1592 would have banned taxpayer money from being diverted to non-public schools. HB 1594 would have established a yearly review that would determine a family’s eligibility to take part in the school voucher program. Naturally, both bills were defeated.

HB 1665 was proposed legislation that would increase the family eligibility for school vouchers up to 500% of the federal poverty level from $109,500 to $156,000 for a family of four. The prime sponsors were Republican Reps. Glenn Cordelli, Rick Ladd, Joseph Pitre, Kristin Noble, Julius Soti, Kevin Verville, Jacob Brouillard and Alicia Lekas. (Cordelli, Noble, Soti and Lekas are members of “Young Americans for Liberty.” Pitre, Noble, Verville and Lekas are members of "Liberty Alliance".) Now this bill passed and will become more of a burden on the backs of property owners. 

This is a lot to take in all at once which is why it will be done in two articles.

And so another important election year is upon us. Not just for the position of President, Senators or Representatives but also for the individual states. Because here in America we favor transparency, the way our elected officials vote is very important but most often  not known to the average citizen. Same goes for our elected officials representing us in Concord. Let’s see how some of these elected officials voted on a few issues, shall we?

Reproductive rights: CACR 23 was an amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution sponsored by Democrat Rep. Amanda Toll along with nine other Representatives, two of whom are Republicans. Under the tireless leadership of Rep. Toll, the constitutional amendment, which would have enshrined reproductive rights, did get a majority vote in the House the first time. Unfortunately, the vote failed to receive the needed two thirds majority in the full House, and was therefore, defeated. 

HB 1248 was a proposed 15 DAY abortion ban sponsored by Republican Reps. David Testerman and John Sellers. HB 1541 was a 15 WEEK abortion ban sponsored by the same two Reps. and Rep. Kristine Perez, who is also a member of the “Young Americans for Liberty”. Luckily for NH women of child bearing age, these two extremist bills were defeated.

Voting rights: HB 1074 had to do with campaign contributions by limited liability companies (LLC), ensuring they adhere to the same laws that apply to unions. Sponsored by Democrat Reps. Kat McGhee and Connie Lane, the bill was defeated. HB 1364 would raise the penalties for harassing or intimidating election officials. Sponsored by Democrat Reps. Ellen Read, Russell Muirhead, Joseph Guthrie and Eric Gallager this bill was also defeated. However, HB 1569, the bill meant to make voting harder in NH, passed. Sponsored by Republican “Liberty Alliance” member Rep. Bob Lynn, the voter affidavit system, which has worked just fine for more than a decade and has hardly ever been needed, will be going bye-bye. Be sure to have a current drivers license or passport, if you have neither, well . . . too bad. No ballot for you. 

Guns: HB 1050 was legislation sponsored by Democrat Reps. David Meuse, Ray Newman, Angela Brennan, Amy Bradley, Loren Selig and Mark Vallone. It was meant to establish a voluntary waiver of a person’s right to purchase a gun. In other words, if you wanted to be put on a “do not sell to” list, it should be your right to do so. It would also be your right to remove yourself from said list in the future if you wanted to. The bill was defeated. However, HB 1336, sponsored by Republican “Liberty Alliance” and “Young Americans for Liberty” members, Reps. Daniel Popovici-Muller, Bob Lynn, James Spillane, Tony Lekas, Judy Aron and Jim Kofalt was passed. This legislation takes away the right of a private employer to prohibit employees from having guns in their vehicles on the employers property. 

Future articles will detail such issues as education (hot topic) and economic bills, who sponsored them and whether they were defeated or passed. You will also see a pattern; common sense bills are generally defeated, while bills leaning to the extreme are passed.

Recently, the House Education Committee voted on the bill SB 341, the legislation that would require teachers to basically spy on their students, documenting everything they do, say or even what clothing they wear to school. One never knows when parents may want a full, detailed report later. But the vote in the committee came up a tie, 10-10. If you feel this bill goes above and beyond what should be expected of teachers, please contact your state representative and ask them to vote Inexpedient to Legislate on SB 341. Educators need to be able to fully concentrate on their jobs as just that, educators, not spies. And students shouldn’t have to worry about being “spied on” while trying to get an education. 

This proposed legislation goes beyond talking to parents about their child’s grades, class work and homework. SB 341 goes to the full House for a vote on Thursday, May 2. The link above takes only moments to access.

The prime sponsors of this bill are: Sen. Timothy Lang, Sen. James Gray (R), Sen. Daniel Innis(R), Sen. Bill Gannon (R), Sen. Kevin Avard (R), Sen. Howard Pearl, Sen. Carrie Gendreau (R), Sen. Keith Murphy Sen. Ruth Ward (R), Sen. Regina Birdsell (R), Sen. Sharon Carson (R), Sen. Daryl Abbas. (Sen. Murphy is also a member of Young Americans for Liberty.)

Here's another fun bill masquerading as concern for “parental rights.” HB 1312 would widen parental notice requirements from covering sex education to now include any content that might talk about gender, gender expression, gender identity or sexual orientation. This legislation’s tentacles could reach beyond classes such as biology or health, spilling into current events, literature and history classes. 

The prime sponsors of this bill are: Rep. Louise Andrus (R), Rep. Jim Kofalt (R), Rep. Sandra Panek (R), Ron Dunn (R), Rep. David Love (R),Rep. Alicia Lekas (R), Rep. Arlene Quarantiello (R).

Still keeping an eye on HB 1665, the school voucher bill that would raise eligibility up to 500% of the poverty level allowing families to take taxpayer money for private, religious or home school. Can’t be said enough, public tax dollars belong in public schools!

And still keeping an eye on HB 1298, which is basically that part time, “uncertified” teacher bill. Naturally. Both bills were sponsored by Republicans, most of whom sponsored the two above mentioned legislation and most of whom are either Free Staters, Liberty Alliance members or Young Americans for Liberty members.

The federal government collects annual data for its “Point-in-Time” homeless count. For a single night in 2023, there were 653,000 homeless people in America, up by 12% from 2022. This was the highest number on record since this data count was started in 2007. Of that number, nearly half of the people were living in parks or on the street, instead of utilizing safe havens or shelters.

In Texas it is now a misdemeanor to “camp” on public property; in Tennessee, it is a felony.  

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court will be hearing a case that could have positive or negative ramifications for how communities acknowledge the increasing issue of homelessness. The case coming before the court is City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. Grants Pass, Oregon is a small city, has one homeless shelter and started to implement their anti-camping law on those who were found to be sleeping (with a blanket or whatever else for protection from weather) in public. The decision before the Court is whether it’s unconstitutional to “penalize” those who are unhoused for doing something like sleeping, in public, especially when there is nowhere else for them to go. 

Here in NH, most of the homeless population are adults with no children. The Point-in-Time count for 2022 was 1,605 individuals who were unhoused; 2023 saw an increase to 2,441 unhoused individuals.

These are a few reasons for homelessness:

Affordable Housing Shortage – affecting mostly those with a low income. Between 2019 – 2022, income needed for rent went up by 14.47%, while annual income needed in order to purchase a median-priced home went up by 53.87%. This was throughout all NH counties. The shortage is estimated to be more than 20,000 units. About 60,000 units will be needed by 2030 in order to keep pace with a growing population.

Domestic Violence – affects mostly women and children but all survivors can sometimes find themselves homeless and in need of affordable housing.

Racial Disparities – Black Americans are 2.7% of NH’s population, yet they account for 10.2% of the unhoused.

Subpopulations of Homeless – Chronic homelessness tend to be those who deal with health conditions or mental/physical disabilities. Family homelessness includes (at least) one adult and one minor child. 

NH has 23 homeless shelters throughout the state.

We’ll see what happens with this Oregon case and whether the decision of the Supreme Court has a positive or negative ripple effect.