NH Primary Source: Many possible outcomes of NH House votes on Marsy’s Law
Victims’ rights constitutional amendment goes before lawmakers Thursday
Victims’ rights constitutional amendment goes before lawmakers Thursday
New Hampshire Primary Source covers breaking and behind-the-scenes news and analysis on all things political in the Granite State. John DiStaso is the most experienced political writer in New Hampshire and has been writing a weekly column since 1982.
(Update: The House on Thursday voted overwhelmingly to kill the proposed victims' rights constitutional amendment known as Marsy's Law. Read our report here. Our earlier column, published early Thursday morning prior to the vote, follows.)
View the latest version of Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution (CACR) 22 here and our latest report on the proposal here.
Marsy’s Law has been proposed in states across the nation by a California-based grassroots organizing and lobbying group founded and funded by Henry Nicholas, whose sister, Marsalee “Marsy” Nicholas, was murdered in 1983 in California. The accused killer, who was eventually convicted, was released on bail shortly after the murder and confronted Henry Nicholas and his mother at a grocery store.
Nicholas, a wealthy businessman, has been funding state initiatives the past several years. The national Marsy’s Law effort is now in full swing in the Granite State in an effort to push the proposal over the State House finish line and to the ballot in November. Overall, 35 states have now included victims’ rights in their constitutions. New Hampshire would be the 36th state.
If CACR 22 passes the House Thursday, it will be placed on the November ballot, where approval of two-thirds of those casting votes would be required for final passage.
To get to the ballot, approval of three-fifths of the current memberships of the state House and Senate is required. CACR 22 easily cleared that threshold in the state Senate, which approved it on a 20-3 roll call on March 22. That vote moved the proposal to the House, where the situation is more complicated and more tenuous.
Even Speaker of the House Gene Chandler, a cosponsor of CACR 22, told New Hampshire Primary Source this week that gaining approval of three-fifths of the House is a longshot. Chandler deadpanned the only thing that 60 percent of House members agree on “is adjournment.”
The House Judiciary and Criminal Justice committees, meeting jointly last Thursday, turned thumbs down on CACR 22, voting 24-11 to recommend that the full House kill the plan. The majority cited a host of reasons, primarily contending that victims’ rights are adequately covered in state law and that the plan would infringe on the rights of the accused.
Here’s what to watch for in the House.
There are currently nine vacancies in the 400-member body, meaning that the number needed for approval is 235 – or 60 percent of 391 members. That’s the magic number, regardless of how many members are present and voting. In effect, then, an absence is a “no” vote.
We reviewed 20 roll calls over the past month and found that attendance has ranged from about 320 to 347. If that range holds on Thursday, the proponents of Marsy’s Law will begin with deficit of about 45 votes, and possibly as many as 70 votes.
For instance, if 340 members vote, 69 percent of them would be required to vote “yes” in order for Marsy’s Law to pass. The percentage required rises with each additional absence.
But first things first. The initial procedural step for the House will be to deal with the committee recommendation that CACR 22 be voted inexpedient-to-legislate, or “ITL.”
House Clerk Paul Smith verified in an interview that this vote on the ITL motion will be a simple majority. If a majority of those voting approve the committee recommendation, CACR 22 is dead, at least for this year. But he said that a follow-up motion to indefinitely postpone the measure, meaning that no similar proposals can be debated this year, needs a three-fifths supermajority to pass.
Smith said that before a vote on the committee ITL recommendation is taken, it is possible that a member will move to table CACR 22. He said that this would be taken first because it is a “higher-priority motion.” He said that a motion to table would require only a majority vote to pass.
If the inexpedient-to-legislate motion fails on a majority vote, the procedural door is open to several possibilities, Smith said. A motion to table would again be in order – again requiring a majority to pass.
A motion to send the CACR to interim study, which would effectively kill it for the session, would also be in order. Smith said such a motion would also require only a simple majority to pass.
Proponents of Marsy’s Law are imploring lawmakers to vote down the inexpedient-to-legislate motion and then adopt an amendment being proposed by the committee minority, which was presented to the committee last week by Attorney General Gordon MacDonald and top members of his staff. It addressed what MacDonald said were seven key areas of concern voiced by lawmakers.
The committee chose not to consider the amendment.
If the House fails to kill CACR 22 on the first vote, a motion is expected to be made to attach the minority amendment to the proposal. That vote would require only a simple majority, but final passage of the amended CACR 22 would require approval of the magic number of 235 members.
This leaves the open the possibility that there will not be enough votes to pass Marsy’s Law with the 60 percent requirement, but not enough votes to kill it, either.
Smith said that if the inexpedient-to-legislate motion fails and then motions to pass or table CACR 22 also fail, it would be “set aside, and we would move on, and it would die at the end of the session if no further action is taken.”
But there is still another possible avenue for Marsy’s Law. If the House fails to kill the CACR, it is possible that the Senate could revive it by attaching it as an amendment to another CACR – it has one languishing on the table at the moment – and passing it back to the House. The House would then vote whether to concur or non-concur with the Senate amendment, setting up the possibility of a committee of conference.
Another key point: People closely involved on either side of the Marsy’s Law debate had expected additional proposed amendments to come to the floor Thursday. But, according to Smith, that’s not going to happen.
The House passed a rule last year requiring floor amendments to be filed with the clerk’s office by the close of business the day before the session. Smith said Wednesday evening that no new amendments were filed, leaving the committee minority amendment as the only one that can be considered unless two-thirds of the House votes to suspend the rules. And that’s unlikely.
LAST-MINUTE LOBBYING. New Hampshire House members have been inundated with telephone calls over the past week, ever since Marsy’s Law for New Hampshire -- a proposed victims’ rights constitutional amendment – received a negative recommendation from a New Hampshire House panel. Click here.
GRASSROOTS ORGANIZING. Former candidate for governor Colin Van Ostern will ramp up his campaign to replace Bill Gardner as New Hampshire’s secretary of state in the coming weeks. Click here.
YANG, DELANEY AND MORE. One potential Democratic presidential candidate was in New Hampshire Wednesday, another is coming on Sunday and three potential candidates are now on tap for May. Click here.
DISTRICT 4 DEVELOPMENTS. The Democratic primary for the District 4 executive council seat is down to two candidates. Click here.
(John DiStaso can be reached at jdistaso@hearst.com or distasoj@gmail.com. Follow him on Twitter: @jdistaso and on Facebook: Facebook.com/JohnDiStasoWMUR.)