IMG_9343.jpg

Updates

State House Updates

Our First Votes: This Week in the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee

After spending the last two weeks hearing testimony on over a dozen bills in public hearings, it was time to cast our first votes as a committee on Thursday January 17th.

January 17 Executive Session Outcomes

First a quick explanation for those who may be new to following the legislature. After holding a public hearing on a bill, the next step is for the committee conducting the hearing to schedule a vote on the bill. This vote takes place in an “Executive Session”. Like hearings, executive sessions are open to the public. But unlike public hearings, only committee members speak or vote.

Here’s how the process works.

  • When it’s time for a committee to vote on a bill, members of the committee will first discuss it.

  • When the discussion reaches the point where either all of the oxygen has been sucked out of the room or every committee member has had a chance to make their point, one heroic member will make a motion to pass, kill, or conduct further study on the bill. If another member seconds the motion, the committee will vote.

  • If the motion passes, it becomes the committee’s recommendation to the full legislature.

    • A recommendation to pass a bill is “Ought to Pass”.

    • A recommendation to kill a bill is “Inexpedient to Legislate”.

    • A decision to put a bill aside to keep working on it is known as sending it to “Interim Study”.

  • Before the Executive Session, the committee also has the option of not voting on the bill right away and forming a subcommittee to work the kinks and amend a bill that’s not quite ready for prime time.

  • Once the committee votes on a recommendation for a bill, it moves on to vote on the next bill. However, if a majority of the committee votes against the motion, a new motion will typically be offered with a different recommendation—which requires a new vote.

Still with me? For those who haven’t passed out or dialed up NetFlix yet, here’s how some of the key votes went on the bills that were up for votes this week in the Criminal Justices and Public Safety Committee. (Full disclosure: in all cases, I voted with the majority—which, at least on this day, was much more bipartisan than it sounds because none of the votes went straight along party lines.)

  • HB-189: In a twin victory for victims’ rights and criminal justice reform, this bill was unanimously approved as Ought to Pass by a 20-0 vote. It exempts juvenile victims of human trafficking from prosecution for prostitution charges. It also allows minors who were victims of trafficking to petition to vacate their conviction.

  • HB-399: This bill was approved 15-5 as Ought to Pass. It creates a process that lets people convicted of possessing 3/4 of an ounce or less of cannabis to petition to have their conviction removed from their criminal record. Passage of this bill essentially means people with a conviction for a possession offense that is no longer consider to be a crime in New Hampshire would no longer have to suffer with the possibility of failing an employer background check or similar consequences as a result of behavior the legislature decriminalized during the previous session.

  • HB-349: This bill was recommended as Ought to Pass by a 15-5 vote. It would allow prisoners in New Hampshire jails with medical issues to ask for a second opinion. The bill seeks to address issues with substandard prison care in several counties that have led to fatalities and expensive lawsuits. While not a perfect solution (the bill would require prisoners to pay for the services of the doctor providing the second opinion, creating possible inequities for those who can’t afford to), the bill represents a solid step forward and would help make a bad situation better.

  • HB-282: In a vote to uphold the authority of NH Fish and Game officers to search coolers, boats, or vehicles for illegally taken fish or wildlife, the Committee voted 14-6 on a motion to recommend this bill as Inexpedient to Legislate. As written, the bill would have required wardens to obtain a search warrant to conduct searches that hunters and fishermen now agree to as a condition for obtaining a license. This bill was backed by firearms rights groups, but was firmly opposed by NH Fish and Game, conservation groups, commercial fishermen’s groups, and several hunting groups opposed to poaching and unnecessary depletion of our natural resources. Worth noting is that the NH Supreme Court has upheld search procedures used by Fish and Game officers on three separate occasions.

Here’s a complete list of all the bills (so far) that will come before the Criminal Justice and Public Safety committee in this session.

David Meuse