This Week: Death Penalty Repeal, Voting Rights, and More
Another extremely busy week in the legislature was highlighted on Thursday by a veto-proof 279-88 vote to repeal the death penalty in New Hampshire. While the bill still must pass the Senate—and survive a promised veto by Gov. Sununu—the large victory margin (which I was proud to be part of) gives hope to repeal advocates that this may finally be the year New Hampshire does away with this unjust and archaic practice.
In other key votes:
We protected the voting rights of Eligible Granite Staters by getting rid of confusing and burdensome language in the voter registration form while also eliminating obstacles to the ballot for eligible Granite Staters (HB-105 and HB-106). We also voted to modernize our election system by passing HB-611, allowing all Granite Staters who wish to vote absentee to do so, taking into account the busier day to deal with the schedules many people face.
We defeated HB-158—a bill that would have allowed the government to jeopardize patient privacy and women’s reproductive freedom by requiring the collection of highly personal medical information for women who choose to have an abortion.
We ensured ALL Granite Staters would be protected from discrimination by passing HB-608 which extends protections for transgender persons across all discrimination statues.
We protected Granite State Workers right to a fair wage and fair benefits by once again voting down so called Right to Work (for less) legislation.
On the other side of the ledger, HB-202 was defeated 291-72. This bill was sponsored by myself and fellow Portsmouth Rep. Peter Somssich. It would have required candidates registering to appear on the New Hampshire presidential primary ballot to provide their previous 5 years of federal income tax returns. While many legislators were supportive of the intent of the bill, constitutional concerns combined with the desire to avoid jeopardizing a primary process that’s perceived to be working well led to the bill’s failure.
Committee News
On Tuesday, the Environment and Agriculture Committee voted 11-9 to recommend HB-494 as “Ought to Pass”. This bill, which I’m cosponsoring, would compel the Department of Environment Services to order the Coakley Landfill Group to start removing hazardous perflourinated chemicals from parts of the Coakley Landfill.
Also on Tuesday, my committee, the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee heard 5 hours of testimony on HB-687–a bill that would allow Extreme Risk Protection Orders in New Hampshire. Based on domestic violence protection orders, these court orders allow family members and law enforcement officers to petition the court to remove firearms from a people who are immediate threat to harm themselves or others. The committee will be voting on the bill in executive session on March 13.
During the hearing, some of the members of our committee chose to wore pearls given to them by members of a pro-gun group to show solidarity against the bill. I’ve already posted about the resulting social media firestorm, so I won’t repeat myself here. Instead, I’d like to share the testimony of one of the people who endured Pearl-Gate to testify in favor of the bill. I feel it’s important that stories like those of Rep. Jackie Chretien are heard. Rep. Chretien is a friend and a colleague and sits in the same row as I do in the legislature. Like me, she’s a first-term state rep. But unlike me, she manages two kids and a demanding professional career. To hear her telling her story of the murder of a family member that might have been prevented if an ERPO law was in place was heartbreaking.
Testimony of Rep. Jacqueline Chretien
Good afternoon. I am Representative Jacqueline Chretien, from Manchester, and I am here to testify in support of HB 687. I believe HB 687 is a much needed bill from a public health standpoint; I am sure you have heard (or will hear) the statistics about suicide mitigation when access to firearms is limited, and the success of ERPOs in other states.
With that said, I am here to share a personal story that I don’t often tell, and that is the story of my uncle David and my aunt Carol. David was my mom’s older brother, the second of seven in a stereotypical large, working-class Irish Catholic family from just outside of Boston. David was smart and hard working, and he became the first in the family to go to college, at Syracuse. When he was there he met a lovely and exuberantly Italian girl named Carol. They got married, and David went to law school at Suffolk, and he continued to work hard, and he became an extremely successful lawyer and partner at his father-in-law’s practice in rural Pennsylvania, and they had two lovely children.
David was primarily a defense lawyer, and he was very passionate about the principles of presumed innocence and ensuring that everyone had a fair day in court. I knew him primarily as a person who was eager to share the fruits of his good fortune and hard work and try to give others the opportunities that he’d had. He always encouraged my cousins and I to pursue the best educations we could get our hands on, and he always seemed to have a book or three to offer. He knew my grandmother had a taste for classical music and that I was starting to as well, so he bought season subscription tickets to the Boston Symphony Orchestra and would regularly fly up to go to the concerts with us, something I would never have experienced otherwise. Carol, too, was generous, and liked to treat us to dinners in the North End or Gap gift certificates. They were extremely funny, and kind, and thoughtful, and not at all the sort of people you might expect would be affected by gun violence.
Yet. In November of 2006, my uncle David and my aunt Carol were shot point blank with a shotgun by one of Carol’s cousins, over a property dispute. From what I have read of the case, this cousin had been making threats and acting strangely for a few weeks before the murder. As far as I know, he did not have any history that would have prevented him from purchasing a gun. It was a premeditated act, so I don’t know if a waiting period could have prevented his actions. The one gun safety law that I believe might have been able to prevent this tragedy is one like HB 687 -- one where the perpetrator’s wife could have reported his increasing agitation, or my aunt could have reported the threats to law enforcement.
Regardless of whether an ERPO could have changed our family’s particular case, I know our family is only one of far too many families in this country who have a story that goes something like this. In southern New Hampshire, I can think of a handful of tragic headlines from the last few months alone that might not have been written if we had a mechanism for temporarily removing someone’s access to firearms and allowing them to work through a temporary low period in a way that doesn’t have permanent negative consequences. I urge the Criminal Justice and Public Safety committee to seriously consider this bill to ensure the safety of vulnerable citizens and their families.
Respectfully,
Rep. Jacqueline Chretien
Hillsborough District 42 (Manchester)