What Just Happened? January 8, 2025 House Session Recap—Rules Schmules!
Democracy not only dies in darkness. In New Hampshire, it also apparently withers in Republican-controlled state legislatures.
On Wednesday, newly sworn-in state reps met in Concord for Convening Day where the main event was voting on a series of proposed changes to the way the House of Representatives conducts the peoples’ business. While it’s tempting to yawn and quickly consign rule changes in the NH House to the “who cares?” category, it’s important to remember that House rules have great deal to do with the fairness and transparency of the legislative process.
Unfortunately, the GOP majority decided to use its 42 seat majority https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/aboutthehouse/RDSE.pdf to not only chip away at fairness and transparency, but also to jeopardize the safety of legislators, staff, the media, and members of the public attending legislative sessions. Here are some of the highlights and lowlights.
“Surprise! We’re voting on those bills from 3 weeks ago!” Under the (wink-wink) guise of “returning to long-held traditions”, Republicans voted to give committee chairs the power to call votes on bills at any time following a public hearing on a bill WITH NO NOTICE to the public or to members of the minority. In the previous session, with the consent of both sides, a less-controversial bill could be voted on by committee members immediately following a public hearing. But for the majority of bills, a separate executive session was scheduled with a minimum of three days notice. This provided the public, interested legislators, and other stakeholders time to make arrangements to be in the room (or to be watching on YouTube) when the bill was being debated and voted on. But the change passed Wednesday wipes all of that away. It allows chairs to call an executive session at any time following its public hearing with no notice. Why is this a problem? Imagine taking part in a hearing on a controversial bill, having two or three weeks pass, and then having the chair suddenly call for a vote on the bill from three weeks ago at the end of a day with hearings on five or six totally different bills. Didn’t bring your notes on the bill from three weeks before that you’ll be voting on? Too bad. You’ll be expected to debate and vote on it with no time to prepare and no notes. While some committee chairs may decide to continue the practice of scheduling votes with adequate public notice, others won’t. This not only violates the rights of the Dem minority by not allowing adequate time to prepare for an executive session, it also means the citizens who come to testify for or against a bill will have no way of knowing that a committee vote is taking place on it—and most likely won’t be in the room or watching the debate online.
“Pardon me while I ‘accidently’ flash my 9mm pistol.” Not surprisingly, the majority’s reverence for “long-held traditions” didn’t extend to prohibiting the carrying of firearms in the chamber. Before GOP House Speaker Bill O’Brien pushed through a rule in 2011 to allow concealed deadly weapons in the chamber, a rule banning them had been in place for over 40 years. Not only was an amendment defeated that I introduced that would have prohibited deadly weapons in Representatives Hall, but the current rule requiring concealed weapons to stay concealed was modified in a way that only bars lawmakers from “intentionally” displaying a firearm. Under the modified rule, unintentional displays, such as when a jacket falls open and reveals a holstered gun, will not result in discipline. Thanks to this, all a legislator who displays a weapon on the House floor needs to do is claim it was an accident and no action will be taken. As I said in my floor remarks, this change means we no longer have an enforceable rule. What we now have is the illusion of a rule.
“Public hearings for me but not for thee.” In a move that ultimately was tabled and not passed, the GOP House Majority Leader failed in an attempt to change an actual House tradition—the long-standing practice of giving every bill a public hearing. The change would have allowed committees by a 3/4 vote to table a bill prior to a public hearing. While the end result may have been subtracting a small number of bills from a crowded calendar, the idea of dismissing a bill without giving the sponsor and bill’s supporters time to make their case was a bridge too far for legislators on both sides.
“Excuse me. Are my Crocs considered ‘proper business attire’?” An attempt to implement a dress code for legislators failed. While adding a little bit of professionalism wouldn’t have hurt, concerns were raised over the fact that the proposed rule didn’t actually define what proper business attire actually is or call out examples of unacceptable attire. Worth noting is that while the vast majority of legislators on both side show up dressed professionally, but jeans are fairly common, graphic t-shirts are occasionally seen, and footware ranges from scuffed wingtips to mud-stained Hokas.
Read more: