Back to all
There are members of my party who vote against it on a variety of issues far more than I do. The notoriety I receive from my votes of contention is due to the fact that I will speak to my position on the floor. Explaining why I choose to take the vote I do to all my colleagues, constituents, and anyone else interested. To be up front rather than hide behind my jacket as I take a tough vote, or worse, take a walk.
The legislation which brought attention to the House this month was HB148. The moniker used by those opposed to the law is the ‘bathroom bill’. That title evokes the idea of legislation such as the bill in North Carolina which was responding to changing federal rules in 2015, kicking off this debate on a national level; or the bill from the legislative session this past year in Utah where the State is attempting to legislative lavatories based on the physical appearance of an individual. These attempts to protect sex-based spaces are wrongheaded and ill-fitting. They will result in discrimination against those who do not conform to particular beauty standards. People come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. To legislate sex-based spaces based on appearances supposes that one can determine ones sex based on appearance alone. Making a determination of ones sex is nigh impossible, and I would not be a part of any effort which attempted to do so.
There are immutable differences between men and women. That is a material reality of the world in which we live. New Hampshire took what is an incredibly contentious national issue and did it’s best to find a balance. One where people can live with the strong protections of our discrimination law, and where sex-based spaces and sports are in certain cases allowed. The bill reaffirmed New Hampshire’s commitment to it’s statute protecting all it’s citizens from discrimination, and reaffirmed businesses, municipalities, and other relevant organizations to make sex-based determinations in cases it deems necessary. To be clear, the bill affirms that which we see in almost every gas station, restaurant, store, and any other facility with a bathroom. That is the facilities right to have signage stating the sex allowed to use the lavatory, a sports organizations right to say that this sport is for males and/or females; or a business such as a woman’s gymnastics club to say that this club is for women.
You have the right just as any other member of your sex, to use either the bathroom assigned to your sex or a unisex facility. That is equal protection under the law. People quip about anecdotes of people using the bathroom of the opposite sex in times where there was no other option, or the variety of different instances which may lead to one ignoring whatever the sign on the door says cause, well, when you have to go you have to go. This law doesn’t legislate that as a crime in any way whatsoever. Nor does it allow for bathroom police who will be checking an individuals genitalia prior to entering a lavatory, participating in sports, or entering a space deemed for one sex or the other. If that were to occur it would be illegal and discriminatory based on numerous laws, including the same discrimination law reaffirmed in the bill. The bills allowance of sex-based spaces is based in the same notion that the underlying social understanding has been for generations; the honor system. That people will respect the inherent differences between males and females, and the rationale behind the separation of the sexes in certain instances.
On the floor, before I could get but one paragraph out of my mouth. A number of my colleagues from the minority party chose to get up and walk out of the room. Wigging out as they did so, and continuing to wig out for the rest of the day. I am going to choose to say nothing more than relay that fact. There is plenty of opinion stirring in my mind about the behavior of my colleagues but it isn’t helpful to bringing the party together to do so, and therefore I will not. Nor will I litigate the events of the town hall in Peterborough the following Tuesday. I will not whine about how unfair the process was. The League of Women Voters made their choices in how they ran the event, and as I understand it, will no longer be allowed to use the library for their events. I wrote an op-ed for the Boston Globe, which is also on my website which goes a tad more in-depth but again doesn’t nearly broach the drama of the behind the scenes trickery leading up to that event. One day it will be time to discuss that more broadly, today is not that day. As I said during the town hall, when you make the choice to run for office, you are signing up to be a punching bag for all the ails of your constituents.
If I wanted to be a star I would’ve drunk the gold juice and gone to Hollywood.
I ran to serve thousands of people in the State House. You are there to represent the majority, while also protecting the minority. Your rights end, when another’s begin. It is my job to maintain that balance in the laws and budgets passed by the legislature as much as I can. It is a given in that role that not every one will be content with every decision that is made. To claim I am not representing my constituents is to ignore the reality of the job I am doing. I am in communication with my constituents. They are unafraid to call, text, email, or pull my aside on the street; and they know I am unafraid to respond.
“How do you sleep at night?”
As was asked by a constituent during the town hall this month.
I sleep just fine knowing that I am serving my constitutional responsibility that I have been now elected twice to do. I have never nor would I claim to be the arbiter of what is an isn’t a woman’s rights issue. I will, however, listen to women. If you wonder where I would get such ‘bigoted’ ideas, such as spaces segregated by sex shouldn’t be deemed discriminatory in a legal or material sense, read women such as Kara Dansky or Lisa Salen Davis. Liberal women who have been ignored in this conversation which seemingly can only be had in a way which deems there to be two sides, the liberal or conservative one; and if you’re not of the latter than you’re the former. That is a totally unhealthy and illiberal approach to politicking an issue which you believe in.
The legislature is a process of constant self-criticism and reflection. You will challenge every presupposition you have in order to attempt to make the right vote. If you’re doing it properly you will continue to challenge yourself even after the vote, and I will. I am open to hearing from everyone and anyone. I would only ask in return that you too be open to hearing from everyone and anyone.
The events of notoriety were but one percent of the work done in March. The text of HB1 and HB2, the legislation in which the budget is contained was released at the beginning of the month. With it getting it’s public hearing this month as well.
The House in it’s history has taken to the road for the public hearings of the budget. Holding a variety of public hearings throughout the State to ensure that every citizen no matter where they found themselves in the State would have at least one opportunity to have their voice heard by the legislators who will be budgeting the State for the next two years. In this the 169th General Court, the majority party is doing it’s best to expedite the budget process so that they can avoid as much public input as possible. They held one public hearing on the budget bills in the House chamber. Despite the one hearing being scheduled, hundreds of people came out to oppose the budget as crafted by the House Finance committee.
Their budget would cut Medicaid spending by millions of dollars, and enforce a $200 a month co-pay on our medicaid recipients. Which will result in people not seeking care when they need it. The budget includes cuts to the community hospitals across the State. Many of our rural hospitals, care facilities, and clinics are already strained for funds. Operating on a knifes edge. With medicaid uncompensated care funding being rolled back the dollars they will receive for the patients who can’t afford the care they get will go down. Resulting in more negative operating budget and ultimately closures. The budget slashes university funding. Raising already ridiculous tuition costs for our students, the reduction of subjects offered, and less opportunity for those students attending. All while they fund universal private, religious, or homeschool education to the tune of a billion dollars of the course of ten years.
While constituents testified before the committee. They were gaveled down by the Chairman who would tell them not to mention a subject already mentioned by another member of the public. It happened during one of the first testifiers. Someone went up to testify against the education funding or lack thereof, and the person behind them wanted to testify on the same subject. He banged the gavel down and reprimanded them for doing so. As if there were a House rule stating that only one member of the public can speak to one issue. The more those in power poke and prod those without. The more people will begin to wake up to the reality around them and refuse to accept it.
The House is set to vote on the budget in April prior to the crossover due date for each chamber of the legislative branch.
Another highlight of the month was the work done on HB669. Legislation to equalize the Statewide Property Tax at a valuation of five dollars per thousand of value. This is legislation which mirrors work done by the House finance committee in 1999. Chairman of Finance division II at the time, Douglass Hall, dealt with the issue of rising property taxes and school funding. They were in a very similar situation to the one we are in. The plan ultimately passed in 1999 was to equalize the property tax at $6.60 per thousand rate. This plan resulted in a reduction of municipal tax rates in, every, town, throughout the State. Had everything been left alone by succeeding legislatures than we would not be dealing with the school funding issue we are now.
The bill sponsored by Majorie Smith, John Cloutier, Dale Girard, and myself ensures that this tax is a valid and constitutional one according to Part II, article five of the State constitution which mandates a fair and equitable tax burden. Ensuring that nobody pays more than another for the tax. The bill sets a fixed rate into statute. Taking the authority the Department of Revenue Administration to set the rate of this Statewide tax away, and returning it back to where it is constitutionally supposed to be; the legislature. No other tax is given to a State agency or bureaucracy to change year to year. All other taxes are set by legislation and this bill would bring the Statewide Education Property tax back into that category.
Just as happened in 1999, towns across this State would have seen major tax relief resulting in a lower burden on the municipal property tax payers statewide. Saving our property poor towns and stopping our wealthy towns from getting off nearly scot free.
People say this is a thankless job but I don’t see that at all. I am in constant communication with my constituents and the amount of thanks that they express for the work I do in the legislature makes every moment of strife worth it. I do not do this work alone. Everywhere I walk, I bring the thousands of people I represent with me. Those that agree and those that do not.
Spring has sprung. The grass is getting greener, the trees budding, and the song birds returning to sign their songs.
Those in power can stomp one, two, or hundreds of flowers; but they can never stop the arrival of Spring.