March 2026
House Bill 104, commonly known around the legislature as ‘Defend the Guard’, is legislation that says that the State National Guard cannot be used for foreign combat missions unless the United States Congress has has formally declared war. Something that legislature has not done since the Second World War. This bill has gone back-and-forth in the state legislature for several years. Passing the House of Representatives with strong margins on a non-partisan basis several times, but always failing in the State Senate where the lobbyists and other special interests have far more sway over the peoples' will.
The Senate gave the House Bill it's public hearing last month. Similar to the process in the House, people who believe in the passage of the bill came out to testify strongly in support of the legislation. They testified to the fact it would protect our national guard from deployments that the federal government would have them do, which have not been constitutionally authorized. As I said in my testimony, these aren't peaceniks coming out to support this bill - these supporters are men and women who have served in the guard and other branches of our military, who see that these deployments that they have participated in were done in the interests of corporations, and not the country which they swore in oath to serve; and they want to do everything in their power to protect their brothers and sisters in arms from further deployments. This legislation sends a message to the United States Congress that this state will not send its men and women who have signed up to serve its national guard, to foreign deployments without constitutional authorization. It's a straightforward and strong message that all states should be sending to a federal government which has enthusiastically neglected its constitutional obligations.
It is further emphasized by the fact that the United States is currently engaged in a military conflict with the nation state of Iran, that risks further escalation, and as we discovered at the end of the month, the potential for ground invasion. As men and women in the guard are deployed to Persia to fight this war at the behest of interests that are not the country which they swore oath to, we as legislators at home have have a moral obligation to those men and women to do what we can to make sure that this country holds up it's constitutional obligations.
The public hearing is a tradition sacred to the process of the New Hampshire legislature. The process, open to all citizens to come and say their peace to the legislature which they elected to govern the state for the two years they have been given to do it. It isn't a given that a legislative body opens itself up to the public to allow them to come and be heard by their elected officials. This is a special trait of the New Hampshire legislature. One that should be fostered, but is instead increasingly disregarded.
When the Senate heard House Bill 104 back in February, they exemplified the increasing disregard for this tradition. While citizens, fellow legislators, soldiers and officers of the National Guard testified in support of protecting their brothers and sisters in arms who are sent off to foreign lands to fight in constitutionally unauthorized engagements; this states’ Senate laughed.
They held members of the public to a strict, three minute time limit, but gave the lobbyists and military brass all the time they needed to remit the propaganda that we have heard over and over again on these pieces of legislation. Immediately following the hearing, they moved to report the legislation to the full Senate as marked inexpedient to legislate. In common language, they voted to kill the bill. I've seen a lot of disgusting moments of disregard in my time here in this legislature, but this stands as one of the most egregious examples.
However, that's last months's news. I mentioned House Bill 104 because the story didn't end there. On the fifth of this month when the bill was reported to the Senate calendar where it will be voted on the Senate floor. Senator Gray, the chairman of the Senate finance committee, pulled the bill off the Senate's consent calendar; a move often done in order to amend the bill and pass it in a form different than what the committee unanimously agreed on. In this instance, it was done out of spite. Senator Gray pulled the bill off the consent calendar so that he may make a motion that the State Senate almost never uses, the motion to indefinitely postpone.
The body which moves indefinite postponement on a piece of legislation marks that legislation as dead and unable to return during the session in any form. It's a motion that the House has begun to use more commonly, but only in the first year as the session ends at the end of the second. Without going too far into the rabbit hole of parliamentary procedure, this is all to say that Senator Gray moved to indefinitely postpone defend the guard, not because he was worried about it returning in the second year as this is the second year, but because he wanted to rub the fact he had killed it in the eye of the supporters of this piece of legislation. The Senate unanimously supported the motion with a voice vote.
They laughed, they glared, they snarled, as people brave enough to face the terror of war, pleaded the one place they have to say their plea for redress from a government which has willfully neglected its constitutional obligations. But that wasn't enough, they had to use the power of their voice on the Senate floor to mark the legislation as dead, and unable to return; all of this without a word of debate.
Two days prior to this, on the day of the blood moon, the United States military struck a school in Iran, killing hundreds of children in what the Pentagon marked as an accidental targeting. Undermining one of the stated goals of the President to curb support for terrorism in the region. The unadulterated murder of civilians in any situation will cause a furious pushback. This particular strike has been done in a religious fundamentalist culture that is only reinforced by these sort of unwarranted civilian deaths. Therefore strikes do nothing more than serve to prolong this war, which already has an extended trajectory.
It is insane for the State Senate to respond to this moment in time by laughing at the people who are trying to protect those who are willing to serve. It is insane. There is no other word for it. History will look back on this time and see the characters in our State Senate, their actions, and they will judge them appropriately.
The schedule for the session of the legislature, meaning the schedule that says when legislation is introduced, heard in committee, and voted on; is composed by deadlines set by the House and Senate rules committees at the beginning of each years’ session. The deadlines for both the House and Senate can be found on their respective calendars. Thursday, March 26th was the deadline to act on all House bills. Otherwise known as the crossover date. The Senate was also deadlined to act on all of its bills. If a bill marked inexpedient to legislate in its respective chamber has not received action prior to the end of the deadline, it "dies" without action. The Speaker scheduled a session day of the House for Wednesday, March 25th and Thursday, March 26th. The calendar for this scheduled session had the committee report of hundreds of bills on it. The Speaker split the calendar into two parts, a normal practice when the House has many pieces of legislation on a calendar up against a deadline. However, this calendar was unique because all of the legislation marked ought to pass was in the first part, and all of the legislation marked inexpedient to the legislate was in the second.
This set up the potential for the House to act on all legislation which it had marked in its committees as ought to pass, and then recess the session leaving the remaining legislation dead without action. Circumventing New Hampshire's tradition of giving every bill it's proper hearing and vote on the House floor.
A group of freshman democrats, decided to make motions they knew were going to fail to extend the clock in an effort to try and get Republicans to leave their seats so that Democrats may theoretically have the majority. I called them freshman not because they were all freshman legislators, but because that is the behavior of freshman legislators. What it resulted in, was the Majority Leader at the beginning of the session on Wednesday, moving to limit debate on the entirety of the calendar. Meaning that no speeches would be allowed to be given on any question before the House during these next two days. No speeches on the hundreds of pieces of legislation that make up a total of thousands of hours of work done by stakeholders, legislators, and citizens who participated in the legislative process to get their bills to this point.
If you watch the session, you'll see people making comments on the bills in the forms of questions. This is a practice in which what is called a parliamentary inquiry. It is used to make last-minute points on the piece of legislation before the House prior to a vote. It's a terrible practice, but has become common place in the legislature as a way to put a fine point on the argument you made in your speech now that everyone is in their seat locked in the chamber right before the vote. Although the more the practice is used, the less fine the points become and the more they turn into speeches.
It was two long, arduous days that culminated in the Speaker moving to recess the House around 4 o'clock on Thursday the 26th. Leaving almost 100 pieces of legislation dead without action. Including my constitutional amendment to ensure that the citizens of our state over the age of 21 have the right to possess a modest amount of cannabis for personal consumption, legislation I cosponsored to prohibit landlords from charging more than one application fee per tenant every 12 months, and many, many more. All dead without even so much as a breath of floor time spent on them. Spitting in the face of generations of New Hampshire legislative tradition.
We were however, able to stop legislation which would have allowed in public employees in unions to get benefits without having to pay their dues, passed legislation to allow municipal first responders to receive some of the benefits available to state first responders, and passed on a 340-1 vote, legislation I cosponsored which ensures survivors of sexual assault are afforded their full rights under the States’ existing survivors’ bill of rights.
Even on the worst of days we are able to find moments of light.
Whether its the malicious laughter in the Senate or the willful incompetence of the House, it is clear we need a change. I won’t bore you with the myriad of bits and pieces to the machines of the legislature which need to be reinforced, maintained, or otherwise thrown out. The short and sweet of it is that we need to look to the tradition of our States’ legislature; upholding the principles of public input, transparency, and fairness in process and scheduling between all members. These aren’t fairy tale, utopian ideals - and yet for most citizens today that’s how it feels.
A new era of leadership is needed to protect the public institutions, and the people, from the onslaught they face from those who’d rather power centralized in the hands of the few. Where governance is opaque, made to be interpreted only by those with the power to ‘enforce the law’ - with the rest of us left underneath the boot. This new era of leadership requires you, yes you, taking agency of your life. Engaging in the civic life around you, and refusing to accede your freedom to those who would sell it for the false security of tyranny.
This is far from the only challenging era of our State’s generational history, and it will be far from the last. When ordinary people make a stand, real change is possible. Run for office this cycle (sign ups start June 4th), help someone you believe in run for office, educate yourself on the processes of our government which the powerful rely on you misunderstanding;
Believe.
Back to all