By GARRY RAYNO, InDepthNH.org
CONCORD — An attempt to essentially nullify the For the People Act currently before Congress in order to preserve New Hampshire’s election process, was opposed by many at a public hearing Wednesday, but was passed by the Republican majority of the House Election Law Committee.
After two hours of testimony on the amendment, most opposing it, the committee voted down party lines 11-8 to approve it.
The amendment to a Senate omnibus, bipartisan bill on election procedures, would require state, county and local elections to follow the state’s constitutional requirements, statutes and rules if the federal law passes. The amended bill was approved down the same party line vote, 11-8, and will come before the House in two weeks.
The bill would require two parallel election procedures for state and federal elections, as voter eligibility, registration and procedures would be different.
Opponents said a two-tier system would require separate voting lists, separate ballots, and different laws to govern state and federal races, and would be costly to taxpayers and confusing to voters leading to disenfranchisement and voter suppression.
While supporters of the provision said it would protect New Hampshire elections from unconstitutional federal interference and avoid a one size fits all national program without regard for individual state needs.
Prime sponsor of the amendment, Rep. Barbara Griffin, R-Goffstown, and the chair of the House Election Law Committee, said the bill tries to address what she called the unconstitutional overreach of the federal legislation and an expansive power grab by Congress over elections.
She called the federal bill a direct assault to the state’s sovereignty.
“(For the People Act) will have a dramatic and unconstitutional impact on our elections,” she stated. “This would be a major change at all levels for the state and communities and at great cost.”
She maintained it was not her amendment that would require two elections in the state, but the federal act.
The amendment was supported by the Secretary of State’s Office.
Opponents said the amendment would confuse voters, double the workload of election officials and cost cities and towns more money.
Contoocook attorney Ken Barnes called the amendment a poison pill intended to undermine Senate Bill 89 and would make voting more difficult, not easier.
Rep. Manny Espitia, D-Nashua, said “I think today’s hearing is a political stunt and nothing more.”
Some of the testimony and discussion before the committee later in the day took on a very partisan tone as several Republican members criticized the state’s Democratic Congressional delegation led by former Republican State Party executive director, Rep. Ross Berry, R-Manchester.
He particularly targeted U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-NH, who is up for reelection next year, at one point calling her a liar or ignorant of the federal bill’s provisions, which prompted the ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. David Cote, D-Nashua, to object.
Cote noted Republican members of the committee were paying more attention to the state’s Democratic Congressional delegation than to the legal issue of the bill violating the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution.
“This entire farrago is an embarrassment,” Cote said.
The proposed law would be “blatantly unconstitutional,” he said, “and would turn New Hampshire’s elections into a logistical nightmare.”
Secretary of State Bill Gardner opposes the federal act and has said it would mean federal control of state elections and make the voting provisions of the state constitution null and void.
Speaking to the committee Wednesday, Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said the proposed act would be “a federal take-over of the state’s election process.”
“If it passes, it will change every area of our election process,” Scanlan said, “(what we do today) would not be recognizable in the future.”
He said his office tries to balance making it easy to vote with election security so voters are confident their vote will be counted and not diluted by people ineligible to vote.
“If we go too far in either direction, you believe either voter suppression is taking place,” he said, “or on the other side fraud is rampant and it is too easy to get on the checklist.”
Scanlan said the amendment, “fires a shot across the bow of the wisdom of Congress passing legislation to take over our elections.”
But others looked at the amendment differently.
Liz Tentarelli, president of the League of Women Voters New Hampshire, said the proposed amendment would confuse voters and that means they will not vote.
And she encouraged the committee members concerned that the Congressional delegation had not contacted the committee or Secretary of State’s Office, to call their U.S. senators and make their views known, “but not try to legislate their position.”
She said while they accuse the federal government of overreach, “trying to legislate this way is overreach.”
Concord Ward 4 checklist supervisor Kyri Calfin said it is incumbent on state election officials and the Secretary of State to reach out to the delegation now when the bill is being marked up in committee and express the special needs of the state “instead of a back-end obstruction and resistance and putting out misinformation about this bill.”
Many officials want the reforms in the federal proposal, she said.
Cordell Johnson of the NH Municipal Association, said the federal bill does some good things, but also contains problematic provisions for local election officials.
There does not appear to be a waiver for smaller states or cities and towns to bypass some of the requirements like 15 days of voting before election day and a 10-day period after the election to accept and process absentee ballots.
“But I’m not at all convinced this amendment is the answer,” Johnson said.
During the committee executive session to decide its recommendation, Berry asked again where the Congressional delegation was and why had they not at least sent the committee a statement.
He characterized the situation as a conflict between the state and the federal government noting he would stand with Gardner and not House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Senate President Chuck Schumer.
“Do we stand with New Hampshire and our voting institutions or do we side with D.C. politicians?” Berry asked.
Committee member Rep. Russell Muirhead, D-Hanover, asked those supporting the amendment if they believed the voting rights act also violated the constitution, noting the act ended literacy tests, poll taxes and forced southern counties to register black voters.
“Why does the principle apply to one but not the other,” he asked.
Cote said, after the vote to recommend the amendment be included in the bill, Republicans in their zeal to deny voting rights across the country want to create a costly new voting process that separates state and federal elections.
“It is shameful that the interests of New Hampshire taxpayers are being thrown aside,” Cote said, “because Republicans feel threatened by attempts by Congress to protect voting rights nationwide.”
But state GOP chair Stephen Stepanek praised the committee for its work and vote, saying the federal legislation would dismantle the finely tuned state voting process.
If it passes the bill, it would need to go back to the Senate because the House changed the bill.
Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.