By GARRY RAYNO, InDepthNH.org

CONCORD — Nearly down party linesThursday, the House rejected a proposed constitutional amendment CACR 10 that would ban an income tax.

House Majority Leader Jason Osborne, R-Auburn, proposed the ban as an amendment to a proposed constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds majority of lawmakers to pass new taxes or increases to taxes.

He said his proposal comes after a press conference earlier this week unveiling a proposed 3 percent income tax and a $3 per $1,000 valuation statewide education property tax rate to fund the state’s share of public education costs.

Osborne said it was a bipartisan opportunity to express the House’s opposition to an income tax.

However, House Minority Leader Alexis Simpson, D-Exeter, called the plan irresponsible, without legislative vetting and a “political stunt.”

She said a proposed constitutional amendment needs more than 15 hours of “shelf life” before lawmakers are asked to vote on the proposal.

Almost immediately after the vote, the House Republican Caucus flooded social media with “159 Democrats voted against a constitutional amendment to ban an income tax,” and accused Simpson and others of lying about their opposition to an income tax in earlier statements about the proposal earlier this week. 

The number of Democrats voting to kill the amendment was 158, not 159, and four Democrats did vote for approving the amendment.

The 3 3  plan was unveiled by longtime education funding reform advocate and the lead attorney in the original Claremont education lawsuit, Andru Volinsky, who received a death threat in a post by the Libertarian Party NH on the social media platform X as did Congressional candidate Christian Urrutia for backing the plan.

Later in the day when the House was voting on a resolution honoring Melissa Hortman, the Minnesota House Speaker who were her husband were assassinated last year in political violence, Simpson brought up the threats against Volinski and Urrutia.

“Political violence has come too far and to common in our country. Earlier today we passed a resolution honoring Charlie Kirk. I disagree with his political views but disagreement is not an excuse for violence. No one should die for their politics. That principle has to apply to everyone.

“That is why social media posts from the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire are so disturbing. Those post used threatening language and called for the killing of political opponents. That kind of language is dangerous. It crosses a clear line and threatens democracy. Political debate is part of democracy, threats of violence are not,” Simpson said.

The attorney general’s office is aware of the threats, according to spokesman Mike Garrity.

“The New Hampshire Department of Justice is aware and takes any allegation involving potential threats of violence seriously but would not comment on the existence or status of any potential investigations at this time,” Garrity said.

On the floor of the House, Simpson noted Osborne’s proposal only appeared the day before and had not gone through the necessary legislative process to be vetted before a vote.

“This is not serious policymaking,” she said, “this is a political stunt.”

Osborne said while Democrats opposed Volinsky’s plan, several House members also backed the proposal and they are not going away.

He said while some say there is no serious $1 billion income tax proposal before the legislature, it is not hypothetical when it is on the 6 o’clock news.

Osborne said Connecticut imposed an income tax to reduce property taxes, but the income tax rate has gone up and so have property taxes and now “residents of Connecticut are fleeing the state and coming here.”
His proposal would not go into law right away, he said, but would let the state’s voters say how they feel about an income tax.

Simpson said Osborne’s proposal is “irresponsible and politically driven.”
The vote on the proposed constitutional amendment was 194-158, but failed to reach the three-fifths threshold of House members present and voting to move to the Senate. The number of House votes needed to pass would have been 211.

A constitutional amendment requires a three-fifth vote of the House and the Senate and then a two-thirds majority of the voters in the next general election to change the constitution.

Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.