The House, Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Rep. David Bettencourt (R - Rock 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I move floor amendment 2012-0256h, which should be in your seat pockets. It was passed out.

Speaker O'BrienRep. Bettencourt moves floor amendment 0256h to CACR 13 and is recognized to speak to his motion.

Rep. David Bettencourt (R - Rock 4)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, this floor amendment simply removes three words from the original amendment that was posed to the Ways and Means Committee. It removes the words "directly or indirectly." There were several concerns about whether or not legally speaking having those three words would complicate the underlying goal of the amendment. To erase those doubts and after getting assurances from legal people that I trust that this was a good decision, we decided to make that change and that is now reflected in the floor amendment before you. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is the adoption of floor amendment 0256h to CACR 13. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye. All those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and floor amendment 0256h is adopted. The question before the House is the adoption of CACR 13 as Ought to Pass with Amendment. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New London, Rep. Kidder to speak to the question.

Rep. David Kidder (R - Merr 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Colleagues, I stand to speak against CACR 13. I am in favor of reducing property taxes and not increasing state spending more than inflation. This bill, I fear, forever places our tax policy in an incredibly regressive place. An example of how this might affect us all; let's take a look at the gas tax. It is paid for with income and as I read the bill it would forever preclude us from raising it. I don't know how the roads in your part of the state are, but in my part they are terrible and getting worse each winter. If in 1993, the last time the tax was raised we had indexed it, today's gas tax would be about 6 cents a gallon higher. Over 20 years roughly I think that's probably a pretty reasonable price to pay. How are we going to take care of our roads now? A piece of infrastructure that we need to attract business - new business. Like it or not our bridges and roads are deteriorating. We need to offer businesses looking at New Hampshire continuity and an adequate infrastructure. This bill precludes that. We have so much to offer businesses that would like to come here, but we must provide a playing field that is supportive and level, not constantly changing. We, as legislators, need to talk about all the means available to raise the revenue we need to spend on state government. We can't know what is going to happen in two years, let alone ten years. We are tying the hands of future legislators. Let's vote against Ought to Pass and get on with the discussion from both sides of the aisle that will produce good government at a reasonable cost. Just to leave you with a couple of quotes from a gentleman named Marcus Hurn who has reviewed this bill. His quote was, "This proposal is ripe for unintended consequences, indeed it practically guarantees them." Also, take the reference to a person and remember that under the law corporations are persons as well as noted by the winner of our recent presidential primary. This bill is ill advised and I would ask you to vote against it. Thank you very much and I'll take no questions.

Speaker O'BrienThe Chair recognizes Rep. (Keith) Murphy to speak to the question which is Ought to Pass as Amended.

Rep. Keith MurphyThank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker and colleagues, this amendment is overdue. A man or a woman gets up in the morning and goes to work. At the end of the day or the week, they get a paycheck. That check represents his labor, his time and his sweat. It represents the ability to provide for himself and his family. In a very real sense, it is his dignity and it should not be taken from him. It is his. We have always known that in New Hampshire which is why we've never taken those earnings. Forty-one other states have forgotten what they used to know and occasionally the legislature here has looked at those other revenues streams for those other states and thought, just a small one. Lest we forget, in 1999 this body did pass an income tax of 4%. Every year since an income tax has been proposed in this body. We need to take this temptation off the table now and forever. The amendment is simple. It is very carefully chosen to forbid only new taxes on individual income. Existing taxes on income such as the interest and dividends tax will not be affected unless first repealed completely and we should be so lucky to have that problem. Opponents have said that we should not tie the hands of future legislators, but that is what constitutions are for. That's what every constitution and every amendment does. They tie the hands of legislators. It says to the state, this is not yours, you can't touch this. When the founders were debating the amendments in the Bill of Rights, no one told Madison, "Gee Jim, maybe we shouldn't tie the hands of Congress on Free Speech or Free Religion." Opponents have said the amendment is too confusing. I don't know how 16, 15 words now, could be considered confusing, especially when compared to other amendments this body has passed. The minority blurb is a frantic muddying of the waters, predicting that we'll have the worst economy in New England and that our state will wither and die. To the contrary, the perpetual promise of no income tax will attract entrepreneurs from around the country and around the world. Eight years ago I moved to New Hampshire, in part because of the promise of keeping my earnings. Today I own two businesses that employ over 100 people. Make no mistake; this is the single biggest piece of pro jobs legislation you are going to face this term. By promising people they can keep the fruit of their labor, this amendment will promote prosperity not doom. In their desire to preserve their hope for an income tax, opponents claim that the wording is many things it is not. Don't be fooled. The wording is crystal clear. It doesn't get any simpler than this. You can't claim to support the middle class or the working class and then leave the door open to grabbing their paycheck. Send this on to the people and give them the chance to put their paychecks beyond our reach forever. Respect their right to do it and please press the green button. Thank you.

Speaker O'BrienDoes the member yield for a question? The member yields. Rep. Schroadter you are recognized for a question.

Rep. Adam SchroadterThank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you for taking my question. Representative, the committee minority blurb on this issue references another piece of legislation, SB 168. I believe and suggest that there would be a conflict if both pieces of legislation passed. Do you agree that there would be a conflict and could you please explain that? Thank you.

Rep. Keith MurphyThank you for the question. SB 168 deals with the interest and dividends tax, which as I said in my statement would not be affected in the least because the amendment only affects new taxes on income.

Speaker O'BrienDoes the member yield for a question? The member does yield. Rep. Bouchard you are recognized for a question.

Rep. Candace Bouchard (D - Merr 18)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you for taking my question. I'm concerned about the expansion of I93. We took out the wording, or the amendment takes out the wording "directly or indirectly," but levied upon a person's income from whatever source it is derived. So to move forward, if we wanted to get away from the gas tax, and perhaps do a vehicle miles tax or to capture on a fairness issue, to capture revenue from electric vehicles and non-gas vehicles that are becoming very popular, if we wanted to do some kind of registration fee for them, would this prohibit the state moving forward on that? Are you sure we are not somehow shooting ourselves in the foot with the expansion of I93.

Rep. Keith MurphyThank you, Representative. Florida has this amendment on their constitution. Tennessee is currently debating this amendment to their constitution. This is not new ground. The amendment does not affect taxes on gasoline. It does not affect taxes on sales. It does not affect tolls. It would affect any kind of taxes on income and income only; the flow of revenue into a household not revenue out of a household.

Speaker O'BrienFollow up question? No follow up question. The question before the House is the adoption of CACR 13 as Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the member from Enfield, Representative Mirski to speak to the question.

Rep. Paul Mirski (R - Graf 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Members of the House, you know you see these talking heads reporting the news some nights and they'll report something and they'll say you can't make this stuff up. I was thinking about reading the minority report and thinking about the misrepresentation of the history of New Hampshire here and saying that we, somehow by adopting a constitutional amendment to prohibit any taxes on new income, that somehow we go back to the bad old days. Well, here's the history. In the fifties and sixties, mostly the fifties but all through that period, our great textile mills, our shoe factories, all the great industry in the state for the most part headed south where there were cheaper electric rates and lower wages. When I got out of high school and I went through college in the sixties, I remember what was going on in this state was the big growing debate about whether or not we should have an income tax. I was out of state for a little while and when I came back to live in Enfield, one day during one of those campaigns for governor I noticed....we had poor reception, a grainy grey and white TV, there was a guy from out of state, from Georgia actually, trying to run on an Independent ticket. His name was Mel Thomson. Two years later, Mel Thomson ran for governor against Governor Peterson. Governor Peterson was proposing an income tax. So anybody that remembers Mel Thomson, remembers that he is the guy who introduced the pledge to New Hampshire. His theme was basically that if you vote for him, you pledge to veto an income, any broad base tax, but basically an income or a sales tax. Now, low and behold, Mel Thomson won hands down and set in process a phoenix-like rising out of the ashes for the State of New Hampshire because what happened was all our neighbors have income taxes, raise their income taxes and raise other taxes. His pledge kept this state without an income tax. The difference is now if you go and look at any data having to do with growth and opportunity that's produced nationally by these various organizations, tax foundations, etc., you look at New Hampshire and it's the only place in New England that has a prosperous economy. Not only that, I was looking at the best place to retire, right. You look at those kinds of studies and the worst place is like Maine and Vermont, Connecticut. Places in New England which have high income taxes and taxes overall. So you can't look at history and say that somehow by depriving the state being able to tax income we are somehow going to have a failing economy. Just exactly the opposite happens and we've had 35 years of that. We live in a great state with a low unemployment rate and we need to keep it that way. What this amendment does simply builds on this fantastic history of growth we've had for New Hampshire by not having this tax, by enshrining this idea into the constitution, we will become a magnet for wealth, for development, venture capital, all of these things. I was talking to an economist from Washington a month or two ago at one of these forums that we had here. He said the income tax is one of the two most important generators of growth and opportunity in states; one of two. The other one happened to be right-to-work, but I'm not pitching that today. Income tax. Income tax. Get rid of it. We grow. We prosper. It will be a great thing for New Hampshire and I hope you support this amendment.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is the adoption of CACR 13 as Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Plymouth, Representative Cooney to speak to the question.

Rep. Mary Cooney (D - Graf 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Colleagues, this seemingly simple constitutional amendment is deceptively complex in its possible interpretation and consequences. There are only two states which do not have either an income tax or a sales tax. New Hampshire is obviously one, the other is Alaska. As we know, Alaska is blessed with oil reserves. Alaska currently has a $12 billion surplus thanks in great part to its most famous resident, Sarah Palin who working with Democrats raised the tax on oil companies. Since she left the governor's office, the oil lobbyists have managed to get that tax reduced. The point of this comparison is that every state has to look to all its resources to fund essential services. In a seminar in 2009, Charlie Arlinghaus noted that the economic boom that New Hampshire experienced in the 1970's was the result of tax reform which is typically spurred by an economic crisis. Walter Peterson as governor led the way to replace the old stock and trade tax which taxed inventory and discouraged investment with a business profits tax. He also helped enact the rooms and meals tax. Arlinghaus said that New Hampshire went from being, "Another frankly backwater state to the state with the economic engine that always led the region out of recession; that always had more job growth than the rest of the region." The next major reform was the enactment of the business enterprise tax in 1993. This was spurred by larger businesses claiming that smaller businesses were not sharing in the business tax burden. Another reform soon followed taxing farmland based on their current use rather than their development potential. The current use law has been called the most important conservation and environmental legislation in the past fifty years. There was a time that the race tracks provided a significant source of income to New Hampshire, but no longer is racing profitable. Currently, Ireland is considering an annual property tax. Ireland now only charges essentially a sales tax on property, kind of like our real estate transfer tax. These examples prove that over time, economic conditions, types of industry and technologies change. Economic forecasts tell that the current heavy reliance on business taxes and the need to invest in tax incentives for business, human resources and education is the next discussion New Hampshire needs to have on possible tax reform. Our heavy reliance on business and property taxes discourages start-up businesses, families with children and encourage only elderly retirees to move to New Hampshire. We love the property tax except when it becomes a state tax. The statewide property tax is closer to being a fair way to fund education because it distributes the burden equally across the state instead of solely on each individual town with their varying abilities, some property poor and some property rich. Our local property tax is our default tax. Whatever the state fails to fund or takes away from our towns, is ultimately funded by the local property tax; a process better known as downshifting. We talk about not encumbering future legislators. This constitutional amendment would be a monumental encumbrance, eliminating even the possibility of any kind of income tax which could be crafted in a very fair and unique way is irresponsible. The wording of this constitutional amendment is simple, but vastly open to interpretation. Marcus Hurn, a professor at the New Hampshire School of Law, outlines the hazards in the language of CACR 13. He contends that this constitutional amendment would start a cascade of constitutional questions that could take years to settle and would require "The Supreme Court continually to be much more involved in reviewing tax laws and proposals then it already is." There are already constitutional constraints on tax legislation in Part II, Article 6 of our constitution. Hurn contends there are four major constitutional limits introduced in CACR 13 which would not fit in very well with our existing limits. To begin with, the language of the 16th amendment to the US Constitution which CACR 13 is apparently modeled after is permissive where the wording of CACR 13 is restrictive. The first allows congress to use any income source it needs, but the other attempts to define income and prevent it from being used. The definition of a person's income, legal person, has been included in the natural person's interpretation of law for over a hundred years. In spite of the current kerfuffle over the terminology, even with some wording changed, our constitution still prohibits discrimination among all types of persons. What you can't do to an individual proprietor, you can't do to a corporation. It would bar any new or different business taxes and New Hampshire already has the most restrictive ways of taxing and it also might affect our bond rating if we don't have ways of raising revenue, income from whatever source derived. This could have so many definitions. What is the outgoing of one is income to another. All new sales type or consumption taxes become unconstitutional. In the end, is not every tax derived from income in some way? New? Is it considered a new tax if we increase the interest and dividends tax or if we increase the meals and rooms tax or any fee for that matter? The words in the proposed amendment say from whatever source it is derived. There could be many court cases deciding what is a new tax on income. Changing the breadth or exemptions of the BPT or BET could be interpreted as new or just unconstitutional. We cannot predict the future needs of the state or which revenue sources may dry up. Someday we may not have the ski and snowmobile industries due to lack of snow. Tourism revenues may drop. Businesses may leave the state due to lack of infrastructure. Students may stop coming to our state schools because of rising tuition. Our current revenues from the gas tax may drop as cars become more efficient and hybrid and electric cars become more popular. If we cannot craft a new tax based on some other criteria, perhaps income or revenue interpreted as income, our roads and bridges will be in jeopardy. The New Hampshire Legislature has managed so far to prevent the enactment of a broad based income tax without a constitutional amendment and unless somebody finds oil in the White Mountains, New Hampshire needs flexibility in its revenue resources. Alaska has not seen the need to constitutionally prohibit an income tax. It had one before and who knows, may need one again when the oil runs out. Every other state without an income tax has a sales tax. We should not curtail the ability of future legislatures to act independently as they see the future needs of the state. They will need options and choices. What is current law concerning any revenue source should not be enshrined in the constitution. If we had not put our salaries in the constitution in 1889 at $100 a year, we could be making an equivalent salary between $12,200 and $20,900 a year, depending on the labor skill level you choose. Maybe then citizens other than retirees, time flexible employees, the independently wealthy and the self employed could be serving in the legislature. Aside from all the constitutional and legal pitfalls, the bottom line is options and choices need to be preserved for future legislatures. Please vote no on CACR 13 and I will not take any questions.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is the adoption of CACR 13 as Ought to Pass with Amendment. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Claremont, Representative Osgood to speak to the question.

Rep. Joe Osgood (R - Sull 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. The previous speakers have mentioned that this is a simple bill and it is a simple bill. It simply states that there are no new taxes on personal income. It simply states that there is no effect on existing taxes on income. It simply continues what we all like to cherish around here and that is the New Hampshire Advantage and it simply does one other thing that I really appreciate. This does not, today, take away our ability to tax income. It gives us a responsibility to sell this process to the people that will take it away at an election. We are going to give the people of New Hampshire the opportunity to make this decision. The same people that sent us down here and we are going to be given a task to convince them when they go to the polls this is what we need. Thank you.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is the adoption of CACR 13 as Ought to Pass with Amendment. The Chair recognizes the Honorable member from Manchester, Representative Vaillancourt to speak to the question.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in opposition to the committee report of Ought to Pass and I do so with a sense of profound D�j� vu. In fact, since last week when due to the hangover from the first in the nation primary the previous day, we decided to postpone this vote for a week. I've had a chance to research this bill a little more. The sense of D�j� vu in my mind said I remember. I was on the Ways and Means Committee when this was discussed once before and I remember standing at that well giving a speech. So I did research it and lo and behold not merely are the nays and yeas recorded from that debate, but the entire debate is recorded in the journal; amazing. I rise before you not because I am for an income tax; hardly. I have never voted for an income tax. Never will vote for an income tax, but this amendment is not about an income tax. It is about the basic law of this state, our constitution. A gentleman in the other building knows that I know a little German so he likes to greet me these days by saying, "Good morning, Herr Abgeordnete. Abgeordnete is the word for legislator. Usually if it is a good day and everything is going well I'll say, "Ausgerzeichnet," excellent. When I think of German, I think of the turmoil that the Bundes Republik was in when it was founded in the wake of World War II and I love these two German words, grundgesetz. Grund is from the basic word, "basic" or ground, gesetz is law. Grundgesetz is basic law in German. Perhaps more important for the German people struggling to maintain a spirit of democracy for the last sixty years, the grundgesetz they formed in the wake of World War II, but you know we in this country have a much longer and prouder history of our grundgesetz, our basic law. It goes back to the 18th century when we formed constitutions not only at the national level, but here in New Hampshire. When I spoke, I remember from that well, I had a copy of the constitution with me that day and it was an old version. Harold Burns was the speaker so I referred to him in my remarks, but instead of going through all of my ideas of what the constitution means to me and meant to me then, I'm getting lazy in my old age, I thought I would just recap my remarks in, by the way, do you know what the vote was in 2005? It went to the Ways and Means Committee, which was dominated by the Republican Party back then. The vote out of committee was Inexpedient to Legislate by a wide margin. It was 17-1. 17-1 was the vote of Inexpedient to Legislate so when the majority leader asked me last week in the antechamber, "How are you voting on this?" I said, "Well, I'm signed up to speak" and he said, "Well, we're never sure how you are going to vote." Well, let me tell you its not me that has changed, it is the people on the Ways and Means Committee and other members of the Republican party that have changed because not only was it Inexpedient to Legislate, by a 17-1 margin out of Ways and Means, this failed on the floor by a close margin due to those Democrats?, No, no. It was 220-103. So, mister majority leader, it is not I that has changed, it is the people sitting around you and I happen to have their remarks here as well; interesting. Because the founders of the constitution were wise enough to realize...

Speaker O'BrienThe member will suspend. The member will direct the remarks to the Speaker and not to any individual member such as the majority leader.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)Well, actually that was addressed to the Speaker, asking you to consider the majority leader. Is that sufficient?

Speaker O'BrienThat will be sufficient if that is the way you want to go.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)Do you want me to put Mister Speaker? Alright, then I'll start by saying, Mister Speaker, because the founders of the constitution were wise enough to realize that they could not foresee the future, they could not determine what type of tax would be valid or best or most appropriate for a future generation, Mister Speaker, these were wise men and suggest that we should attempt to be just as wise as they were in what we subscribe to and put in this grundgesetz, this basic law, this constitution. Mister Speaker, back in 2005, I had talked about previous CACR's and you know we really haven't begun in the last year and one month to talk about the basic nature of a constitutional amendment. I talked about the basic principle and how a constitutional amendment not only needs to be approved by 60% of the elected voters here and in the Senate but then by 2/3 of the general public. It's a high hurdle and very few of those hurdles are met and I sense and I affirm to you that the founding fathers meant it that way. They meant it to be a high hurdle. I want to quickly, before I talk about the income tax, talk about three constitutional ideas that might come before us and that I would personally treat separately. One is a CACR that I would like to put on the ballot for people to consider and I would also vote for myself. That would be, and D�j� vu brings us right around, to a redistricting amendment. I would support guaranteeing that every town with 3,089 people or currently 3,291 have its own Rep. I said this back in 2005 and lo and behold that constitutional amendment went on the ballot and passed. There is another type of constitutional amendment, Mister Speaker, that I would personally oppose, but I think would be proper to put on the ballot because the constitution tries to do two things. It enumerates our basic form of government, three branches, vetoes, such things as that and it also enumerates laws. Every state except New Hampshire and Vermont have gone to a four-year term for Governor. I don't support that, but I think it would be a valid thing to put before the voters because it changes the law of our government. Now we come to this, the third type of constitutional amendment that I would not support if it was put on the ballot...

Speaker O'BrienThe member will suspend. Representative Jasper, you are recognized on a point of order.

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)Mason's requires that the debate be limited to the question before the House, not questions that are not before the House and the member is speaking to other issues which we are not considering and I ask that you remind him to stay to the question.

Speaker O'BrienThe member's objection is well taken. There is a gossamer thread between your remarks, Representative. The member will suspend while the Chair is speaking. There is a gossamer thread between your remarks and the question before the House is Ought to Pass as Amended on CACR 13. I do want, however, you to have a full opportunity to express your views, but I would ask you to be a little bit closer to the question.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Apparently, the previous speaker in 2005 did not see that gossamer thread since I was simply reading the remarks I read then. What I was trying to do was explain the three types of constitutional amendments that come forward. One, which I would support and have supported then went to the people and passed. Two, which I would personally not support but it has every reason to go before the people and three, an amendment which I do not support and don't think meets the hurdle of going before the people. If that's too thin of a gossamer thread, maybe I should just get on to what I didn't say back in 2005, but to what other people said back then because that would probably be more directly related to the CACR.

Speaker O'BrienRepresentative Jasper, you are recognized on a point of order.

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)This is not the same CACR that was before this body in 2005, but overall it is not related and not relevant what was said by members rather they be in this body at this time or not. The debate needs to be confined to the issues today, the bill before us and not what I or anyone else in 2005 may have thought on a different although somewhat similar CACR.

Speaker O'BrienThe member's objection and point of order is well taken. The member from Manchester will limit his remarks to CACR 13, which is the one before the body and not debate on other CACR's or even committee reports on other CACR's.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)I suggest, Mister Speaker, that if we hear these words that were spoken back then, we can determine for ourselves whether they are relevant or not.

Speaker O'BrienInitially the Chair will decide whether they are relevant and I'm ruling that they're not relevant. Rep. Vaillancourt: Mister Speaker, if we come to the idea of a dictatorship where we cannot talk about what are good ideas and what are not good ideas, then we ought to just pack up and go home because if I cannot tell you how the deputy majority leader from 2005 spoke against this bill because he said that the reason not to have an income tax in the constitution forbidden is because it gives me something to run on. I am so much against an income tax, that according to the deputy majority leader back then and I say today, according to me and many other people, I am so much against an income tax that it should come up at every election cycle. That we should have the voters decide on it every time they go to the polls and we should have it as a campaign issue. We should be able to go to the voters.

Speaker O'BrienMember will suspend for the point of order. Rep. Jasper, your point of order.

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)What anyone in this Chamber thought in 2005 is not relevant to this particular constitutional amendment and other members should not have their remarks made some 7 years ago, whatever it was, read perhaps out of context. We do not know, but it is not proper to refer to a debate that occurred over 7 years ago.

Speaker O'BrienMy take is that the member before us now, Rep. Jasper, is channeling himself through the remarks of a departed member. To the extent that we view it as this sort of channeling, we'll allow it. Keep those channeling remarks relevant.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)Thank you, Mister Speaker. The remarks that were made in 2005 are every bit as valid today because we did not put it in the constitution in 2005. Had we put it in the constitution in 2005, we would not have had it as a campaign issue in 2006 or 2008 or 2010. And, if we would put it in the constitution now, we would not have it in some future elections. So you know when we print these remarks of previous debate, we probably do them for a reason. We probably do them so that somebody in the future might refer back to the words of wisdom spoken from this microphone. The words of wisdom that can be channeled again and I'm continuing to channel that if in fact a constitutional amendment passed by this body was not good for the Republicans because it denied them a campaign issue back in 2005, it is every bit as valid today. I guess I will just post the entire text of these remarks, since you might rule that out of order, on my website which everybody will be able to read. It was clear, Mister Speaker, that there was tremendous opposition to this constitutional amendment because of that very good argument that we should talk about an income tax every time it comes forward and it comes forward often. Now the member from Bedford, in his previous remarks, I believe eluded to 1999. You did allow him to allude to 1999, Mister Speaker, right?

Speaker O'BrienDoes the member want to be recognized on a parliamentary inquiry?

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)I said you allowed the debate to be alluded to 1999, so I'd like to take a fact of that day in 1999, the gentleman from Bedford was correct, partly correct. You need to hear the rest of the story. I remember sitting back there, same seat I have now, and it did indeed pass 194 to 190 that day. But, there is a little bit more to the story. It was a free vote for about 50 Republicans because they...

Speaker O'BrienThe member will suspend. The member has now gone too far afield. We do not need to know the votes on prior bills. Please do not interrupt the Chair. If you have a policy argument here, please proceed with it. We do not need a historical argument on prior bills.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)You allowed the previous member to talk about how the income tax passed this House. I'm just here to tell you to correct the record that it did not pass this House, ultimately, because one version of it passed the House. It was changed in the Senate and it failed overwhelmingly when it came back here.

Speaker O'BrienThe member will suspend. The member will limit his remarks to this bill and not prior legislation.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)So you allowed the prior speaker to talk about an income tax which had passed the House and now you are not going to allow me to talk about how it in fact did not really pass. Speaker O'Brien: I will consider that to be a parliamentary inquiry and I have allowed you latitude and other speaker's latitude and now we must proceed to the policy question before the House.

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)The policy question is, so has an income tax ever passed this House before? The answer is no and I trust that it will never pass this House again. The only way we can be sure that it will never pass this House again is if we have the full and robust debate every time my colleagues who support the income tax and let me assure, I do not support it and never will. The only way we can have this robust debate, the only way we can differentiate those who support it from those who don't is to have it come forward. It came forward again after 2005 and I remember that day. There was a robust debate scheduled, but we tabled it at that time because the other party had taken control and they were too ashamed of the people that might vote for it and have to be on the record and that's what it's all about, my friend Mister Speaker, putting it on the record of whether we support an income tax or not. The only way we can get on the record is by having the matter come before us. That is why 17-1, the Ways and Means Committee voted against this proposal before and that is why we should vote against it today because the basic law of this land is the constitution, formed to talk about how we govern ourselves, formed to talk about our basic rights, but in the constitution it says virtually nothing about the kind of taxes we shall have. The founding fathers realized that things change over time. Lots of things change over time. What was good 200 years ago, is not necessarily good today. If we were to pass a constitutional amendment and I don't think it would pass. It would basically be an opinion poll put out to the voters. We hear that most of the people in New Hampshire agree with me, that we should not have an income tax, probably 35-40% actually think it is a good idea and of course if this were to go on the ballot, it would need 66.67%. So if you put this on the ballot, it basically is taking an opinion poll. We should not be using the constitution as an opinion poll. We should be treasuring the constitution as our basic law, as something that enumerates government and something that spells out the freedoms that we have. Times may change. I may die some day. I trust I will. Some of you will be happier than others, Mister Speaker, I'm sure. I may lose the election and the great people of my ward or Litchfield, in case I move to Litchfield next year, may choose to send a pro income tax into these hallowed halls. If they do, there should be a robust debate and I assume that if 199, 200, 201 pro income taxers are elected, people will vote for an income tax. But, you and I know that's not going to happen because you and I, my fellow Republicans know that we will be running again and we want to run on the issue of an income tax. That's why you don't want this CACR, one of many, many reasons. That was recognized by the deputy majority leader in 2005. I recognize it now and I trust you will as well. Look for the blog at NHinsider.com. Thank you.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is the adoption of the motion of Ought to Pass as Amended with regard to CACR 13. The Chair takes the question. The Chair recognizes the member from Hudson, Rep. Jasper, to speak to the question.

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)No, I'm not going to tell you about 2005. I'm going to tell you how I got from 2005 to here, however. There are issues which I think we all need to evolve on. I think there is nothing sadder than to be stuck in the past and have the opinion that once this is what I believe, events and time cannot change that opinion; that I must always hold that opinion. That is truly a sad state. There are issues that you can certainly hold as your moral compass and your core beliefs, but I don't hold a question as to whether something that should be asked of the people to be in that category and while I may have felt that it was a political issue we needed at that time, I have come to also believe that because this debate continues to take up so much time and continues to be such a pressing issue, that it is a question that we should ask the people. Not as an opinion poll because every constitutional question we put forward is actually the opinion of the people, "do you believe this should be in the constitution?" There are many things in the constitution of this nature so this is not unlike other things that are there. If you look at the issue of an income tax and study it as I have long before 2005, you come to realize that the people that an income tax hurts are the people who live and work in the state of New Hampshire. Many people, and that includes legislators, do not realize that if people work in the state of Massachusetts, Maine or Vermont or some other state and we pass an income tax, they will not pay a penny unless our rate is higher than the state they live in. That is a fundamental misunderstanding and one which we would need to educate people. Likewise, people who work in New Hampshire, while they would pay the income tax, there are far fewer people who live in a state that have an income tax and work in New Hampshire. Why would you do that? You can come to New Hampshire and work and not pay an income tax. So they do that. So as we look at this question and debate it and decide it, I think it is time that we ask the people whether they want this and I think also it is important to note that in 2005 and whenever it's come up, it's always been tied with a sales tax. Those really are two separate questions and this very simple constitutional amendment is unlike any one I've seen before because it separates the issue. This is a good question. It's time to ask the question and I am not afraid that as a Republican this is the only issue that gets me elected and so let's move forward with it and let's not play games about what was said 7 years ago and let's not think that we can't evolve as legislators and have a new thought on any subject. That would truly be a sad state of mind for us to be in. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is the motion of Ought to Pass as Amended on CACR 13. I will now be announcing the last speaker. This will be a roll call vote. Will members please begin to take their seats so we can get the roll call and then take a break for lunch? The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kingston, Rep. Weyler to speak to the question.

Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R - Rock 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Do not fear the people. This is the people's House. We are here to serve them. I would like to send a lot of issues before them for them to decide for our constitution, the basis of our government. That's what this is about. It will be opposed by the rabble-rousers of class envy and the rent seekers because they want to grow government. You want an issue to run on? It's whether to grow government or to downsize it. It's whether to make the population more dependent or whether to recognize their independence and encourage it and encourage their entrepreneurial spirit. Let them send you a message. Let them show up at the polls in record numbers because they have to outweigh the rent seekers who will be sure to be there rallying all of their troops. This is a very important issue. So important I have voted every time for this to come before us as an issue to be decided by the people. Very important and income also includes capital gains and more of more us in our elder years are relying on those capital gains. Those of you that were fortunate enough to attend a briefing on economics held in 210-211 perhaps picked up a copy of the pamphlet, Rich States, Poor States. It told about what happened in the 90s. Nine states don't have an income tax, 41 states do. During that decade, 3 million people moved from the 41 states with an income tax to the 9 states that had none. Then they show a table in there that shows all the good benefits for those 9 states; how they grew; how they prospered. It's all there in black and white. That's what we want. We want our state to prosper. We talk about stability; stability for people planning to come to our state to open a business. They don't know what's happening from year to year. They see this issue come up every year. They wonder well, I'd like to move to New Hampshire, but I see these bills come up every year. Now if it's in our constitution, there's some stability. You can move a business and many of the high-tech businesses, their members voted. It was so important that the business relied totally on their employees. The employees said we want to move to a state with no income tax so some of those businesses moved to New Hampshire. Another interesting thing in the many years that I have tracked revenue and spending; that's our most important vote that we take in this House. We have the Ways and Means Committee forecast revenue two years ahead. It would be lovely to have stable income. Well, we do that by a mixture of many 20 different sources of revenue. Now I meet at ALEC with colleagues from all over the country and I had a long conversation with one from Colorado. Colorado relied for 60% of its revenue on an income tax. We were discussing rainy day funds or stabilization funds and how big they needed to be and I stated well, I've had several decades of, not several, but I've had a decade at the time of looking at...I've lived several decades, but I had a decade at the time of looking at the revenue and the spending in New Hampshire. The very ability of the volatility was 5%, no more than and I said, we're aiming to have a rainy day fund of about 5% and he looked at me and said, "Ooh, we had a 19% decrease in our state revenue from 2000 to 2001." That was because of their reliance for 60% on an income tax. I don't want to deal with that kind of volatility and I hope you don't either. Even the little bit of volatility we had called for a special session in 2010 to revise our biennial budget because of estimates for the revenue that were a little bit more rosy than it turned out to be. Let's make our job a little easier. Let's stick with revenue that's more easily forecast; revenue that doesn't have the volatility that an income tax did. The public will thank you. They will think what wise sullens we have there in Concord that they are able to forecast this revenue; that they are able to keep it even. So, let's do that. Let's get that judgment from the people. Let's get that message. Then we can run on, oh, sorry we don't want to make government more dependent. We don't want to add all these things because we want to keep government less intrusive in people's lives. That's the important thing. All of these things are here before you in CACR 13. Our vote here does not make this law. It merely recognizes that we are the people's House and we are awaiting the people's judgment and I thank you very much for that.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is the motion of Ought to Pass as Amended on CACR 13. Does the member yield for a question? Rep. Richardson you are recognized for a question.

Rep. Gary Richardson (D - Merr 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker and thank you for taking my question. I'm just confused about what the amendment means because I thought I heard a previous speaker say that this would have no affect on an increase in interest and dividends tax and yet as I think I heard you say that it would preclude an increase in interest and dividends tax. So, what would be the affect if it were to be adopted?

Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R - Rock 8)The bill that we spoke of that's before us will be voted in law at least by June of 2012. This question will not come before the people until November of 2012 so then we will be talking about a new tax. So, does it affect anything presently before us? No. For the 2013 session, it will. The House recessed at 12:39 p.m. RECESS The House reconvened at 1:40 p.m. (Speaker O'Brien in the Chair) REGULAR CALENDAR - 2011 RETAINED BILLS (CONT'D) HB 592, apportioning state representative districts, congressional districts, executive council districts, and county commissioner districts. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. Rep. David Bates for the Majority of Special Committee on Redistricting: This bill is the culmination of months of research, public input, and discussion concerning how to appropriately apportion New Hampshire House seats according to the 2010 census while complying with federal and state constitutional requirements. In addition to committee and subcommittee meetings held throughout the year, and consideration of a variety of redistricting proposals submitted along the way, in October, the committee held ten public hearings across the state to gather public input on redistricting. The House Redistricting Subcommittee then held subsequent work sessions that allowed for further submission of plans and ideas by the public as well as members of the House. After considering all proposals and suggestions brought before it, the subcommittee approved a redistricting plan and presented it to the whole committee. The full committee then held a public hearing on the proposal that was recommended by the subcommittee. The hearing lasted 5 and a half hours, during which the committee heard yet again from many members of the House and the public. The full committee considered all of this input in proposing the plan that it now recommends to the House. It is important to know that as a prerequisite, the new redistricting plan had to conform to provisions of both the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire and further, that House counsel advised that the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment's requirements concerning one-person: one-vote must take precedent over relevant provisions of the New Hampshire Constitution. Subject to that constraint, the Redistricting Committee endeavored to implement Part II, Article 11 of the NH Constitution to the greatest degree possible without violating the one-person: onevote requirements of the U.S. Constitution. The proposed redistricting plan for the House does exactly that. Most importantly, the plan falls within the deviation parameters established in federal case law establishing the rules for complying with the 14th Amendment's proportionality requirements. The plan's statewide deviation falls within 10% overall, which means according to this case law that the proposed redistricting plan is "prima-facie constitutional" under the federal constitution. Having first met the federal criteria for statewide deviation, the plan next applies the New Hampshire Constitution's Part II, Article 11 requirements to the maximum extent possible. Meeting both criteria has constituted an extremely arduous and difficult task. Currently there are 103 House districts. The proposed plan creates 200 new districts consisting of 158 underlying districts and 42 floterial districts. That's a 95% increase in the number of districts compared with the number of current House districts and has resulted in smaller underlying districts. The committee understands that the intent of the 2006 amendment was to create as many small representative districts as possible, without violating the requirements of federal case law, in order to ensure the greatest degree of local representation for the voters of New Hampshire. The plan provides for 86 single-town/ward districts. Members elected in single town/ward districts will occupy 184 seats. Of the 42 floterial districts just 49 members will represent floterial districts. Members from the minority of the committee proposed an alternative redistricting plan prepared by a Virginia-based organization. That plan wanders from the intent of the voters who approved the 2006 amendment to the state constitution. This out-ofstate plan relies on a new, untested, and controversial method of weighting individual votes. Weighted voting would require the imposition of a complex system of percentages and formulas that would mandate that a ballot cast count only for a fraction of a vote. It appears very likely that under weighted voting, a candidate could receive a majority of individual votes and still lose the election once the weighted formula for counting town and district votes was applied. For this reason, the majority believes imposition of a weighted voting scheme for electing representatives to the NH House would be terrible public policy. The 2006 amendment to the NH Constitution was intended to undo the 2002 Burling v. Chandler decision, which resulted in abandoning more than 200 years of local representation. The 2006 amendment was never intended to implement a radical change in the way we count votes for state representatives. The weighted voting scheme proposed by the minority neither reflects the will or the intent of the voters who ratified the amendment nor, in the opinion of the majority of the committee, would be accepted by voters who would see their votes for state representatives have greater or less effect depending on which side of a ward to town boundary they lived. Finally, there are many aspects of the minority's voting plan that make no sense whatsoever. For example, the minority plan creates 27 multi-member floterial districts. Unlike the committee plan that has 49 members being elected out of floterial districts, the minority's plan would have 81 members of the House being elected in large floterial districts. In fact, many of these multi-member floterial districts are egregiously large. In Strafford County, they propose the creation of a four seat, 59,302 person floterial, comprised of the cities of Somersworth and Dover plus the towns of Durham, Lee, Madbury, and Barrington. In Sullivan County, they propose the creation of a floterial comprised of all but two towns in the entire county. The minority plan also proposes creating a 16-town floterial in Cheshire County, and in Coos County, it propose that the House create a floterial district consisting of the entire county excluding only the city of Berlin. The enormous size of the floterials proposed as a part of the minority's weighted voting plan entirely contradicts the underlying intent, purpose and the expectation of those who voted for the 2006 amendment to New Hampshire's constitution, which was to create as small representational districts as feasible. It might make sense if you look at New Hampshire from the perspective of an out-of-state redistricting organization knowing nothing of, or ignoring, this state's history and desire for local legislative representation; it makes no sense for the people of New Hampshire. The majority believes that the proposed committee plan is both constitutional and honors the traditions of our state and will of its voters by implementing, as fully as possible, the intent of the 2006 amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution. It is a fair plan driven by the need to meet constitutional requirements and not satisfy partisan goals. It deserves the support of all who put New Hampshire's needs before partisan rancor and personal advantage. Vote 12-5. Rep. David M. Pierce for the Minority of Special Committee on Redistricting: HB 592 is unconstitutional. Part Second, Article 11 of the New Hampshire constitution guarantees (with minor exceptions) a representative for each town or ward with enough population to warrant one. The people enacted this requirement in 2006 with over 70% of the vote. They spoke plainly and clearly to return New Hampshire to its centuries-old tradition of local representation. They want to know their representative. That's what the 400-member House is all about. There are 152 towns and wards in New Hampshire that qualify for their own representative. HB 592 denies 59 of these (almost 40%) their own seats in the House. In sharp contrast, Democrats on the committee offered a plan that would have guaranteed representation for 143 of these 152 towns and wards (about 95%). The 59 towns and wards denied their own representative that the state constitution guarantees them are: Hudson, Durham, Conway, Hanover, Pelham, Belmont, Gilford, Swanzey, Plymouth, Weare, Pembroke, Atkinson, Hampstead, Newmarket, Plaistow, Seabrook, Gilmanton, Meredith, Tilton, Chesterfield, Hinsdale, Jaffrey, Rindge, Walpole, Keene Ward 2, Keene Ward 3, Lancaster, Canaan, Littleton, Lebanon Ward 1, Lebanon Ward 2, Lebanon Ward 3, Brookline, Hillsborough, New Boston, New Ipswich, Wilton, Henniker, Hopkinton, Loudon, New London, Pittsfield, Concord Ward 4, Concord Ward 5, Concord Ward 6, Concord Ward 7, Auburn, Candia, Chester, Deerfield, Kingston, Nottingham, Sandown, Milton, Strafford, Dover Ward 5, Dover Ward 6, Newport and Sunapee. The minority is certain that the voters in these towns and wards would be surprised to learn their overwhelming vote in 2006 will end up counting for nothing. The minority has long argued that if this House can find a way to give full effect to both the federal and state constitutions, we are bound by our constitutional oaths to do just that. There are a host of other reasons to oppose HB 592 (24- hour notice to the people to provide public comment on the plan presented, a refusal to provide further time for public comment, domination of district by large towns, creating unnecessary and virtually irreconcilable conflicts of interests for representatives, among others), but we need only one reason to reject it: because it's unconstitutional. Majority Amendment (0056h) Amend the title of the bill by replacing it with the following: AN ACT apportioning state representative districts. Amend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following: 1 State Representative Districts. RSA 662:5 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 662:5 State Representative Districts. The state is divided into districts for the choosing of state representatives, each of which may elect the number of representatives set forth opposite the district, as follows: I. Belknap County District No. 1 Center Harbor New Hampton 1 District No. 2 Gilford Meredith 4 District No. 3 Laconia Wards 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 4 District No. 4 Sanbornton Tilton 2 District No. 5 Alton 1 District No. 6 Belmont Gilmanton Laconia Ward 4 4 District No. 7 Barnstead 1 District No. 8 Alton Barnstead 1 II. Carroll County District No. 1 Bartlett Hart's Location Jackson 1 District No. 2 Chatham Conway Eaton Hale's Location 3 District No. 3 Albany Freedom Madison Tamworth 2 District No. 4 Moultonborough Sandwich Tuftonboro 2 District No. 5 Brookfield Effingham Ossipee Wakefield 3 District No. 6 Wolfeboro 2 District No. 7 Albany Bartlett Chatham Conway Eaton Freedom Hale's Location Hart's Location Jackson Madison Tamworth 1 District No. 8 Brookfield Effingham Moultonborough Ossipee Sandwich Tuftonboro Wakefield 1 III. Cheshire County District No. 1 Chesterfield Hinsdale  Walpole Westmoreland 4 District No. 2 Alstead District No. 3 Marlow District No. 4 District No. 5 Surry 1 District No. 6 District No. 7 Gilsum District No. 8 District No. 9 Nelson District No. 10 District No. 11 Stoddard District No. 12 District No. 13 Sullivan 1 District No. 14 Keene Ward 1 1 District No. 15 Keene Ward 2 District No. 1 Keene Ward 3 Roxbury 2 Keene Ward 4 1 Keene Ward 5 1 Dublin Harrisville Jaffrey 2 Marlborough Troy 1 Fitzwilliam Rindge 2 Richmond Swanzey 2 Winchester 1 Dublin Fitzwilliam Harrisville Jaffrey Rindge 1 Marlborough Richmond Swanzey Troy Winchester 1 Keene Ward 1 Keene Ward 2 Keene Ward 3 Keene Ward 4 Keene Ward 5 Roxbury 2 IV. Coos County Atkinson & Gilmanton Academy Grant Cambridge Clarksville Colebrook Columbia Dix's Grant Dixville Errol Erving's Location Millsfield Odell  Pittsburg Second College Grant Stewartstown Stratford Wentworth's Location 2 District No. 2 Dummer Milan Northumberland Stark 1 District No. 3 Berlin 3 District No. 4 Lancaster Dalton Kilkenny 1 District No. 5 Carroll Jefferson Randolph Whitefield 1 District No. 6 Bean's Grant Bean's Purchase Chandler's Purchase Crawford's Purchase Cutt's Grant Gorham Green's Grant Hadley's Purchase Low and Burbank's Grant Martin's Location Pinkham's Grant Sargent's Purchase Shelburne Success Thompson and Meserve's Purchase 1 District No. 7 Carroll Dalton Dummer Jefferson Kilkenny Lancaster Milan Northumberland Randolph Stark Whitefield 1 V. Grafton County District No. 1 Bethlehem Littleton 2 District No. 2 Franconia Lyman Lisbon Monroe Sugar Hill 1 District No. 3 Bath Benton  Easton Landaff Orford Piermont Warren 1 District No. 4 Haverhill 1 District No. 5 Lincoln Livermore Waterville Valley Woodstock 1 District No. 6 Ellsworth Groton Orange Rumney Thornton 1 District No. 7 Campton 1 District No. 8 Hebron Holderness Plymouth 3 District No. 9 Alexandria Ashland Bridgewater Bristol Grafton 2 District No. 10 Enfield 1 District No. 11 Canaan Dorchester Wentworth 1 District No. 12 Hanover Lyme 4 District No. 13 Lebanon Ward 1 Lebanon Ward 2 Lebanon Ward 3 4 District No. 14 Bethlehem Franconia Littleton Lisbon Lyman Monroe Sugar Hill 1 District No. 15 Bath Benton Easton Haverhill Landaff Orford Piermont Warren 1 District No. 16 Canaan Dorchester Ellsworth Groton Orange  Rumney Thornton Wentworth 1 District No. 17 Alexandria Ashland Bridgewater Bristol Enfield Grafton 1 VI. Hillsborough County District No. 1 Antrim Hillsborough Windsor 2 District No. 2 Deering Weare 3 District No. 3 Bennington Greenfield Hancock 1 District No. 4 Francestown Greenville Lyndeborough Wilton 2 District No. 5 Mont Vernon New Boston 2 District No. 6 Goffstown 5 District No. 7 Bedford 6 District No. 8 Manchester Ward 1 2 District No. 9 Manchester Ward 2 2 District No. 10 Manchester Ward 3 2 District No. 11 Manchester Ward 4 2 District No. 12 Manchester Ward 5 2 District No. 13 Manchester Ward 6 2 District No. 14 Manchester Ward 7 2 District No. 15 Manchester Ward 8 2 District No. 16 Manchester Ward 9 2 District No. 17 Manchester Ward 10 2 District No. 18 Manchester Ward 11 2 District No. 19 Manchester Ward 12 2 District No. 20 Litchfield 2 District No. 21 Merrimack 8 District No. 22 Amherst 3 District No. 23 Milford 4 District No. 24 Peterborough 2 District No. 25 New Ipswich Sharon Temple 2 District No. 26 Brookline Mason 2 District No. 27 Hollis 2 District No. 28 Nashua Ward 1 3 District No. 29 Nashua Ward 2 3 District No. 30 Nashua Ward 3 3 District No. 31 Nashua Ward 4 3 District No. 32 Nashua Ward 5 3 District No. 33 Nashua Ward 6 3 District No. 34 Nashua Ward 7 3 District No. 35 Nashua Ward 8 3 District No. 36 Nashua Ward 9 3 District No. 37 Hudson Pelham 11 District No. 38 Antrim Bennington Francestown Greenfield Greenville Hancock Hillsborough Lyndeborough Wilton Windsor 2 District No. 39 Deering Goffstown Weare 1 District No. 40 Hollis Milford Mont Vernon New Boston 1 District No. 41 Amherst Bedford 1 District No. 42 Manchester Wards 1, 2, and 3 2 District No. 43 Manchester Wards 4, 5, 6, and 7 3 District No. 44 Litchfield Manchester Wards 8 and 9 2 District No. 45 Manchester Wards 10, 11, and 12 2 VII. Merrimack County District No. 1 Andover Danbury Salisbury 1 District No. 2 Franklin Wards 1 and 2 Hill 2 District No. 3 Franklin Ward 3 Northfield 2 District No. 4 Sutton Wilmot 1 District No. 5 New London Newbury 2 District No. 6 Bradford Henniker 2 District No. 7 Warner Webster 1 District No. 8 Boscawen 1 District No. 9 Canterbury Loudon 2 District No. 10 Concord Ward 5 Hopkinton 3 District No. 11 Concord Ward 1 1 District No. 12 Concord Ward 2 1 District No. 13 Concord Ward 3 1 District No. 14 Concord Wards 4, 6, and 7 4 District No. 15 Concord Ward 8 1 District No. 16 Concord Ward 9 1 District No. 17 Concord Ward 10 1 District No. 18 Chichester Pembroke 3 District No. 19 Epsom Pittsfield 2 District No. 20 Allenstown 1 District No. 21 Bow Dunbarton 3 District No. 22 Hooksett 4 District No. 23 Andover Danbury Salisbury Warner Webster 1 District No. 24 Boscawen Canterbury Franklin Ward 3 Loudon Northfield 1 District No. 25 Concord Wards 1, 2, and 3 1 District No. 26 Concord Wards 8, 9, and 10 1 District No. 27 Allenstown Epsom Pittsfield 1 VIII. Rockingham County District No. 1 Northwood 1 District No. 2 Candia Deerfield Nottingham 3 District No. 3 Raymond 3 District No. 4 Auburn Chester Sandown 5 District No. 5 Londonderry 7 District No. 6 Derry 10 District No. 7 Windham 4 District No. 8 Salem 9 District No. 9 Epping 2 District No. 10 Fremont 1 District No. 11 Brentwood 1 District No. 12 Danville 1 District No. 13 Hampstead Kingston 4 District No. 14 Atkinson Plaistow 4 District No. 15 Newton 1 District No. 16 East Kingston Kensington  South Hampton 1 District No. 17 Newfields New Market 3 District No. 18 Exeter 4 District No. 19 Stratham 2 District No. 20 Hampton Falls Seabrook 3 District No. 21 Hampton 4 District No. 22 North Hampton 1 District No. 23 Greenland Newington 1 District No. 24 New Castle Rye 2 District No. 25 Portsmouth Ward 1 1 District No. 26 Portsmouth Ward 2 1 District No. 27 Portsmouth Ward 3 1 District No. 28 Portsmouth Ward 4 1 District No. 29 Portsmouth Ward 5 1 District No. 30 Portsmouth Ward 1 Portsmouth Ward 2 Portsmouth Ward 4 Portsmouth Ward 5 1 District No. 31 Greenland North Hampton Newington Portsmouth Ward 3 1 District No. 32 Candia Deerfield Northwood Nottingham 1 District No. 33 Brentwood Freemont Danville 1 District No. 34 Atkinson Plaistow Hampstead Kingston 1 District No. 35 East Kingston Kensington Newton South Hampton 1 District No. 36 Exeter Newfields Newmarket Stratham 1 District No. 37 Hampton Hampton Falls Seabrook 1 IX. Strafford County District No. 1 Middleton Milton 2 District No. 2 Farmington 2 District No. 3 New Durham  Strafford 2 District No. 4 Barrington 2 District 5 Lee 1 District 6 Durham Madbury 5 District No. 7 Rochester Ward 1 1 District No. 8 Rochester Ward 6 1 District No. 9 Rochester Ward 2 1 District No. 10 Rochester Ward 3 1 District No. 11 Rochester Ward 4 1 District No. 12 Rochester Ward 5 1 District No. 13 Dover Ward 1 1 District No. 14 Dover Ward 2 1 District No. 15 Dover Ward 3 1 District No. 16 Dover Ward 4 1 District No. 17 Dover Ward 5 Dover Ward 6 Somersworth Ward 2 3 District No. 18 Rollinsford Somersworth Ward 1 Somersworth Ward 3 Somersworth Ward 4 Somersworth Ward 5 3 District No. 19 Dover Ward 1 Dover Ward 2 1 District No. 20 Dover Ward 3 Dover Ward 4 1 District No. 21 Dover Ward 5 Dover Ward 6 Rollinsford Somersworth Ward 1 Somersworth Ward 2 Somersworth Ward 3 Somersworth Ward 4 Somersworth Ward 5 1 District No. 22 Rochester Ward 1 Rochester Ward 6 1 District No. 23 Rochester Ward 2 Rochester Ward 3 1 District No. 24 Rochester Ward 4 Rochester Ward 5 1 District No. 25 Barrington Lee 1 X. Sullivan County District No. 1 Cornish Grantham Plainfield Springfield 2 District No. 2 Croydon Sunapee 1 District No. 3 Claremont Ward 1 1 District No. 4 Claremont Ward 2 1 District No. 5 Claremont Ward 3 1 District No. 6 Newport Unity 2 District No. 7 Acworth Goshen Langdon Lempster Washington 1 District No. 8 Charlestown 1 District No. 9 Cornish Croydon Grantham Newport Plainfield Springfield Sunapee Unity 1 District No. 10 Claremont Ward 1 Claremont Ward 2 Claremont Ward 3 1 District No. 11 Acworth Charlestown Goshen Langdon Lempster Washington 1 2 Application. The changes in state representative districts established by this act shall not affect constituencies or terms of office of representatives presently in office. The state representative districts established by this act shall be in effect for the purpose of electing representatives at the 2012 state general election. If there shall be a vacancy in a state representatives district for any reason prior to the 2012 state general election, the vacancy shall be filled by and from the same state representative district that existed for the 2010 state general election. No provision of this act shall affect in any manner any of the proceedings of the membership of the house of representatives of the general court that assembled for a biennial session in January 2011. 3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.