Mister Speaker, I move to make a motion. I move that the Governor's Veto Message of HB 592 be printed in the Permanent Journal and that the House now take up that veto.…
Rep. David Bettencourt (R - Rock 4)Mister Speaker, I move to make a motion. I move that the Governor's Veto Message of HB 592 be printed in the Permanent Journal and that the House now take up that veto.
Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is shall the Governor's Veto Message be placed in the Permanent Journal and shall the House now take up the Veto.
Rep. David Bettencourt (R - Rock 4)Mister Speaker, Parliamentary Inquiry. Speaker O'Brien: Yes, what is your inquiry?
Rep. David Bettencourt (R - Rock 4)Mister Speaker, my inquiry is of the Chair. Is the House Calendar the Permanent Journal of the House?
Speaker O'BrienThe House Calendar is not the Permanent Journal of the House. The House Journal is mentioned in describing Part 2, Article 24 of the Constitution wherein it says that there shall be a Journal of the proceedings of the Legislature and it shall be printed and published immediately after every adjournment and prorogation. What it is is a record of what happened, not a forecast or notice of what is going to happen.
Rep. David Bettencourt (R - Rock 4)Mister Speaker, does the Governor's Veto or any other Message have to be printed in the Permanent Journal before it can be taken up by this House?
Speaker O'BrienThere is no requirement that a Senate Message or a Gubernatorial Message first be printed in the House Calendar or referenced in the House Calendar before those Messages can be received and acted on by this body. Indeed, as the Representative might remember from our prior terms here, there are instances where we exchanged back and forth Senate Messages and immediately acted on those Messages. We don't wait until the House Journal/House Calendar is printed in order to do so. The question before the House... What is your inquiry?
Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 2)Mister Speaker, in light of your explanation just prior, I am looking at the Constitution, Article 44, which says, "that the Veto shall go to that House in which it shall have originated" and then it says, "Who shall enter the objections at large on their Journal." Neither our Journal, nor our Calendar have been printed and its my understanding that the procedure has always been to print Journal Messages in the Calendar, but given that neither of those objections have been entered in anything, and then, and the word "then" is not there, but after that phrase come the words, "and to proceed to reconsider it." Does that not mean that some kind of entry of objections has to occur well in advance of the matter being taken up?
Speaker O'BrienThe inquiry goes to the explanation that has already been given and I will give it one last time. The Journal referenced in Article 44, is described in Part 2, Article 24 and it is clear from the description that it is a record of what happened, not what's going to happen and indeed your description of the underlying practice is inaccurate because we do not print the Messages from the Senate or the Governor in the Journal until they are taken up. There has been at times, although it's not required in the Rules, Statute or Constitution, the printing of Messages from the Senate or the Governor in the House Calendar, neither of that is required. Do you have a further inquiry?
Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 2)With great reluctance and great deference to my understanding of the Constitution which would have required us to print this before the reconsideration because you can't proceed to the reconsideration until after something has happened, I would challenge the ruling of the Chair and I would ask for a roll call vote, Mister Speaker.
Speaker O'BrienThis will be a roll call vote. Will members please take their seats? The House will come to order. Members will please take their seats. The question before the House is notwithstanding the appeal, shall the ruling of the Chair stand? What is your inquiry?
Rep. Gary Richardson (D - Merr 10)Mister Speaker, I have never read the Governor's Veto Message. I don't know how we could be expected to vote on whether to uphold the veto or not when we haven't read the message.
Speaker O'BrienThat's argument, Representative. As you well know, it's not a Parliamentary Inquiry. There is no response required by the Chair. The question before the House is notwithstanding the appeal, shall the ruling of the Chair stand? This is a division vote. Okay, is the roll call sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Weber for a Parliamentary Inquiry.
Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that the Constitution in Article 44, requires that the Veto Message from the Governor shall be entered on the Journal, which we have always in our practice used to mean in the Calendar, but if it means in the Journal, it has not yet been printed in the Journal either. And, if I know that Article 44 then says, and then proceed to reconsider it. If I know that we have not had the Veto Message to read and if I know that our Constitution requires openness in Government and this is in no way openness in Government, would I now vote no on the question of shall the ruling of the Chair be upheld? Thank you, Mister Speaker.
Speaker O'BrienThe question on this roll call vote is notwithstanding the appeal, shall the ruling of the Chair stand. The Chair recognizes Rep. Bettencourt for a Parliamentary Inquiry.
Rep. David Bettencourt (R - Rock 4)Mister Speaker, if I know that the basis of this challenge pulls one specific word out of the Constitution, out of context and does not look at the Constitution as a whole. And, Mister Speaker...
Speaker O'BrienThe Representative will suspend. Please show respect. You may proceed.
Rep. David Bettencourt (R - Rock 4)Mister Speaker, if I know that it is clear that Journal does not refer to notice, but it is a record, would I now press the green button?
Speaker O'BrienThis is a roll call vote. The question before the House is notwithstanding the appeal, shall the ruling of the Chair stand. If you want the ruling of the Chair to stand, you'll press the green button. If you do not want the ruling of the Chair to stand, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. 255 members having voted in the affirmative, 97 in the negative, the ruling of the Chair will stand. The question before the House is shall the Governor's Veto Message be placed in the Permanent Journal and the House proceed to take up the veto. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye. Those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and the Governor's Veto Message shall be placed in the Permanent Journal and the House shall take up the veto. The question before the House is, "Notwithstanding the governor's veto, shall HB 592 become law?" The Chair recognizes Rep. Weber to speak to the question. Rep. Weber, you are recognized. The Representative waives her remarks. The Chair recognizes Rep. Vaillancourt to speak to the question and again, the question is, "Notwithstanding the governor's veto, shall HB 592 become law?
Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in opposition to the idea of this becoming law, contrary to the Governor's veto. It's been a long and arduous process and no matter what we do today, we are not going there yet because we know, I believe as far as we can know anything, that if this passes today, we are going to end up in court which is going to drag on and on. I suggest to you that there is one way to solve this problem once and for all and the only way to do that is to vote red on this motion which will sustain the Governor's veto and this is where a lot of the scare tactics and the misinformation comes in. A lot of people in my party have been told that if you do not override the Governor's veto, the court will come up with a redistricting plan. That is simply not true. As we heard on the redistricting committee, the court does not want to draw up a plan. Ten years ago, the court virtually begged the House to go back and come up with a plan which we will then approve, but ten years ago, no plan ever got a majority as far as overriding a Governor's veto. I suggest it is very simple for us to come up with a plan that will get enough votes so that it will not be vetoed and so that it will never have to go to the courts. A few changes are all that is needed. We can fix the problem and there is only two or three that exists. The Chairman of Manchester's delegation was in contact with the Democratic Leader trying to negotiate changes in Merrimack and Hillsborough and a couple other places and that's all we need to do to get this plan fixed. It's very easily fixed. I suggest to you that the Governor is right when he says that the plan we have come up with is unconstitutional and that saddest thing of all is that the Republicans fought for the 2006 Constitutional Amendment that says that when the population of any town or ward, according to the last census, is within a reasonable deviation from the ideal population for one or more representative seats, the town or ward shall have its own district of one or more representatives. We are violating that in so many areas. If we vote green on this motion and override the Governor's veto, there is no need to go against the Constitutional Amendment which we fought so hard for to give every small Town with 3,291, the representatives that it deserves. We can fix this. Unfortunately, the only way to do it now is to sustain the veto so that we can go back to the drawing board. It's not going to have to go to the courts. We still have months to fix this and the idea that I read in Kevin Landrigan's column in the Nashua Telegraph that the chief of staff of the House was saying that this would set in motion...
Speaker O'BrienThe member will suspend. The member will stick to the bill and not talk about staff of the House.
Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)I'm not arguing with the Chair, Mister Speaker. I'm simply saying that the idea that the court will solve this proportional representation where one Town votes more than another, that's just preposterous. The court would never conceive of doing that. As I say, the court will send this back to the House to fix it. There is an easy fix. We refer to it as the Parison solution and then one of the representatives from Alton said that if you apply that to the Hudson/Litchfield problem, you'll have to apply it elsewhere. You can apply it to Meredith and Gilford, it will fix Meredith and Gilford, but we can't do it until we say, let's start again, just take a step back. Realize that we are better than what we are being asked to do here today. We can make this better. It won't take a great deal of effort. We will all be much happier when we come up with a plan that can be agreed upon; a plan that the Democrats and the majority of Republicans have already agreed that they would not take to court. Obviously, anybody can take anything to court and that may happen, but if you vote green on this motion now, you are virtually guaranteeing that you are going to be in court over the Meredith/Gilford situation, the Hudson/Pelham/Litchfield situation and the Concord situation. We can fix these minor problems. We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to our constituents. We owe it to the people who voted for the 2006 referendum, Constitutional Amendment. We owe it to all those people to do a better job. It is not taxing us overly to go on with this veto so that we can then put another plan forward. Remember, ten years ago, when the bill was vetoed, another plan came forward. Don't accept the idea that it cannot come forward. You can increase the deviation to fix some problems. We had as much as a 20% deviation and no federal government struck that down. You could go with the aggregate method instead of the cumulative method in fixing districts. None of these are out of the question. We should not kowtow to the federal government, especially because the federal government hasn't even said they would rule this illegal. In fact, all indications are that they would accept a reasonable compromise. The only way for us to get to that reasonable compromise is to vote red on this motion so that we may go back and fix this quickly so that we will not have to go...
Speaker O'BrienThe member will suspend. The member's time is expired. The question before the House is, "Notwithstanding the governor's veto, shall HB 592 become law?" The Chair recognizes the member from Enfield, Rep. Mirski, to speak to the question.
Rep. Paul Mirski (R - Graf 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. All I would simply like to say is this, that everything you just heard is pure speculation. There is no telling what the court will do. You know that the likelihood is that we could go to court at any event, but the idea that somehow we are going to leave this room and have an immediate, some kind of magical new plan develop, I can tell you that after all these months, that's not going to happen and a lot of the promises about other ways to do this, have been proven to be futile. We can't go in some of the directions that the previous speaker suggested. We just can't meet the constitutional requirements to do that so my message to you is please support the House plan as it was presented to you. It is my personal belief the best we could possibly do under the circumstances and leave the speculation to speculation.
Speaker O'BrienDoes the member yield to a question? The member does not yield for a question. The question before the House is, "Notwithstanding the governor's veto, shall HB 592 become law?" The Chair recognizes Rep. Soltani to speak to the question. The representative has four minutes and 30 seconds.
Rep. Tony Soltani (R - Merr 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker and thank you for the warning on the time. I want to put this in the context of history. The last time that we enacted a redistricting and it was challenged in court, the Supreme Court did everything it could to send it back to the Legislature. We were unable to do what they wanted us to do and they hired some guy named Billy Bob or something from North Carolina to come up and redistrict us at our expense. Well, in that case, my Democratic friends were the plaintiffs and the districts that came out had no knowledge of the history of New Hampshire or of its communities. My district suddenly expanded from the border of Manchester to Belknap County, about a senatorial district. I live in Merrimack County. I didn't move, but my district keeps changing and they did that because I am very popular with the Supreme Court judges and they thought that they could...
Speaker O'BrienThe member will suspend. The member will not question the motives of a member of this House, but will speak to the language and effect of the bill.
Rep. Tony Soltani (R - Merr 8)I was not speaking to the motives of members of the House. I was talking about the members of the judicial branch, Mister Speaker. I am very popular with them. They love me. So, they thought that hey, big enchilada would outnumber me, but I showed up again to many people's sad surprise and in this case, we are urged to choose between violating the 2006 Amendment that people passed and do something that some unknown district or some unknown circuit has said we cannot do what the 2006 Amendment requires. The victims are many. It's not just Pelham, Manchester, its two of my three towns and they demand that the 2006 Amendment be obeyed. I'm a reasonable man and I'm somewhat educated, contrary to what you might want to believe, I went to Fisher Price Law School. They call themselves University of New Hampshire Law Center now and they charge $100,000 per year. I didn't have that kind of money. But in any event, I know law. I can read law. We are in the first district along with Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island and Puerto Rico. If you have a first circuit precedent or a Supreme Court of the United States precedent that says that we must violate the will of the people, I will read it. I will vote for it. I know the supremacy clause, but no one, but no one has given me something to read to that effect. Then, I am left with only one choice and one choice only, my hand is still on the Bible. I will uphold the New Hampshire Constitution. I will uphold the 2006 Amendment and I will stand with my chest as my shield and any arrow that hits it, I will have a response to it. I will be accountable for it. If they don't like what I did, they can throw me out. If they do, if they like me defending our Constitution, to which my district voted by a higher percentage than other districts because they wanted it, then I have no business in this House. I must obey the law and I would be happy to entertain any questions. Hit me and vote red. Thank you.
Rep. Steve Shurtleff (D - Merr 15)Thank you. I rise to make a request of the Chair.
Rep. Steve Shurtleff (D - Merr 15)My request, Mister Speaker, is a 15 minute recess so the Democratic caucus could have an opportunity to caucus on this very important legislation.
Speaker O'BrienI understand that the Democratic caucus had knowledge that we were going to take this up immediately as we began to take it up because our members have been receiving text messages indicating the position on it. Your request is not...We are going to go through this vote. We are very close to being done and we are going to conclude it. The question before the House is, "Notwithstanding the governor's veto, shall HB 592 become law?" The Chair recognizes Representative Chandler to speak to the question. What reason does the member rise?
Speaker O'BrienWhat is your motion? Rep. Soltani: Whether the will of the House is that of the Chair.
Speaker O'BrienI didn't pick up the thread of that. What was your motion?
Rep. Tony Soltani (R - Merr 8)The Clerk will translate it. His ruling on the Democratic caucus has not been appealed.
Speaker O'BrienI'm not sure I follow you. Could you just be a little bit more cogent?
Rep. Tony Soltani (R - Merr 8)Whether the House would allow a Democratic caucus. That would be a challenge to the Chair in response to my friend from Concord.
Speaker O'BrienThe Chair hasn't issued a ruling. The Chair has declined to issue a ruling. There is nothing to appeal. Moreover, there has been intervening business. Rep. Chandler, you may proceed.
Rep. Gene Chandler (R - Carr 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I don't know that I'm proud to say this, but this is the third redistricting plan that I've been involved with in my years here. Whether that means that I've been here too long, I'm not sure. I can tell you that having been involved with them and also with the lawsuit of ten years ago, which was very interesting, I can tell you that no plan is perfect. Every time we have had a redistricting plan, no matter what it is, some people feel that they deserve or should have a little different, better, however you want to look at it, district. I can assure you that if we make changes to this plan and that some people have advocated for, it's going to change some other people's districts so it's just going to make different people unhappy, in my opinion. I don't think that's where we need to go. There have been multiple hearings, multiple meetings, floor amendments. All the people that are advocating for changes in these plans have had an opportunity to present floor amendments which this House has voted on. They voted them down. I'm sorry for some of those folks that didn't get their plans adopted, but that's the system. They had an opportunity before this House and all the members to present their plans and have them voted on. We are running out of time. That's our biggest problem here because of the judicial review of the 60 days that is necessary and our planning and filing of June 6, whenever it is. We need to move this process on. I point out my friends on the other side of the aisle. Last time, when we had what we thought was a pretty good plan. There were a couple of districts over in the other side of the state where one of the members from Cornish had a problem, convinced the then Governor to veto the plan and brought a lawsuit, and I can tell you that in my opinion, I doubt that most of the members on the other side of the aisle were happy with the outcome. I just point that out. Be careful what you wish for. We can't afford to do that. We should be doing our redistricting, not anybody else. So, I urge you. This House has taken a position on this bill already once. The Governor has had his say, which he is legally entitled to, but now it is our turn to let the Governor know that we, in this House, are in charge of out redistricting. Please override this veto.
Speaker O'BrienThe time for debate has concluded on this bill. The Chair is going to request that the House Clerk read in the Governor's Veto. House Clerk: Governor Lynch's Veto Message on HB 592. By the authority vested in me, pursuant to part II, Article 44 of the New Hampshire Constitution, on March 23, 2012, I vetoed HB 592. The New Hampshire Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall be "founded on the principles of equality, and representation therein shall be as equal as circumstances will admit." Consistent with this provision, in 2006, the citizens of New Hampshire overwhelmingly adopted a constitutional amendment that further enshrined the principle of equal representation by providing each town and city ward a representative with sufficient population to warrant one. The right to vote is central to our democratic government. But that right is meaningless unless equal representation is assured when citizens vote. I am vetoing HB 592 because it violates the constitutional principle for equal representation and local representation; it is inconsistent in its treatment of similarly situated towns and wards, and it unnecessarily changes the boundaries of existing districts. The population of New Hampshire based on the 2010 census is 1,316,470. A straight division into 400 districts yields an ideal population per district of 3,291. Under federal and state law, towns and wards that equal or are within 5% of this ideal population are entitled to their own representative. Based on the 2010 census, there are 152 towns and wards in New Hampshire that qualify for their own representative. HB 592 denies a total of 62 New Hampshire towns and wards their own seats in the House. For example, the towns of Atkinson, Hudson, Meredith, and Pelham all have sufficient population under state and federal constitutional standards to have their own representative, but all are denied their own representative under the House-approved plan. This is completely contrary to what the citizens of New Hampshire called for in the state constitutional amendment adopted in 2006. Another significant flaw with the House-approved redistricting plan is that it unnecessarily breaks-up cities and wards. For example, in Manchester, the state's largest city, HB 592 combines Wards 8 and 9 with the town of Litchfield. Pelham will again share its representatives with Hudson. Strafford will share a representative with New Durham. And Concord's Ward 5 will now be made part of a district that includes the Town of Hopkinton. The leaders and governing bodies of each of these communities have expressed their strong opposition to HB 592, noting that it unnecessarily and unconstitutionally dilutes local representation, and have asked me to veto this bill. As the Board of Mayor and Alderman in Manchester has expressed, "this is not a partisan issue." "Local municipal budgets are separate, schools are in different districts, police officers and firefighters . . . belong to different departments and station houses." The same is true in Pelham, Concord, Strafford and all of the towns and wards affected in this manner by HB 592. Supporters of HB 592 have argued that in crafting a redistricting plan, the legislature must balance the one-person-one-vote principle enshrined in the federal constitution with the requirements for local representation as required by the state constitution. But satisfaction of federal requirements does not require abandonment of the principles of the New Hampshire Constitution. The House-passed plan unnecessarily breaksup towns and wards. One of the unique advantages to living in New Hampshire is the ability of citizens to encounter his or her state representative in their daily activities - at the grocery store, in a house of worship, or walking main street. HB 592 undermines that very special quality of life in New Hampshire and the critical component of representative local democracy that is expressed in a commonality of interest among a community's citizens. For all of these reasons, I have vetoed HB 592. I urge the House to take up my veto quickly in order to allow time for alternative plans to be brought forward or for litigation in the event of the absence of agreement on a constitutional plan. The House was presented with alternative plans by members of both political parties that would go further to satisfy the requirement for equal representation and fairness. There is still time before the candidate filing period to enact redistricting legislation that will assure equal voting rights of all New Hampshire citizens. Respectfully submitted, John H. Lynch, Governor.
Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is "Notwithstanding the governor's veto, shall HB 592 become law?" Rep. Leishman, you are recognized.
Rep. Peter Leishman (D - Hills 3)Would it be appropriate for me to ask this body vote to allow the Democratic caucus to take a 15 minute recess to discuss this matter as we left the room and allowed your caucus to discuss this matter amongst yourselves. I would ask for a division vote on that request.
Rep. Peter Leishman (D - Hills 3)I would ask the House to support my motion to allow the Democratic caucus to caucus for 15 minutes and I would ask for a division vote. I would ask that you allow us that courtesy as I sat here in this House during the last redistricting and I believe, looking at my friend from Bartlett, both caucuses worked very closely together and I would just ask for your indulgence for just 15 minutes so we can caucus.
Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I have a true Parliamentary Inquiry. Mister Speaker, while I know that a motion to adjourn takes precedence, I don't believe that a motion to recess takes precedence while we are in the middle of a debate and a question is before us and I'd ask you to rule on that.
Speaker O'BrienThe fact that I'd take the question, you are absolutely correct, Representative and I thank you for reminding me of that, that a motion to recess is not a motion of higher priority than that which is before the House at this moment. What is your motion, Representative?
Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is shall the House adjourn. The parliamentary situation is that because the motion didn't say when we'd adjourn to, it is the intention of the Chair, of course, to just call another Session right after we adjourn. With that being stated, the motion is to adjourn. Are you ready for the question? This is a division vote. What reason does the member rise?
Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)I could amend it to a time certain, if you would allow?
Speaker O'BrienNo. Let's just go with the motion. The motion before the House is shall the House adjourn. This is a division vote. If you wish the House to adjourn, you will press the green button. If you do not wish the House to adjourn, you'll press the red button. The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. 57 members having voted in the affirmative and 301 in the negative, the House does not adjourn. The question before the House is, "Notwithstanding the governor's veto, shall HB 592 become law?" Under Part 2, Article 44 of the Constitution, there's a requirement, essentially, that this be a roll call vote. This will be a roll call vote. Will members please take their seats? The House will come to order. The question before the House on this roll call vote is, "Notwithstanding the governor's veto of HB 592, shall the bill still become law?" The Chair recognizes Rep. Vaillancourt for a Parliamentary Inquiry.
Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)Mister Speaker, if I agreed with the gentlemen from Enfield, that nothing is certain when we go to the court, would I now, Mister Speaker, vote so we won't go to the court by the only option we have available, by voting to sustain the Governor's veto so that we may then come up with another plan? Because, Mister Speaker, if I realize that towns are already waiting to go to the court if we pass this, the very same towns that have agreed not to go to the court, if we come up with a slightly better plan. Mister Speaker, if I could read the Constitution and clearly understand that Pelham deserves four Reps of its own and gets zero with this and you don't have to be a constitutional scholar to realize that's just not right. If I realize that ten years ago the court virtually begged this House to come up with its own plan so that they would not have to get involved and in fact, asked the House time and again and was kind of under the idea that we would have a chance to come up with our own plan again, especially because we could do it in the next couple of weeks, that it doesn't need major overhaul, but if I realize to follow the will of the people as expressed in 2006, we can do a better job. We can assure that we make the decision and not the court, would I vote to sustain the veto by pressing the red button?
Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House on this roll call vote is, "Notwithstanding the governor's veto, shall HB 592 become law?" The Chair recognizes Rep. Bettencourt for a Parliamentary Inquiry.
Rep. David Bettencourt (R - Rock 4)Mister Speaker, if I know that no redistricting plan will ever be perfect, but that this plan passes constitutional muster under both federal and state constitutions and that this plan, approximately doubled the number of districts that we currently have and if you know, Mister Speaker, that there is no guarantee as there was not ten years ago that we will be able to come up with another plan. Mister Speaker, if you know that the Governor's concerns have been considered and addressed and now he is left to simply raise constitutional red herrings. And, finally, Mister Speaker, if you believe that this House and not the Governor or the courts should redistrict this House, then would you not join with me in overriding the Governor's veto by pressing the green button?
Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is, "Notwithstanding the governor's veto of HB 592, shall HB 592 become law?" If you want HB 592 to become law, you'll press the green button. If you do not, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. 246 members having voted in the affirmative and 112 in the negative, the Governor's veto is overridden. The Chair recognizes Rep. Bettencourt.
Rep. David Bettencourt (R - Rock 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Having voted on the prevailing side of the Governor's veto of HB 592, I would move for a reconsideration.
Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is shall the House reconsider its action on HB 592. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye. Those opposed, Nay. A division vote was requested. This will be a division vote. No member will enter. No member will leave. Members will please take their seats. We will proceed to the vote. The question before the House on this division vote is shall the House reconsider its actions in overriding the Governor's veto on HB 592? The Chair recognizes Rep. Bettencourt for a Parliamentary Inquiry.
Rep. David Bettencourt (R - Rock 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that we just overrode the Governor's veto and don't want to relive the debate and feel that the vote was the right one, would I not vote against reconsideration by pressing the red button.
Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is shall the House reconsider its action on HB 592 by overriding the Governor's veto? If you do not want to reconsider, you will press the red button. If you do want to reconsider, you'll press the green button. I'll try that again. If you want to reconsider, press the green button. If you do not, press the red button. Thank you. The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. 104 members having voted in the affirmative, 254 in the negative, the motion fails. The Chair recognizes Rep. Bettencourt for a motion.
Rep. David Bettencourt (R - Rock 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I would move that the debate regarding the Governor's veto of HB 592 be placed in the Permanent Journal.
Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is shall the debate surrounding the Governor's veto be placed in the Permanent Journal? It will be a division vote. Could members please take their seats? We are still in Session here. Record your protests with the House Clerks.
Rep. Jacqueline Cali-Pitts (D - Rock 30)I wish to protest the House vote on HB 592 according to Part 2, Article 24 of the Constitution.
Speaker O'BrienThe practice before and one that has been followed in several terms is that once we know and assuming there is no separate protest, we will just take them. Each one does not need to be read off.
Rep. Susan Almy (D - Graf 11)Some of ours are slightly different. I would like to read the last sentence of mine.
Speaker O'BrienDoes the representative wish to be recognized.
Rep. Susan Almy (D - Graf 11)Mine is slightly different as a number of them. I would like to read...
Speaker O'BrienThose that are different, you can certainly read them off.
Rep. Susan Almy (D - Graf 11)Thank you. I will just read the last sentence. This is simple tyranny.
Rep. Tony Soltani (R - Merr 8)I wish to read the difference between my protest and others.
Rep. Tony Soltani (R - Merr 8)Very concise, Mister Speaker. I'm Tony Soltani, a Republican for 32 years. This vote was in direct and intentional violation of the New Hampshire Constitution 2006 Amendment. The procedure on the debate and the vote was in violation of the Rules of the House and the New Hampshire Constitution. Tony Soltani, Allenstown, Epsom and Pittsfield.
Speaker O'BrienThat message will not be received because you haven't stated under what provision of the constitution you stated and you haven't said that you object. So, if you want to revise the message, then it will be received.
Rep. Tony Soltani (R - Merr 8)Under the 2006 Amendment to the Constitution, Mister Speaker. Speaker O'Brien: The House will come to order. The question before the House is shall the debate surrounding the overriding of the Governor's veto be placed in the Permanent Journal? Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye. All those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and the debate shall be placed in the Permanent Journal. The House will stand in recess until 10 minutes... No it wasn't, Representative. Representative, bring yourself to order. Bring yourself to order, Representative. We will not be shouting across the House. What reason does the member rise.
Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)Mister Speaker, I understood that a division had been requested and accepted prior to people filing their protest. How could we go back on the division acceptance after the protest?
Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R - Hills 15)I challenge the rule of the Chair and request a division.
Speaker O'BrienMembers will please take their seats. The House will come to order. The question before the House is notwithstanding the challenge to the ruling of the Chair, shall the ruling of the Chair be upheld. The Chair will state that the Chair heard no division vote which, after all, is the criteria to whether there will be a division vote. The question before the House on this division vote is notwithstanding the appeal, shall the ruling of the Chair be upheld. If you want to uphold the ruling of the Chair, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. What reason does the member rise?
Rep. Tony Soltani (R - Merr 8)I've been rising to be recognized in order to speak to the motion.
Rep. Tony Soltani (R - Merr 8)Mister Speaker, I heard it. Many heard it and the birch tree outside of the Ronald Reagan Plaza in Epsom heard it. During debate, a request for division was made. What has become of us? What has become of our Republican Party that we deprive a member of a request for a division? I ask you to please allow him a division. He's going to lose. There is no reason for us to be tyrants about his rights. There is reason for us to vote our conscience and respect the rules. Thank you.
Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is notwithstanding the appeal, shall the ruling of the Chair stand. This is a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Jasper for a Parliamentary Inquiry.
Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this is just about putting the debate in the Permanent Journal and I know that it was an overwhelming vote. Mister Speaker, more importantly, I am tired of the delay tactics and I am tired of temper tantrums on the floor of the House and I know that the Speaker said he didn't hear the request, would I now support our Speaker by pushing the red, the green button, the green button in upholding the ruling of the Chair?
Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is notwithstanding the appeal, shall the ruling of the Chair stand. If you wish the ruling of the Chair to stand, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. 221 members having voted in the affirmative and 104 in the negative, the ruling of the Chair shall stand.