Point of order, Mister Speaker. Speaker Chandler: For what purpose does the member rise?…
Speaker ChandlerRep. Griffin moves that we adopt the Committee of Conference Report.
Rep. Wayne Moynihan (D - Coos 2)Point of order, Mister Speaker. Speaker Chandler: For what purpose does the member rise?
Rep. Wayne Moynihan (D - Coos 2)I rise, Mister Speaker, to raise a point of order or a parliamentary inquiry. Some members of the body.......
Rep. Wayne Moynihan (D - Coos 2)Parliamentary inquiry, I think, would be the more correct designation. Some members of the bodies have become aware of a challenge to SB 527 by a Senator who was a member of the original group of conferees on the bill. The Senator has asserted by a letter to the Senate and I believe to you and our House leadership as well as to the Governor that three provisions of the New Hampshire Constitution are violated by the process used for and the nature of a no-germane amendment to SB 527. One, the constitution prevents directly interfering with a cause presently before a court of law. Two, by creating a retrospective law and three, by overruling an order of a court in an active case. My inquiry is this. Is it in order for this House to vote on a statement from a Committee of Conference when the action of that conference committee is under an open challenge in the other body?
Speaker ChandlerThe issue that you have apparently is with the Senator, not anyone here, so we will proceed. The question before the House is on the adoption of the Committee of Conference Report on SB 527. The Chair recognizes the member the member from Hillsborough, Rep. Porter to speak against the Committee of Conference Report.
Rep. Marjorie Porter (D - Hills 30)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Since the House voted to amend SB 527, reports on WMUR and NHPR have brought to light new information about who requested the amendment and the reason for the request and these issues will be addressed by the next speaker. Given that new information, it is also important for us to know just what data set the plaintiffs in the SB 3 case were requesting. For background, the information on town or wards voter checklist is available to the public. Anyone is allowed to see it. It contains basic voter information, name, address, party affiliate information and so forth. Parties and candidates can and do buy a more detailed list from the Secretary of State. This list includes voting history, among other things. Then, there is the complete voter file, which includes much more sensitive information such as social security numbers. This is the list that is protected by the amendment to SB 527 and by our privacy laws. The plaintiffs in SB 3 case have not requested that last list. The privacy protected one. They have asked for the list which is sold to the parties and candidates with the addition of date of birth and place of birth and it is also important to know that the data shared would be subject to an extremely.....
Speaker ChandlerWill the member please suspend? Please refer your remarks to the Committee of Conference Report, not an ongoing lawsuit. Thank you.
Rep. Marjorie Porter (D - Hills 30)With all due respect, Mister Speaker, we ask that Rep. White speak to explain why this is relevant.
Speaker ChandlerHe will be recognized. I'm just asking you to not regard with any case that is presently in the court system. Thank you.
Rep. Marjorie Porter (D - Hills 30)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Just let it be known that the data collected under this case is far more protected than what is sold to the parties. Thank you.
Speaker ChandlerThe question before the House is the adoption of the Committee of Conference Report on SB 527. The Chair recognizes the member from Lebanon, Rep. White, who with my apologies should have been recognized first. Sorry about that.
Rep. Andrew White (D - Graf 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. No apology necessary. So this bill came over to us from the Senate, came through the Election Law Committee. Out of committee received an 18-0 vote and was placed on the Consent Calendar. It was removed from the Consent Calendar and what I and many of you perceived as a friendly floor amendment was adopted on a voice vote and sent back to the other body. Since then I think we have learned a few things and I think those few things demand our attention because I believe that we, the 18 members of the Election Law Committee and the House members who passed that amendment on a voice vote, acted in a responsible way. But since then we have learned a few things. Things that concern me greatly and I want to share a few of those with you. The Committee of Conference Report specifically did one thing that is very disagreeable and should be very disagreeable to this entire House and that is amend the effective date of one and only one provision. Why does that matter? It matters because what we were told is in direct conflict with what our chief law enforcement office, that is the Office of the Attorney General has publically said. That is not a good position for us as members of the House to be in. When asked by New Hampshire Public Radio, Ann Edwards from the State Attorney General's office said regarding this bill and the amendment, "That the legislature was very concerned when the courts order came out releasing the data (that you just heard about) to the plaintiffs so they could provide it to their experts." That's a direct quote. She continues, "As a result, the legislature immediately proceeded with legislation to change the law to make sure it was clear that the information couldn't be subpoenaed or turned over as part of the discovery in the case." She goes on to talk about this pending litigation and says, "That we were asked." We, the Attorney General's office, "were asked for suggested language and we created some suggested language and that language is now being considered." Folks, that language, that change, that's what we are here to vote on today. Now, in the Committee of Conference, Senator Woodburn asked specifically and was told very specifically that the Senate desired changes were in no way a response to ongoing litigation. Now, I read my esteemed colleague from Bedford Committee of Confer- 23MAYJANUARY2018HOUSERECORD 23
ence blurb and it says in the last sentence, "While discussed, the impact of this effective date on any pending litigation is unknown." Now, why does this all matter? It's been clear that we, I, as a member of this House, when that floor amendment was introduced, I believe that it was introduced in good faith. I believe that each of us cast that voice vote in good faith. I think we all want to protect the privacy of New Hampshire's voters and New Hampshire residents in general. That's what we all should strive to do. This effective date change that was demanded by the other body, and acquiesced to by conferees, again many of whom were replaced or some of whom were replaced has become a dangerous, deeply flawed attempt to meddle in and influence the outcome of current litigation that runs afoul to our constitution and I cannot in good faith sit in this chamber today and vote yes on this Committee of Conference Report knowing that the attempt by the other body is very clear in its focus and its intent and that is to influence pending litigation. Mister Speaker, thank you.
Speaker ChandlerThe question before the House is the adoption of the Committee of Conference Report on SB 527. The Chair recognizes the member from Goffstown, Rep. Barbara Griffin to speak in favor of the Committee of Conference Report.
Rep. Barbara Griffin (R - Hills 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. SB 527 is before you after a Committee of Conference meeting where indeed an effective date was changed. If you go through your Committee of Conference Reports, you will find it is not the only bill that appears before you again with an effective date change. The reality is what was true on the day you voted on 527 remains true today. It was a floor amendment presented to you to codify what we all believe to be the law as it exists today and that floor amendment did not have an effective date on it. It didn't have it so when it went over to the Senate, the Senate decided to put a current effective upon passage effective date. Again, there are other bills that do that, 169 is one of them. There are a variety of them if you look through your report. The reason the blurb I wrote you mentioned litigation was because indeed it did come up in the Committee of Conference upon which I sat and the question was asked, is this being done for the purposes of litigation and I believe I was the one that answered and I said, "I don't know." The reality is every bill we pass here either could or does have an effect on pending litigation, every one. That's why they are called laws. In fact, you have already passed by voice vote a bill that specifically references its impact on pending litigation. It's SB 71 and that judges are free to consider it as they deem proper. So, I'm a little confused as to why we are discussing whether it affects pending litigation because the answer in that case of the bill that you've already passed and in this case is the same as it is for every bill. You don't know what the effect on pending litigation is on anything. I don't know what a judge is going to do any time I walk into that courtroom with a client and to make any other representation would simply be improper. So what the Senate did was say this issue, we understand to be current law and we think it should be effective now as compared to the effective date of the underlying bill which is January 1, 2019 and I will point out that 527 itself, the bill itself, voted on unanimously by the Election Law Committee, was drafted in response to litigation that is still pending. No one is raising the objection that 527 as voted on unanimously affects pending litigation. Their arguing as to this piece which in other matters of turning over data, you've heard much cries of the release of what is considered to be confidential information. The conferees agreed that the effective date change made sense given the subject of the amendment and the understanding of the current state of the privacy of our voter information and I ask that you press the green button to support the Committee of Conference Report. Thank you.
Speaker ChandlerThe question before the House is the adoption of the Committee of Conference Report on SB 527. Rep. White has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. All members will take their seats. All members will please take their seats. This will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is on the adoption of the Committee of Conference Report on SB 527. If you are in favor of that, you'll be pressing the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. The Chair recognizes Rep. White for a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. Andrew White (D - Graf 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that when we adopt a floor amendment, the effective date is the same as the underlying bill. And, Mister Speaker, if I know that the effective date being moved up for only this particular part of the bill expresses the underlying intent to derail legislation or to influence the outcome and Mister Speaker, if I know that I stood in this chamber shoulder to shoulder with you and almost everyone else standing in here, and I raised my right hand and I swore to defend the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire and Mister Speaker, I know that a yes vote on this motion would fly in the face of my sacred oath, would I now do the only thing that would be acceptable to support and defend the Constitution by pressing the red button?
Speaker ChandlerThe question before the House is on the adoption of the Committee of Conference Report of SB 527. If you are in favor of that, you'll be pressing the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. The Chair recognizes Barbara Griffin for a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. Barbara Griffin (R - Hills 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the Committee of Conference Report before you made a change to a bill that this body previously voted on that is not material to the subject matter and has the exact same effect as many of the other Committee of Conferences reports that are before you and that I also know that the issue before you today with this vote is not one of flag-waving constitutionality, but the matter of putting into law issues regarding absentee ballots and voter data, would I now press the green button to support the Committee of Conference Report? Thank you. REGULAR CALENDAR - SENATE BILLS CONT'D
COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON SB 535-FN
Committee of Conference Report on SB 535-FN, relative to licensure for the practice of professional art therapy and establishing an advisory council on alternative mental health therapies, and relative to certain revenues from the sale of commemorative liquor bottles of historic significance. Recommendation:
That the Senate recede from its position of nonconcurrence with the House amendment, and Thatthe House recede from its position in adopting its amendment to the bill, and
That the Senate and House adopt the following new amendment to the bill as amended by the Senate, and pass the bill as so amended: Amend the bill by replacing sections 1-3 with the following and renumbering the original sections 4 and 5 to read as 2 and 3, respectively:
1 New Chapter; Professional Art Therapy. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 326-K the following new chapter:
CHAPTER 326-L