The House, Wednesday, January 5, 2022

Speaker PackardWhat is before us is the majority committee amendment. Are you ready for the question? A roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote on the majority committee amendment. Members will take their seats. The motion before us is the majority amendment on HB 50. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Thompson for parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Dennis Thompson (R - Coos 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, If I were to know that this, the amendment to this bill would create a change that would not be in the interest of my constituents and would create another district that would not serve Coos County, would I press the red button? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. McGuire for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Carol McGuire (R - Merr 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this amendment meets the constitutional requirements of fair representation. And, if I know it balances the desires and needs to have each town to have its own district with the requirement that every person has an equal vote, would I then press the green button?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us on HB 50 is the majority amendment. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you will press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 186 voting Yea, 170 voting Nay, the majority amendment is adopted. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Bergeron moves (2277h) printed in House Record 48, pages 58 through 70. The Chair recognizes Rep. Bergeron.

Rep. Paul Bergeron (D - Hills 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. During public input sessions on all ten counties, the message from the public was consistent and clear, provide each ward and town their own representative if it has the population required to support it. Keep cities together in base and floterial districts and when multi-town districts are required, base those districts on communities of interest. Creating state representative districts for towns that have a sufficient population for their own representatives is a redistricting requirement under the state constitution. The minority amendment before you now keeps those important criteria in the development of its plan. The amendment increases the number of districts in Carroll County from eight to ten. As a result, instead of one 7 town floterial and one 11 town floterial, the proposal creates three smaller floterials. The minority plan before you gives Moultonborough its own state representative district. The majority proposal puts Moultonborough in a floterial. In Cheshire County, the minority amendment provides single town representation to four communities, Chesterfield, Hinsdale, Rindge and Winchester. Twice the number provided in the majority amendment. Virtually, everyone at the ten county hearings wanted more local representation, not less. The minority plan avoided the use of giant floterial districts, some of which in the majority proposal combined as many as 16 wards with a number of smaller towns. In the majority plan, the electoral power of the Keene wards will effectively preclude the smaller towns from any effective representation in these chambers as there is little community of interest between the city wards and the towns. In the minority plan, however, five towns get their own representatives, Roxbury, Rindge, Winchester, Hinsdale and Chesterfield. In the Republican plan only two towns get their own representatives. The majority plan violates the constitution in Coos County by denying Berlin its own dedicated representatives despite having adequate population for its own district. Berlin was entitled to three seats in the House base on its population and its population is well within the acceptable range of deviation for those three seats. The minority amendment complies with the New Hampshire Constitution while maintaining the exact same deviation as the majority plan. In Grafton County, the minority plan offers a lower range of deviation. It creates only one floterial district, not two as appears in the majority proposal. Littleton would share a district with only one other town, whereas the majority plan puts Littleton in a six-town district. In Hillsborough County, the minority plan would ensure that the City of Manchester received the number of representatives it's entitled to. Based on its population, Manchester is entitled to 33.58 representatives, 34 if rounded up and 33 if rounded down. The majority plan, however, cuts that even further and only gives them 32. The proposal of the minority increased the number of towns with their own base districts including Pelham and New Ipswich. The largest floterial in the minority plan includes four towns. The majority plans' largest floterial includes nine. For Merrimack County, the minority amendment provides single town representation to eight communities and in Rockingham County the largest number of reps in a floterial district is six, while the majority proposes a floterial district of ten representatives. In conclusion, the minority amendment prioritizes keeping cities together in state representative districts, giving each town their own representative if they have sufficient population for it in a district. When it is not possible, to create geographically small districts in order to create the most fair and constitutional state representative district map as possible. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Turcotte to speak for the committee report.

Rep. Len Turcotte (R - Straf 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. HB 50 is a statewide redistricting plan and as a statewide plan, it is impossible to achieve perfection. Our own New Hampshire Supreme Court has acknowledged this state, "Ultimately Part II, Article 11 cannot be considered in isolation," and it sets forth only some of several constitutional criteria that a redistricting plan must satisfy. In 2001, the court, as further explained, a balance must be drawn, tradeoffs must be made. The majority of the committee has created a map that has increased the number of towns, wards and places with their own representatives, while falling within constitutionally permissible deviation. The majority has avoided the unnecessary creation of a large floterial, while striking a balance to avoid the arbitrary favoring of one town over another. The minority map fails to achieve these same objectives and instead favors certain districts for the purpose of artificially enhancing cherry-picked numbers. The majority plan for HB 50 meets all of the constitutional requirements while maintaining 400 representatives in the House, as was unanimously decided by the Special Redistricting Committee. The majority plan will constitutionally and fairly represent the residents of New Hampshire for the next ten years, the next decade. I therefore ask that you support the majority of the Redistricting Committee and reject the minority amendment. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardWho is going to call for a roll call? I'm sure this is going to be a roll call. A roll call has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will take their seats. This is a roll call vote. Members will take their seats. The House will come to order. The Chair recognizes Rep. Weber for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that when I looked at the maps, contrary to what you have just. Let me start again. If I know that when the minority made their plan, contrary to what was just represented, we took as our first principle to try and get the most local representation possible, irrespective of whether that would damage an incumbent be it Democratic or Republican and we tried to follow the principles we hoped an independent redistricting commission would follow. If I know that in looking at the maps the minority submitted that have become this amendment, that they result in smaller floterial and more local representation than the majority maps, would I now press the green button to support the minority amendment? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Turcotte for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Len Turcotte (R - Straf 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know the minority amendment arbitrarily favors certain districts to the detriment of others. And if I also know that the majority map is constitutional and provides fair representation to the people of New Hampshire. And if I also know that the majority redistricting bill is superior to the minority's redistricting proposal, would I now support the majority of the Redistricting Committee by pressing the red button? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe question is on HB 50, the minority committee amendment (2277h). This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you will press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 165 voting Yes, 192 voting Nay, the minority committee amendment fails. The question now before the House is HB 50, as amended by the majority committee amendment. The Chair recognizes Rep. Bergeron to speak against the committee.

Rep. Paul Bergeron (D - Hills 29)Mister Speaker, I'll just summarize what I said previously since many of my remarks are also directed to the majority report. During public input sessions, in all ten counties, the message from the public was consistent and clear, provide each ward and town their own representative if it has the population required to support it. Keeps cities together and base with floterial districts and when multi-town districts are required, base those districts on communities of interest. The Republican majority plan fails to do so, and I would encourage the members to vote against it.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. McGuire to speak for the committee.

Rep. Carol McGuire (R - Merr 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. As we said when discussing the amendment.

Rep. Carol McGuire (R - Merr 29)As we said when discussing the amendment, this bill, as amended, balances the federal and state constitutional requirements for redistricting. They must meet both the federal and the state requirements. One part of our constitution, Part II, Article 11, says when the population of any town or ward, according to the last federal census is within a reasonable deviation from the ideal population for one or more representative seat, the town or ward shall have its own district of one or more representative seats. We heard that hundreds of times from people around the state, but most of them did not go on to read the rest of that paragraph which says, the apportionment shall not deny any other town or ward membership in one non-floterial representative district. When any town, ward or unincorporated place has fewer than the number of inhabitants necessary to entitle it to one representative, the legislature shall form those towns, wards or unincorporated places into representative districts which contain a sufficient number of inhabitants to entitle each district so formed to one or more representatives for the entire district. In forming the districts, the boundaries of towns, wards and unincorporated places shall be preserved incontiguous. The excess number of inhabitants of districts may be added to the excess number of inhabitants of other districts to form at large or floterial districts conforming to acceptable deviations. So it's not as simple as you have 3,400 residents, you have your own state rep. The state supreme court has stated that this cannot be considered in isolation and that there are several constitutional criteria that the redistricting plan must satisfy. Perfection is not possible and a balance must be drawn. So, the majority maps makes reasonable and appropriate trade-offs, not arbitrarily favoring certain districts to the detriment of others. We as a committee unanimously agreed to have 400 representatives. We allocated those 400 representatives to the counties so that no district will cross a county line and then we developed districts meeting the normal definition of reasonable deviation, which is 10%. All districts are contiguous. There is no town boundaries broken. Every town is in a non-floterial district and that we assume that the cities would divide their wards for equal populations, which is their responsibility. We tried to create single town districts but as much as possible, without depriving another town of its fair representation. Where possible we kept cities within their boundaries and did not share districts to the adjoining towns and then we used floterial districts to make sure the deviations came out correct. These maps are constitutional and they fairly represent the people of New Hampshire. We hope that you will support them and vote green. Thank you.

Speaker PackardWho is going to make the motion for a roll call, which I know is coming? Roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will take their seats. Members will be in their seats. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Espitia for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Manny Espitia (D - Hills 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that Granite Staters gave clear direction at the redistricting committees public input sessions requested compact House districts that keep cities together and provide local representation to communities with sufficient population. If I know that HB 50, as amended, rejects that public input, needlessly lumping cities in with other communities and stacking towns into mega districts with no rational basis. If I want to comply with the New Hampshire Constitution and provide the smallest most representative districts possible, would I now press the red button to vote no on the committee report?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Steven Smith for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Steven Smith (R - Sull 11)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know this plan meets all the constitutional requirements and is certainly an improvement over what we have now, creating more single municipality districts. Mister Speaker, if I know we even incorporated elements from both parties into the majority committee amendment, would I press the green button?

Speaker PackardThe question before us on HB 50 is the majority Ought to Pass motion, as amended, with the majority committee report. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 186 voting Yea, 168 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.

Speaker PackardThe question is on the majority committee amendment. A division has been requested. Members will take their seats. We are just doing parliamentary inquiries. Members will take their seats. The sooner members take their seats, the sooner we can be done. The motion before us is on the majority committee amendment. This is a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Marjorie Smith for a parliamentary inquiry. Representative Marjorie Smith: Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I knew that in 2018 the well-respected national organization FiveThirtyEight did a thorough evaluation of every state's congressional district and when they drew the map that would most favor the Democratic Party in the State of New Hampshire, they drew the exact same map that the Republican majority on the Special Committee on Redistricting drew. The exact same map. And, Mister Speaker, if I knew that and if I were a Republican in the New Hampshire legislature in 2021, I would not want to settle for half a loaf and therefore I would oppose the majority amendment on HB 52 and would then vote red on the majority amendment in order to consider an amendment which might make it possible for my party, the Republican Party in this case, or the Democratic Party to win both seats? I would press the red button. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. It's getting awful noisy again. The Chair recognizes Rep. Barbara Griffin for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Barbara Griffin (R - Hills 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this committee amendment before this body addresses a change that has to be made due to population changes over the last ten years. And, Mister Speaker, if I know that in fact the map that is presented by this amendment is not the most partisan passable map that there is and apparently some people don't know how to draw maps very well. And finally, Mister Speaker, if I am aware that the map before this body in this amendment (2271h) will provide for legal, state and federal constitutional representation over the next ten years, would I now press the green button to support the committee amendment?

Speaker PackardThe question before us is the majority committee amendment on HB 52. This is a division vote. If you are in favor, you will press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 184 voting Yea, 171 voting Nay, the majority committee amendment is adopted. This is the second reading and open to further amendment. This is the minority amendment (2245h) printed in House Record 48, pages 67 through 70. Rep. Marjorie Smith moves adoption and is recognized to speak in favor of the amendment.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. Basically, since 1880, the two districts for Congress. I'm just waiting for quiet. My mother told me never to speak when other people were speaking.

Speaker PackardThe sooner everyone can take their seats or take their conversations outside, we can get through these bills.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker, for your courtesy. From 1880 until now, in New Hampshire there have been two congressional districts and the basic map has stayed the same. In the second district Republicans won 71 times and Democrats 15 in the last 86 elections. The first district changed hands in six of the last eight elections with incumbents losing in five of those races. New Hampshire has predominantly leaned Republican. State elections have frequently been purple with a healthy party mixture of Governor, State House, Senate, US House and Senate. New Hampshire voters, every two years, vote for the candidate they prefer without necessarily following party lines. Under federal and state constitutional and legal requirements, we need to have two equal districts from the current census for the New Hampshire Congressional seats. We were off by 18,000 votes. Once the new census figures came back, all we had to do was move 9,000 people from the first district into the second district. We didn't have to really shake everything up. We didn't have to change things in any dramatic way. Moving 9,000 people would give us two districts with equal population and in fact, that is what the minority amendment does. It moves only 9,000 people from the first district into the second. This differs from the amendment that at the moment this House has passed, but there is still time to correct the mistake. They have moved about 25% of the total population of the state from one district to another for no logical reason. In two days of public hearings, only one person testified in favor of the majority amendment and his thoughtful reasoned presentation was that this amendment would help the incumbents gain seniority in Washington and he thought that was important. It is important if what you believe is protecting incumbency. It's not important if what you believe is making sure that citizens have the right every two years to choose the person they want to lead. That is the strength of the New Hampshire political system in the House, in the Senate and the Executive Council and the Governorship. Voters are able to decide every two years whether or not to keep an incumbent. In the US House, it's the same thing. Unfortunately we have no control over the length of the US Senate term. That is six years. We can't do anything about it, but in New Hampshire we like to vote for our elected officials every two years. It's unique in the nation and it's one of our great strengths. Every candidate should be able to approach an election on a level playing field. The majority of the committee stated clearly that their goal was to tilt that playing field. Please support the minority amendment that protects the rights of all New Hampshire voters to have a fair opportunity to color our state red, blue or purple. Thank you, Mister Speaker and thank you for the courtesy of letting me speak without standing up.

Rep. Ross Berry (R - Hills 44)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I'm specifically addressing some of the complaints raised by the minority of the committee. The minority moved one town. That town happened to be one of the most Republican towns in the state. Why is that important, Mister Speaker? Because while the minority of the committee speaks of fairness of the current districts, they have won 90% of the contest under the cur- rent map. That is not purple, Mister Speaker. One drop of red and nine drops of blue is not purple, it's just blue. Furthermore, Mister Speaker, the majority map did a better job of preserving shared sewer and water systems, shared police and fire departments and regional planning committees, which are crucial for receiving federal funds. The minority amendment, the minority map proposed only does a better job of preserving public health regions to address their claim of moving people into a new seat. Mister Speaker, when we draw maps, there is no such thing as looking at the current map. You draw new districts every time and if one was to look at the original versions of CD1 and CD2 as the minority said, which was drawn in 1880, you wouldn't recognize them today. And, in fact, there has been reports, Mister Speaker, public reports that the original maps were gerrymandered to dilute the Catholic vote, which is why Nashua and Manchester were originally separated. I'm not making that accusation today, Mister Speaker, it was over 130 to 140 years ago. People should be aware of that while claims are being made. With that, Mister Speaker, I ask that you vote no on this amendment and I request a roll call vote.

Speaker PackardA roll call vote has been requested. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will take their seats. The motion before us is the minority amendment on HB 52. The Chair recognizes Rep. Espitia for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Manny Espitia (D - Hills 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that we have had competitive, balanced congressional maps. And if I know that a rewrite of the map is entirely unnecessary. The simple changes from this amendment will keep these districts competitive. And if I know that this amendment will keep a level playing field and allow voters, Democrats and Republicans and Independents alike to pick their politicians and not the other way around, will I now press the green button to keep our congressional maps fair for another ten years?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Lynn for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Bob Lynn (R - Rock 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know for the reasons stated earlier by my colleague from Manchester that the proposal in the majority does a better job of ensuring, first of all it meets constitutional requirements and it does a better job of ensuring that more people within the state will be able to choose, to make the choice that they desire for representative, would I then vote to defeat the minority and press the red button?

Speaker PackardThe question before us is the minority amendment on HB 52. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you will press the green button. If you are opposed, you will press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 167 voting Yea, 189 voting Nay, the minority committee report fails. We are on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Abramson offers floor amendment (2301h). It was at the tables. You don't have seat pockets. The Chair recognizes Rep. Abramson.

Rep. Max Abramson (R - Rock 40)Thank you, Mister Speaker. It's amendment (2301h) and it was not only available at the table, but it's been circulating around. The proposed map that I have been trying to bring to the Special Redistricting Committee or the idea that I have been trying to bring to the Special Redistricting Committee, I have not been able to make the meetings, but it's simply the idea that the boundary line should be as short as possible. There are three reasons why you want a boundary line as short as possible. What the map does in this case, you'd just have Rockingham County, Strafford County, the City of Nashua, the City of Manchester, where we are, would be one district joined by Pelham, Litchfield and Hudson. So that would be the lower right-hand corner of the state. That proposed district would give you the more compact district and then the Northern and Western parts of the state would be the other district, district two. The reason for doing that is going with the shortest boundary possible. Number one, of all of the drawn up congressional maps, the ones that have been thrown out by the courts, whether it was in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, they have been long boundary districts. Courts have thrown out long boundary districts time and again. They very rarely survive. The second reason is that the general public looks at long boundary district like the one proposed in (2271h) that has just been passed, the majority recommendation and they look at that and they feel like, it looks like gerrymandering, it looks unfair, it looks like somebody was playing games, it looks like somebody was drawing a line of spaghetti around the state. Now, from the inner district, it doesn't look like that, but from the outer district one member of this House said that it looks like someone would have to drive from Nashua all the way to the North Country and then come down to Portsmouth and from the outside of the state it looks like, it looks inappropriate, it looks like it's unfair. Now, I do agree with the intent of having a Republican leaning district and a Democrat leaning district. Having what I called several years ago propositional representation, which I suggested before I ever became a member of this body. So I do think that you are, no matter what kind of map you are going to draw, you are going to end up in a 50/50 state with one congressional district that leans a little Republican and you are going to have one that leans a little bit Democrat. However, if we are interested in maintaining accountability of our elected officials, then we need to have competitive districts. Using Dave's redistricting software online which is a powerful online software development tool we can actually measure the effectiveness and quality of proposed districts. This district design achieves a score of 83 on competitiveness, which is one of the highest, not only one of the highest in the country, but it would be better than any of the other proposals that have been placed in front of us. There are other reasons to support (2301h) over the other plans and the benefit of course is with the shortest boundary line you get lower cost campaigns. So, when you have people campaigning for Congress, they don't have to raise as much money from special interest groups. Most of the special interest money pouring into New Hampshire is pouring in from out of state of course. We want to have two representatives in our delegation who are answerable to us, answerable to the voters and you are not going to get that answerability if they are having to raise twice as much money to campaign over a much larger area and possibly having to run TV ads in the expensive Maine and Massachusetts markets which are really expensive and that would be a consequence of the Majority's proposed plan. I don't think that was intended, but that would be one of the unintended side effects. I think that going with the shortest boundary possible gives you something more competitive. Putting the boundary as close to Manchester as possible, where we have the VA and a lot of federal issues coming through Manchester and Nashua, would give the voters who are along that boundary line or along this corridor, the 93 corridor, would give them greater ability to maintain accountability and it would be much easier to vote out members of Congress who are not being responsive to the voters. So you would, according to the software, you would still get basically an R+3 district and probably a D+3 district, but that's inevitable with any plan that you have but I think having a more competitive district looks fair, it looks better and gives the voters of this state more control over who we have in Congress. We've looked at the results of other states that for various reasons are stuck with either one Republican or one Democrat or a group of entrenched Republicans and Democrats and the results are not good. Their members of Congress are much, much less responsive to the concerns of the voters and many of them don't even have town hall meetings and don't even come back to their district. Some of them don't even live in their district. So, I'm asking members to press the green button and support amendment (2301h). It would just carve out a much smaller district or a much more compact district in the lower right-hand corner of the state and the rest of the state would be district two.

Rep. Ross Berry (R - Hills 44)Yes, Mister Speaker, thank you. The proposed maps creates a, he talks about the size of the districts. The proposed maps creates a CD2 that is significantly larger, thus more expensive to campaign in, but to address specifically, he makes an argument about the length of the district. Mister Chairman, the ACLU brought forward I believe it's a 42-page document reviewing the proposed majority's maps and at no point did the ACLU raise a legal argument against the majority's maps. The majority's maps has a population deviation of 88 people and 89 people, respectively and it never divides a town. So we managed to get that low of a deviation in a state of 1.377 million people, we got it down to 88 and 89, respectively, and with that, Mister Speaker, I ask that our fellow members vote no and I request a roll call vote.

Speaker PackardA roll call has been requested. Has that been sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will take their seats. Members take your seats. The question before us is the Abramson amendment. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Adjutant for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Joshua Adjutant (D - Graf 16)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I agree with my friend from Seabrook that competitive districts are a mechanism that voters have to enforce term limits. If I know that keeping the Seacoast, Nashua, Manchester, Strafford and Rockingham County together provides the community of interest representation better than even the current map so that Congressman and Congresswoman can better serve their constituents. And if I am happy to vote for a map that doesn't put Portsmouth and Nashua in the same CD but makes you have to drive to Mount Washington to get from one to the other, would I now cast this proudly, bipartisan vote by pressing the green button?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Lynn for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Bob Lynn (R - Rock 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that the current districts are not competitive, and that the proposal made in this Abramson amendment will not make them competitive. And if I know as was previously pointed out that there is no constitutional issue with the majority's proposed maps, would I then press the red button and defeat this proposal?

Speaker PackardThe question before us is the Abramson floor amendment for HB 52. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you will press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 174 voting Yea, 182 voting Nay, the Abramson floor amendment fails. We are now down to the last piece. We are on Ought to Pass with Amendment. The Chair recognizes Rep. Marjorie Smith.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise, virtually, not in reality to oppose the pending question. I thank you, Mister Speaker, for ensuring that the members of the New Hampshire House are listening. We are an interesting state. It is one of the reasons that we have been able to maintain the position of the First in the Nation Primary. We are about 1/3 Republican, 1/3 Democratic and 1/3 Undeclared. We know that the undeclared really doesn't mean neutral. Many members of the undeclared are favoring one party or the other, but that mix, and the possibility of an open primary makes us very appealing when presidentials want to come and tell us how wonderful they would be if they could serve in that position. One of the reasons that we have been able to maintain this position is that we are, in fact, a purple state. Parts of the state are more red, parts are more blue, but altogether we are purple and we see that when we realize in the New Hampshire Representatives to the US Congress how many times we have changed parties. That is a tribute to all of us in this state that we take seriously our responsibility in who we vote for and why we are voting for them. It means that we, as elected officials, have to pay attention to what the citizens are telling us about how they want us to run their government. That, Mister Speaker, is why I ask this body to oppose the pending question. The pending question sets up districts in order to predetermine the outcome of the election and therefore deny the voters of this state the opportunity to decide for themselves. I believe that this body is better than that. I believe this body understands that we have to respect the voters in this state and their desire to be able to say every two years whether they want a Republican, a Democrat or someone else to represent them. Therefore, Mister Speaker, with great sadness, but with a great degree of commitment, I ask this body to reject the pending question to vote ITL, or to vote no on the pending motion so that we might come back and, in fact, present the opportunity to vote on something that is a tribute to this body and its respect for the citizens of the state. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Bob Lynn (R - Rock 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I apologize if I am taking a little longer to speak. I have chronic asthma and it's picked a great time to sort of act up. I rise in support of the majority amendment which is now before us. We had to change the districts because of population in the state changed and the changing population was not equal between the districts. CD1 gained more population than CD2. Our plan meets constitutional one man, one vote requirements. As was previously mentioned, the population difference between CD1 and CD2 under our proposal is at most 89 individuals out of a total state population of almost 1.4 million people. Our plan also maintains continuity among all towns and cities in each district and does not divide any town or city. We've heard much during the committee's proceedings about gerrymandering. The dictionary, Merriam Webster, definition of gerrymander is, "To divide or arrange a territorial unit into election districts in a way to give one political party an unfair advantage." Unfair advantage. So let's see if that's what actually happened here. In fact, the map created by the majority does not create unfair advantages. In fact, it removes them. We've heard throughout the proceedings and I'm sure you've heard on more than one occasion in the newspapers, or you've read the newspapers or heard on TV the phrase, "Voters should choose their Reps, not the other way around." I have to admit that is a great talking point. The only problem is if you actually look at it and scrutinize it for a moment, there is not substance to it. Whether directly or indirectly through some kind of "independent commission, "created by legislators, it is always legislators who decide what districts voters are assigned to. Voters never make that choice. Many we heard from during our committee's proceedings asked us to account for communities of interest. Interestingly, however, the only community of interest that they never mentioned that they wanted us to consider was political like mindedness, yet particularly considering that what we are dividing up, our districts for voting purposes, political affinity would seem to be among the most important considerations. In this regard I note that in 2012, our Democratic friends recognized that political similarities did constitute a community of interest. They then told the supreme court to define community of interest as, "A group of people concentrated in a geographic area who share similar interest and priorities, whether social, cultural, ethnic, economic, religious or political." That's at 163 New Hampshire Reports, page 707. The fact is that Republicans and Democrats are not evenly divided throughout our state. For example, not only politically, but socially and culturally, the Portsmouth- Durham area has much more in common with Plymouth, Keene, Hanover and even Concord than it does with Manchester, Salem or Derry. Our proposal aligns pollical communities and cultural communities of interest much better than does the Democratic proposal. Also under our plan, Manchester, the state's largest city, is placed in the same CD as the many smaller communities, but make up a significant portion of its commuter workforce. One of the questions that has frequently been raised and asked at both our proceedings and here is, are the current districts competitive. Contrary to claims, the reality is that neither CD1, nor CD2, but particularly the latter is competitive. Mapathon says that the Democratic advantage in CD1 is plus 5.2% and that the Democratic advantage in CD2 is plus 10.4%. No one can seriously believe that a district with a 10.4% advantage is competitive. According to Mapathon, our proposal actually makes CD1 more competitive by changing the district from 5.2% plus for our Democratic colleagues to 1.8% for Republicans. Let's talk more fundamentally though about how important is competitiveness. The arguments that we heard during our proceedings were that competitiveness forces candidates to the center. Well ask yourself, is this really true, given that to win the nomination of either party, candidates have to appeal to their base which is usually not in the center. For example, claims that Bernie Sanders can't win a national election did not prevent our New Hampshire Democratic colleagues from giving him a victory in our presidential primary. More importantly, forcing to the center discourages reforms and new ideas. In a sense, it is analogist to cancel culture in that it says that debate is permitted only within a narrow range of acceptability as determined by some nebulous standard established by the media or other elite forces not accountable to the citizens. As examples, would Ronald Reagan or Bernie Sanders ever have emerged as real political forces under the "centrist candidates only" formulation? I don't know how many of you in this room are old enough to remember as I do when Ronald Reagan first became politically prominent and won national office, but I remember clearly the attacks on him, President Reagan, by both Democrats and more centrist Republicans. His views on foreign policy will, "Start WWIII" and his domestic policies are voodoo economics. Yet those policies brough about the collapse of the Soviet Union and one of our longest periods of sustain prosperity. So what is the bottom line? Our colleagues across the aisle basically assert that on a statewide basis, our congressional delegation should produce an allocation that matches the political breakdown of the state. They argue in affect that New Hampshire voters generally lean about 52% voting Democrat and 45% voting Republican. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, nor to I agree with their idea that a voter whose vote is equally weighted with that of every other voter under the one man, one vote principle is somehow disenfranchised because of the way other voters in his or her district are likely to vote. But for present purposes, let's assume that our Democratic colleagues view is correct. What our friends across the aisle proposed to do is construct our congressional Districts so that both districts will be Democrat leaning anywhere from roughly 4.5% to 10% and what will the result of their formulation and what would be the result of their formulation? With 52% of the voters, Democrats will get 100% of the congressional seats. They will win both CD1 and CD2, meaning that under their thesis, the 45% of the electorate that tends to vote Republican will be disenfranchised. Under the Republican proposal, by contrast, which aligns the districts more closely to the voters' leanings, the 52% Democrat versus 45% Republican breakdown will more likely, although by no means inevitably, yield a 50/50 split. One Democrat in CD2 and one Republican in CD1. Thus, under our formulation, only 2% of Democratic voters will be disenfranchised. So ask yourself, which is fairer, disenfranchise the 45% of voters who lean Republican or the 2% of voters who lean Democratic? The answer is obvious. For all of these reasons, I ask you to support the majority proposal and the majority amendment and push the green button. I would also move, Mister Speaker, that this debate be put in the Permanent Journal. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThat's a separate motion later. The question now is the Ought to Pass with Amendment motion. Are you ready? Roll call. I was waiting for that. Rep. Espitia requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This is going to be a roll call vote. Members take their seats. The question before us is the Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 52. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Espitia for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Manny Espitia (D - Hills 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that our congressional districts have remained largely unchanged since they were first established in the 1880's and I believe that we have been doing it right the last 140 years and do not suddenly need a radical redrawing of our congressional districts. If I know there were zero Granite Staters, zero, who spoke at our public input sessions and requested the drastic, unnecessary changes proposed by the majority. And if I know gerrymandering when I see it and I know these districts are reprehensible, would I now press the red button to vote no on the committee report? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair. The House will be in order. The Chair recognizes Rep. Lynn for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Bob Lynn (R - Rock 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know, Mister Speaker, that the current districts are not competitive. One is more noncompetitive than the other, but both are really not competitive. And, if I know that the majority's proposal will make at least one of them competitive, not a walk for the Republican party by any means, but at least competitive, would I then press the green button to support the majority proposal? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe question is on the Ought to Pass as Amended motion on HB 52. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 186 voting Yea, 164 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted. (Representative Steven Smith in the Chair)

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThe majority amendment is (2273h) printed in House Record 48 on pages 73 to 74. The question before the House is the majority amendment (2273h). Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye; all those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Weber moves minority amendment (2276h) printed in House Record 48 on page 74 and is recognized to speak to her motion.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. So, there are ten counties in the state as you all know. One county elects its County Commissioners as a whole, county wide so that didn't change. So we are down to nine. You'll be glad to know that the committee members agreed on the maps for five of the other counties. So we are down to four counties and the minority amendment addresses those four counties. There are counties in which the majority made significant changes, but the majority report says only that the changes that they made were constitutional. There doesn't seem to be any reason for those significant changes. The minority, having looked at the maps we have now, have realized that with no changes or minimum changes we have achieved deviations that are far less significant than the majority. So, in Carroll County, the majority has a map which goes in deviation from -3.3 to +2.6 for a total of 5.9. The minority with no change to the map at all has achieved a deviation of 2.9, roughly half of the majority plan. In Merrimack County, where significant changes were made by the majority, the minority moved only one town in order to balance the numbers and that's the only change that the minority makes from the current maps. In Rockingham County the majority total deviation is 8.2%. If you continue the current map, you get a total deviation of 5.5%. And, finally in Cheshire County, where the Keene area district was kept the same, but where we now have one Easterly oriented district and one Westerly oriented district, the district was rotated to be a Northern district and a Southern district. That was done with a deviation of 7.5%, where no change would have kept the deviation down to 3.7%. So if you are dedicated to the proposition that every person's vote should count the same or as close as we can make it, recognizing that it's never going to be perfect, I would urge you to adopt the minority amendment (2276h) by pressing the green button.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThank you. The member from Epsom, Rep. McGuire, is recognized to speak against the minority amendment.

Rep. Carol McGuire (R - Merr 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. The minority amendment was stated keeps most of the districts the same. The majority amendment, which we have already adopted, aligns the county commissioner districts better with the state rep. districts we previously adopted and the only other significant change was in Merrimack County where the majority plan has one town with the City of Concord and the minority plan has two towns with the City of Concord for the same population. We think that the majority maps are more appropriate and more representative, and we hope you will support them.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThank you. The question before the House is the minority committee amendment (2276h). Are you ready for the question? Division vote has been called. This will be a division vote. Members will take their seats. The question is on the minority committee amendment (2276h). This is a division vote. If you are in favor of the amendment, you will press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Rep. Weber is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lucy Weber (D - Ches 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that there is no reason to align the commissioner districts with the state representative districts because they deal with completely different issues. And, if I know that this amendment provides lower deviations and less disruption to the existing districts, which are working well, would I now press the green button?

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThank you. Rep. McGuire is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Carol McGuire (R - Merr 29)Thank you, Mister Speaker. We have adopted the majority amendment, as I know, then there is no reason to change. Please vote red.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThis is a division vote. If you are in favor of the amendment, you'll press the green 1A button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red 2B button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 157 having voting in the affirmative, 182 in the negative, the amendment fails. The question now is on the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended. Are you ready for the question? A division vote has been called. The member from Walpole, Rep. Weber, is recognized to speak against. Okay. Perfect. This is a division vote. Members please take your seats. It looks like everybody is here. The question is on the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended. Rep. Espitia is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Manny Espitia (D - Hills 31)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that, as amended, this bill significantly reconfigures districts and counties where it is not required. And, if I know the committee amendment proposes higher deviations in some counties and proposals with fewer adjustments. If I know that we can do better and believe that we should do better, would I now press the red button to vote no to reject the committee report? Thank you.

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThank you. The Member from Barrington, Rep. Turcotte, is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry. Representative Turcotte: Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that HB 54, as amended, meets all the constitutional and unanimously imposed committee requirements, would I now support the majority of the Special Committee on Redistricting commissioner map by pressing the green button?

Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThank you. This is a division vote. If you are in favor, you'll be pressing the green button. If you are opposed, you'll be pressing the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 184 having voted in the affirmative, 159 in the negative, the committee report is adopted.

Rep. Cassandra Levesque (D - Straf 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I have presented to the committee research from numerous child advocacy groups such as UNICEF, Unchanged at Last, Tahirih Justice Center and the New Hampshire Chapter of the National Society of Social Workers that shows the effects child marriage has on young girls. The committee heard testimony from multiple survivors of child marriage and how it has horrifically affected their lives. This information has been presented to the committee numerous times. Not once has anyone or any organization presented data to support the opinion that child marriage has any benefits to children. In the committee it was brought up that New Hampshire needs to have child marriage in case of teen pregnancy. It is a fact that New Hampshire rates 51 out of 52 states for the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the US. We have combatted teen pregnancy and we are winning that battle. Also, it has been argued that we need to allow child marriage to their soldier sweetheart because they could be shipped off to war. I ask what war? The US is not at war. Child marriage directly impacts girls' education, health, physiological well-being and the health of their offspring. It increases the risk of depression, anxiety and bipolar disorders, sexually transmitted infections, cervical cancer, obstetric fistulas and maternal mortality. Their offspring are at an increased risk for premature birth and subsequently neonatal or infant death. Young girls in child marriages are denied an appropriate childhood and adolescence, and are subject to increased incidents of physiological abuse as well as domestic violence, a curbing of personal liberty, an incomplete education, and a lack of employment and career prospects. We have seen parents bring their children across borders to have them married. New Hampshire is on the cusp of becoming a child marriage wedding destination. I am sure that's something we do not want for New Hampshire. New Hampshire has a choice and we continue to be part of the global child forced marriage human trafficking problem or we can stand against this. Six states have seen the harm that child marriage does and made the decision to end child marriage so I ask you, why can't we? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. For what purpose does the member rise? Does the member yield to a question? Looks like no. The Chair recognizes the member from Hudson, Rep. Rice to speak for the committee report.

Rep. Kimberly Rice (R - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in support of the majority committee recommendation of ITL on HB 60. A few years ago, the age of marriage was raised to 16. Currently, parental and judicial consent is needed with clear and convincing evidence that the marriage is in the best interest of the persons below the age of consent must be presented. In 2019, there were zero underage marriages and in 2020 there were five. All of whom were 17-years old. These were informed decisions made between parents, the judiciary and the persons under the age of consent. After seeing these numbers, the majority of the committee felt that this was trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist in New Hampshire. Please support the majority recommendation of ITL and press the green button. Thank you.

Speaker PackardDoes the member yield to a question? The member yields. You may inquire.

Rep. Al Baldasaro (R - Rock 5)Thank you for taking my question. As a Chairman of Veterans Affairs and somebody that served 22 years on active duty, many military people show up, 17, 18-year-old with brides that are 16, 17, 18 years. Many of them are pregnant. Are you aware of this with this brought up and I thank you for what you did in your committee? Representative Rice: Yes, I am aware. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe question is on HB 60 committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate. Are you ready for the question? We have to wait for division before we call for the parliamentary inquiry. So a division has been called for, so members take your seats. This will be a division vote. The House will come to order. The Chair recognizes Rep. Altschiller for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Debra AltschillerThank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that choosing a partner is a major decision. One that should be made freely and without fear or coercion. In New Hampshire, marriage is a contract that everyone should be able to enter into and exit out of without an aged-based penalty. And, if I know that 83% of children in forced marriages are girls and that the US State Department calls marriage before the age of 18 a human rights abuse that produces devastating repercussions for a girl's life, affectively ending her childhood. And, finally, if I know that children in New Hampshire who must seek parental and judicial approval to enter into a contract, which they then may not exit until they actually reach the age of majority is a travesty we cannot keep turning away from, then would I now take action to end child marriage in New Hampshire by pressing the red button to vote no so that another motion can be made?

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Nelson for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. NelsonThank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that currently, judicial and parental consent is required for any person under the age of consent to marry. If I also know that clear and convincing evidence that the marriage is in the best interest of both persons below the age of consent must be presented to a judge. And, if I also know, that this bill is trying to correct an issue that does not exist in New Hampshire, would I now press the green button and uphold the majority committee recommendation of ITL?

Speaker PackardThis is a division vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you will press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 192 voting Yea, 165 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.