Submitted by niateratez t3_yd5vfb in newhampshire
What's the meaning behind this ballot question? A YES vote supports holding a Consitutional Convention and a NO vote opposes one. But beyond the outline on Ballotpedia, what does this actually mean to the average NH citizen?
This seems like a cool idea
>Note: NH has been operating in violation of its own constitution for decades by not funding schools equally in all districts.
I tried finding what you're referencing but the first one I could find is [Art.] 6. [Morality and Piety.] at https://www.nh.gov/glance/bill-of-rights.htm "But no person shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the schools of any sect or denomination"
The only other one was [Art.] 83. [Encouragement of Literature, etc.; Control of Corporations, Monopolies, etc.] https://www.nh.gov/glance/literature.htm "Provided, nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools of institutions of any religious sect or denomination."?
Perhaps it doesn't reference schools directly?
I think the gist of art 83 makes it the State’s responsibility to provide good schools. But our schools have been and continue to be funded mostly by the municipalities.
So I think we either need a statewide tax to collect from everyone and pay for everything as one, or we need to officially push the providing-of-schools responsibility down to town level.
The way that particular article is worded is like a ... well ... word salad. But "encourage" doesn't really mean to me as "equal equity" since how would that be measured? Per student, per teacher, per school? Even if it's the most logical of per student some schools have 1000 students some have 50 and economy of scale means there is no way to get an equal level of funding. Some places are just wasteful afterall.
It means just that. This vote is to either have one, or not. It's on the ballot every decade, but the last one passed in the 1980's. If you think we need to amend the state constitution, vote for it, or if not, vote no. One caution I'd personally give is this is a big opportunity for enough crazies to get something they want, without going through the traditional legislative process. Just the thought of the Freestater movement getting anything via this avenue is enough for me to vote no on it.
So instead of getting a bill passed in the legislature, you think it would be easier for "crazies" to get a 2/3 supermajority of voters to approve?
It's more about not giving them the opportunity at all, TBH. Sure, it's a long shot, but entirely avoided risk is better than taking "safe" risks, for this stuff, IMO.
You lose me at 2/3 of the voters agreed with whatever is put forward from the hypothetical convention. This seems like a great way to get popular changes (that might be unpopular to the current state legislature) approved. 2/3's is too high a hurdle for something too terrible to pass. The logic of "let's not risk it" could be used just as well to justify disbanding the NH state government else some extremists push through a terrible law.
Fair. One thing I can think of is marijuana legalization. Im' pretty sure we have 2/3 popular support for that, at this point.
It's a trap for the far right to infuse more shit into NH. That's a no from me dog.
I was told it was a trap from the left to turn us into a communist nanny state.
Best bet is just vote no. Nothing significant wrong with the constitution as it stands
The right is telling you that just so that you'll vote against it.
This is a ballot question every ten years. To me, it's meaningful this year because last year our majority governing body in this state moved forward out of committee a proposal to secede from the US.
If you vote yes to holding a constitutional convention, it opens the door to that same leadership pushing that agenda at a convention. That's bad news is you like being an American.
If you vote no to holding a constitutional convention, that door will not be opened.
edit: misspelling.
My understanding is if a convention there would be another vote at the next election to send delegates too. From seacoast online paper
So, what happens if voters decide they want a constitutional convention this time around? In that case, voters would then be tasked with choosing delegates to the convention at the next election, similar to the process for choosing state representatives. Then, if three-fifths of those delegates agree on changes to the state constitution, the final changes would be put before voters at the next biennial election.
Considering the effort it takes to hold a constitutional convention, you may be wondering why anyone would want to. There are a variety of proposed constitutional amendments that have gained traction in recent years, including a constitutional ban on income/sales taxes, changes to legislator compensation (currently $100 a year plus mileage), a constitutional right to an abortion, and more.
>To me, it's meaningful this year because last year our majority governing body in this state moved forward out of committee a proposal to succeed from the US.
*Secede
Any secession efforts are going to run squarely up against the SCOTUS decision in Texas v. White. It's worth reading the full decision. But, the tl;dr on that case is it's one of the key post-Civil War decisions that ruled on events that happened during the war.
The main question the case answers is whether US Courts have jurisdiction to rule on events that happened while southern states were supposedly no longer a part of the United States. SCOTUS decided in that case, essentially, that any state that joins the USA can't leave the USA without going to war with the rest of the USA. They decided that case on the basis that, because the Confederacy lost the war, they never _actually_ established a new nation and remained a part of the United States throughout the time that the war lasted.
So, anybody that talks about states seceding is talking about going to war with the rest of the states and the federal government. After the events of Jan 6, I don't think anybody should take such things lightly.
This is the thing I think a lot of the pro-secession crowd seems to forget. The United States dealt with the question of secession once before, and whether or not you like the answer, it was determined that secession is not allowed unless you overcome the might of the military, the Federal government, and the rest of the States.
Exactly.
It's funny how so many of those folks don't bother to learn any parts of this nation's history that happened after 1790.
It's almost like they're trying to return to a time when it was acceptable for certain humans to only count as three-fifths of a citizen.
Secession is the ultimate retraction of the consent of the governed. Without a mechanism of divorce the whole idea of social contract theory implodes on itself, nevermind the contradictory nature (secession from Britain = yup, secession from US = never....theres no logical explanation here).
Thank you for admitting that, even after citing the relevant SCOTUS ruling, you 1) haven't bothered to read it and 2) you've decided that your ignorant ahistorical opinion is somehow more correct.
Shut up until you can actually be bothered to educate yourself. Nobody cares what ignorant morons have to say. You've clearly confused having thoughts with knowledge.
Good gravy. I can't believe I didn't catch that spelling mistake. Thanks.
As I can find through the State of New Hampshire's website:
Essentially, unless the General Court with a majority vote in each house calls for a convention, the Secretary of State shall submit to the voters the question of whether or not to host a constitutional convention. The purpose of this being to offer the citizens of New Hampshire to amend their Constitution as needed and, in a sense, force the voters to at least take their key government document under advisement from time to time. If this were approved, at the next general election, the citizens of the state would choose their delegates to send to the convention.
Whether you support the matter or not is entirely of your own decision, but I'll offer you my thoughts as a random internet nobody from New Hampshire.
The average citizen, whether they be from New Hampshire or another state, rarely look at what the State Constitution or their State Statutes say, until such time that they need something to justify their position. Regular reflection on our most crucial documents is healthy and should be encouraged. However, when you consider the environment in which this question is now being posed, it is one of heightened emotions, fears, and hostility. No one can say for certain what would come out of a convention and whether or not there would be dramatic ramifications. I think we would be better off choosing not to hold a convention and instead wait until such time that the waters clear and cooler heads prevail, when there can be a thoughtful and beneficial conversation.
But hey, that's me.
The constitutional convention vote is required to happen every ten years, and will likely fail, since it failed by a mile last time and I know of nobody that is campaigning for or against it.
Even if it passed, any proposed changes would have to be approved by 60% two thirds or more of the New Hampshire voters.
No, a constitutional convention does not allow a minority of voters to impose their will over us all.
EDIT - corrected the mistake that was brought to my attention.
60% of convention delegates; 2/3s of voters.
You are correct - I mixed those two numbers up.
Thank you for catching my mistake.
We don't want a constitutional convention, Free-Staters and Secessionists want one.
Do you get out of bed spouting BS? Lol. Please cite your supposition.
Who's we?
I'm against it too, so that makes it we.
Not you I guess.
Which rep is gonna legalize weed and shrooms, and not fuck with my guns?
vote republican up and down the ballott,the dems next move is coming for the guns and they can pry them from my cold dead hands!
Me. www.mcg.team
The "wut bout weeeeeeed?!?!?!" nonsense is so unbelievably pathetic at this point. Have some self respect.
i agree just ucking legalize this shit and the fedral gov needs to decrimanalize this bullshit ,enough allready get it done!
That was not my point but thanks for playing.
Could it be used to legalize weed?
Yes, you could propose an amendment to say that drug consumption is a right for NH Citizens if you wanted.
This is what it should say. We have the right to ingest anything we want, which would imply we also have a right to purchase it. US 2A cases prove that out.
Convention delegates will be voted on in the same way as legislators. That means the districts will be gerrymandered just the way they are now. Unless different people run for the constitutional convention, it will be the same lop-sided situation. Currently, the majority in the House wants to get rid of the requirement to provide an adequate education to kids and the requirement to not give taxpayer funding to religious organizations. But even if something passes at the convention, it still needs to go to the voters and get a 2/3s approval.
NO!
Personally, I think we need a Constitutional Convention because faith in our institutions is falling apart. There seems to be an opinion here that supporting this is a right-wing view, but that's just not true.
I believe that the Constitution should be a living document, and that's not really possible with monolithic government.
Just asking a random person about politics will show how much we need a change.
[removed]
I'm voting for it because I trust the voters of NH - not the Crazies or the Free Staters.
Well, the voters of NH voted the Free Staters and Crazies in last time. And the convention delegates are decided the same way as House members.
Can you unpack that? Wouldn't voting for it result in a bunch of crazies and free staters being sent to rewrite the constitution?
Well do you really believe there are more Freestaters than Democrats?? Than Independents?? I DON’T.
I think it's close enough, somehow, that it would be a shit show. Somehow the senate race is tightening. The house races in NH are closer than they should be. It sounds crazy, but I think slightly elevated gas prices have somehow made folks forget how dangerous and useless the right is.
As someone that worked on legislation on what should be a very low hanging fruit bipartisan topic the past 5 years, the average NH voter doesn’t really know what’s going on in a meaningful way, and tends to go with what seems familiar. A big part of this imo is the absurdly large size of NH’s government and the outdated processes NH uses to run the government/pass legislation- it’s too much for people to keep up with, especially across multiple issues. NH voters aren’t necessarily inherently untrustworthy, but too much is asked of them in order to stay informed citizens, and that is scary and allows scary things to happen.
Absolutely agree with you that NH state government is absurdly large and unwieldy. But NH voters believe it can only get worse instead of better. I vote on the basis of hope.
>NH state government is absurdly large and unwieldy.
This first random link has NH state spending as 46th in the nation.
Large & Unwieldy != Expensive The members of the state legislature (the largest legislative body in the free world) get paid a whopping $100 / annum
But cost does go up with multiple layers of bureaucracy. Imho, there are areas in which the state has too much power, but overall NH government is reasonably efficient (at least compared to other states).
That said, our decision making process is pretty slow in NH, and imho a cumbersome process is feature, and not a bug.
Well, yes and no.
NH government is reasonably INeffecient. And if you like that, this is the state for you. I became disillusioned and dissatisfied through my own personal experience as a poll worker (which I wouldn't recommend to my worst enemy). Example: Do you know why we have same day registration in NH??? I found out that this is a loophole in the Federal Motor Voter Act. You can't register to vote here in NH when you go to renew you driver's license. But you CAN do same day registration on November 8. Do you understand how rampant fraudulent voting is at the polls because of this??
We do not have vote-by-mail in NH. Instead, we have the cumbersome and costly alternative of Absentee ballots. This is ONLY a feature, if your intent is to supress Constitutional right to vote. Why would anyone WANT that??
Guess, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Comparing us to other states doesn't prove the point I think you're trying to make. Just look at how much it's grown over just the last couple decades.
Keep in mind anything added to a constitution can no longer be a ballot issue, or decided by the voters. Many pushing for Convention want to push the interests of a small group, that would not have a chance if put to a ballot. In other words take away the peoples' right to ever vote/choose on those issues.
Be aware that there has also been a long running push for a US Constitutional convention to cement policies that are not popular with the majority of citizens, and favor only a small percentage of the population. It has been slowly making progress towards that goal.
Incorrect. Even if this ballot question passed, any proposed constitutional amendments would then be put on the next statewide ballot, and would not take effect except with 60% of that vote.
And once "added to the constitution" will not be subject to reversal until another constitutional convention is called and then would be a very complex process to overturn.
Incorrect? Did you read my comment? Or did you just miscomprehend it? I didn't say that it wouldn't be voted on to get into the constitution. The crux of comment was once in the constitution, near impossible to remove. Not sure how that was incorrect.
Suppose the voters were mislead by propaganda, or subject to disinformation, or even lied to about what an amendment entailed, then inadvertently voted for policies against their interests. There would be no easy recourse once in the constitution. My point is this decision should not be taken lightly, and to consider all the potential negative ramifications - and that IS a correct statement.
Many groups who want constitutional conventions want to instill their ideological policies and remove the choice from the people to change those policies.
When you vote, you are exercising ultimate political authority, even if only a tiny fraction of it and even if limited by who is on the ballot (officials) and who isn't ("civil servants", gee thanks, Pendleton Act). With that authority, like all authority, comes the responsibility to use it wisely. Authority and responsibility are converses of one another, and are as inextricable as the positive and negative potentials in an electrical circuit. As dangerous as it is to wield authority without being responsible for the consequences of the orders you give, in equal measure it is absurd to be held responsible for something over which you have no authority to control.
When you slough off the responsibility to use authority wisely ("what if voters are mislead?"), whomever that responsibility defaults-to, takes authority over you ("because the voters could be mislead, we shouldn't let the vote happen!").
When you think about how dumb voters can be, you have a choice how to react. Maybe we should separate into smaller polities so that whoever is dumb will vote dumb things for themselves without affecting the not-so-dumb polity. Maybe we should have been more careful about only letting people vote if they actually have a stake in the system - after all, voting was not a right explicitly granted to anyone in particular, let alone "every citizen", until the 17th Amendment. Or maybe we should just let ourselves be ruled by whomever can best control the popular epistemology in their favor, and hope that their interests are aligned with ours - what could possibly go wrong?
I go with a simple formula - if Maggie Hassan is for it, I’m against it. And vis versa
Sounds kind of like a dumb way to vote, and like you're too lazy to do your own research. Aren't you guys supposed to be "independent thinkers"?
Fascinatingly brain dead way of decision making, but you do you I suppose.
I heard Maggie Hassan likes breathing air and drinking water.
Seeing how no campaign has really come out in support or opposition what will you do?
It was meant in jest. This article gives a pretty good rundown on the ballot questions coming up:
Selfless- t1_itqpoup wrote
New Hampshire voters do not have the power to make or repeal laws through referendum.
If the majority of voters vote Yes for a convention, voters will then choose delegates to that convention at the next election.
At the convention itself, a three-fifths vote of the delegates is required to send a proposed constitutional amendment to ratification.
Nothing becomes law at the convention itself. Any amendment approved by the convention would be sent to the people at the next biennial November election as a ballot question.
A two-thirds vote of those voting on the proposed amendment would be required to ratify the amendment. If the amendment does not receive a two-thirds vote, it does not take effect.
reference
Note: NH has been operating in violation of its own constitution for decades by not funding schools equally in all districts.