Rain
65°
Rain
Hi 76° | Lo 55°

Republican group releases annual vote scorecard for N.H. House members

The House Republican Alliance released its annual scorecard this week, ranking each New Hampshire House member based on how strictly he or she adhered to the alliance’s position on issues ranging from taxation to health care.

Area Republican Reps. JR Hoell of Dunbarton and Carol McGuire of Epsom ranked in the top 10, supporting the party position on 118 selected bills 97.6 and 99 percent of the time, respectively. Other area lawmakers who ranked high on the list include Rep. Dan McGuire of Epsom, with a 98.3 percent rank, and Rep. Michael Sylvia of Belmont, who voted the platform 97.9 percent of the time. The highest ranking area Democrat on the list was Rep. Christopher Andrews of Bow, who voted with the House Republican Alliance platform 19 percent of the time.

The group’s annual scorecard is the longest running measurement used to rank a House member’s votes. At the beginning of every session, the alliance distributes a pink sheet with recommendations on how to vote on bills of importance to its platform. The group’s platform focuses on shrinking government, advancing “fiscal sanity” and keeping taxes low. On average, Republican representatives voted in line with the group 83 percent of the time, while Democrats did so just 9.6 percent of the time.

Among the group’s recommendations include voting against raising the minimum wage, against legalizing casinos and against a ban on the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. The group also supports increasing funding for charter schools, delaying or dismantling the Common Core education standards and recommended voting against any bill that would raise taxes or fees. On health care, the group stood against Medicaid expansion and a bill that repealed the prohibition on a state-based health exchange. It supported a bill to raise the juvenile age for criminal proceedings from 17 to 18 and a bill to increase penalties for human trafficking, both of which passed the House with board support.

Other bills such as repealing the death penalty and establishing the crime of domestic violence were not included on the list.

The lowest ranking local Republican was Rep. Priscilla Lockwood of Canterbury, who voted with the group 43 percent of time. Rep. Dennis Fields of Sanbornton has a record of 59 percent support for the group’s platform and Rep. Neal Kurk of Weare voted with the group 73 percent of the time. Among local Democrats, Rep. Katherine Rogers of Concord, Steve Shurtleff of Penacook and Sally Kelly of Chichester had some of the lowest rankings, all voting against the Republican positions roughly 95 percent of the time.

The scorecard “dramatically demonstrates how different the parties are in their respective ideologies,” Rep. Pam Tucker, a Greenland Republican and co-chairwoman of the alliance, said in a release.

Here’s how the Republicans vying to be the next House Speaker ranked:

∎ Rep. Bill O’Brien of Mont Vernon came in at 97 percent

∎ Rep. Laurie Sanborn of Bedford had a 95 percent rating

∎ Rep. Gene Chandler of Bartlett voted with the alliance 82 percent of the time

Rep. Marilinda Garcia, a Salem Republican running for Congress in the 2nd Congressional District, voted in line with the platform 90 percent of the time, which is lower than her 96 percent last year. She broke with the platform on 11 bills. Her votes that were against the platform include voting against two constitutional amendments that would have created elections for judicial officers or allowed the Legislature to approve nominations, to support the creation of a study committee dedicated to Alzheimer’s and against allowing any university student who votes to receive in-state tuition, among other things.

(Kathleen Ronayne can be reached at 369-3309 or kronayne@cmonitor.com or on Twitter @kronayne.)

Thank you Kathleen for your last paragraph of: "Rep. Marilinda Garcia, a Salem Republican running for Congress in the 2nd Congressional District, . . . broke with the platform on 11 bills. Her votes that were AGAINST the platform include voting AGAINST two constitutional amendments that would have created ELECTIONS FOR JUDICIAL OFFICERS. . . . " (emphasis ADDed for CACR 12 (+16) within her voting record over at: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/membervotingrecord.aspx?member=376745 ) What this means is that she's a hypocrite. She and the Republicans AND Democrats are a bunch of outlaws. They KNOW that because N.H. is one of the eleven (11) states of that we can-NOT vote for our Article 46 "judicial officers" and Article 82 "Clerks of (trial) Court"s (Probate Court Clerks are elected), http://www.nh.gov/constitution/constitution.html then by the penalty pre-scribe by law we are to be allowed only one Federal Representative seat in Congress. What law you ask? Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment: "when the right to vote at any election for the choice of . . . Judicial officers of a State, . . . is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, . . . the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Right now we have too many M.O.C.'s (Members of Congress) of like in the game of football of too many players on the field, to get the ten-yard penalty! So in other words Gov. Hassan has an Article 51 duty "to execute the laws of the state AND United States" BOTH (emphasis ADDed) in choosing or tossing a coin or whatever to see whether Shea-Porter or Kuster has to go BEFORE and to purify the next election of see my RSA Ch. 666:3 complaint http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/666/666-3.htm against Hassan to the A.G.'s Office on Monday, June 16th @ 4:22 p.m. as tied to the Merrimack County Superior Court case #297 of Ed Brown v. Hassan too. THEN the rightful Rep. can TRY to revise The Reapportionment Act of 1929 to four Federal Reps per state, so that with the penalty of 4 minus 1 = 3 of the majority over the minority of 2 in the U.S. Senate. Thus to take one step backward to THEN take four steps forward. Get it?

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.