Most people know, given the Donald Trump phenomenon, that the nature of America, its policies at home and abroad, and the tenor of its politics all hang on what happens in November’s election.
So, too, given the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the age of other justices, does the long-term direction of the highest court in the land. The stakes are enormous. But few people realize that New Hampshire faces an even bigger potential change. In fact, a year from now the Granite State could be a different place with a different feel.
The outcome will depend on candidate recruitment (the filing period ends on Friday) and turnout (and whether Donald Trump has a negative effect on it).
New Hampshire, once a conservative bastion, has been a purple state that leans blue in most years.
A Democrat has served as governor for 18 of the past 20 years. Republicans, with a few exceptions, have controlled the Legislature.
As in Washington and across the land, voters and officeholders are polarized, compromise is hard to achieve, and civility, let alone collegiality, is a thing of the past. The result has often been paralysis and rancor, factors that cause people who abhor trench warfare and stasis to leave politics or not run in the first place.
In New Hampshire, control of every branch of government could conceivably change, though Republicans, thanks to gerrymandering, are almost certain to retain control of the House.
At the top, New Hampshire will get a new governor to replace Maggie Hassan, who is competing for Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s Senate seat. So far there are three Democrats seeking to replace Hassan and four Republicans.
The Senate, currently split between 14 Republicans and 10 Democrats, has been able to achieve at least occasional compromise, as it did with its decision to expand Medicaid to insure what has grown to be more than 40,000 residents.
Eight sitting senators, however – six Republicans and two Democrats – are running for higher office or retiring this year.
Four of the Republicans are moderates who joined with Democrats to expand Medicaid. Voters will know in a few days, but the GOP candidates seeking to replace them are likely to be more conservative, perhaps much more. If so, a Democratic governor will have a harder time acting on his or her agenda, and a Republican governor, even one from the party’s extreme wing, may not have a check on even unbalanced proposals.
The Executive Council, which must approve state contracts and gubernatorial appointments, often with sensational effect, could also change hands. Two of its members, Democrat Colin Van Ostern and Republican Chris Sununu, are running for governor.
Control of the governor’s office and the Executive Council will also determine the character of New Hampshire’s Supreme Court for a decade or more.
Three of the five sitting justices, Chief Justice Linda Dalianis and Justices Robert Lynn and Carol Ann Conboy, will also reach the mandatory retirement age of 70 during the term of the next governor. Their replacements could help determine the ultimate fate of the Northern Pass hydroelectric project or the constitutionality of New Hampshire’s inadequate support of public education.
In 2017, will New Hampshire be the purple state that makes it the ideal place for the first presidential primary in the nation or a more solidly red or blue state than it’s been in the past?
Will voters disgusted at the thought of a blustery, inexperienced reality TV star stay home?
Will voters unenthusiastic about Hillary Clinton do the same?
We’ll know on Nov. 9.