I applaud Executive Councilor Mike Cryans’s announcement that he will not vote to confirm Gordon MacDonald as Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. After giving MacDonald a full and fair hearing, Cryans is rightfully concerned about his legal views on abortion and voting rights for college students, as well as the fact that MacDonald has zero experience on the bench.
At the Executive Council hearing last week, the legal profession was out in force to verify the credentials and good character of MacDonald. I was there too, speaking for people like me who are on the receiving end of judicial decisions and who have to live with them. MacDonald’s credentials and character are not in dispute. Any judicial nominee would be expected to have these qualities. MacDonald’s qualifications are not an issue; his lack of a judicial record and experience on the bench are.
In his opening statement, MacDonald offered a legal argument to justify avoiding answering many serious questions posed by the councilors. This prevented the Council from gathering germane information. Cloaking his argument in generalities like, “I will uphold the law,” MacDonald refused to provide key information about how he regards Roe v. Wade that would have the enabled the councilors to understand his likely judicial behavior should this issue devolve to the states. Since he has no record as a judge, never having been one, answers to these probing questions were essential. MacDonald chose to evade them.
The chief justice must interpret the New Hampshire Constitution. While MacDonald vowed to lay aside his personal views, I am concerned about his legal views. Two judges can look at the same document, such as the U.S. Constitution, and come up with two diametrically opposed interpretations based on their individual legal views. Based on the record available to us, I think it is safe to say that one of the reasons MacDonald was chosen by Gov. Chris Sununu for this position was his restrictive legal views on abortion.
While MacDonald refused to provide the Council with direct information regarding his legal views on abortion, there is enough in his record to warrant serious concern about how he would interpret the state Constitution should the occasion arise. He has long been associated with people or entities that have a deep opposition to women controlling their own bodies. For example, MacDonald worked closely with Gordon Humphrey when that former senator proposed a Constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion in any form. He was evasive when asked about his involvement in that effort.
One can only assume that MacDonald shares these anti-choice views, not only personally, but as a matter of legal interpretation. His testimony did nothing to dispel this logical assumption. It is important to note that MacDonald’s repeated promises to uphold settled law would not apply if Roe is overturned, since N.H. has no legal precedent in this matter. The risk of thousands of New Hampshire women losing control over their own bodies is simply too great in this case.
Finally, I am appalled by the ad hominem attacks on Cryans from disappointed Republicans. I am one of his constituents. Mike Cryans is an honest, decent, hard-working public servant. He is well-known to us in the North Country. To impugn his integrity with unfounded, petty attacks is beneath our friends across the aisle.
(Nancy Martland lives in Sugar Hill.)