The scenes were a study in contrasts. In one, members of a task force from both parties tinkered patiently, working with state officials and aides to craft a bill that everyone could back as one.
In the other, a week later, a critical mass of House legislators, bound by no common ideology or party, waited in Representative’s Hall to buck the task force as one.
On Wednesday, the House denied a key policy priority for Gov. Chris Sununu, gutting broad pieces of a bill that was intended to prepare state businesses for a Supreme Court decision that might subject them to out-of-state sales taxes. In one swoop they left all but a study committee, setting the stripped-down bill on a collision course with the Senate, which promptly pulled the plug and killed the bill entirely.
But this is nothing new. Time after time, Senate Republicans push through a major legislative priority for the governor, voting in lockstep to advance initiatives heralded weeks in advance by rousing press conferences. And time after time, the House yanks away the victory.
Sometimes it happens quietly. When the House pushed the first version of the governor’s recovery-friendly workplace tax credit into study, they did it with a committee vote, 20-0, and finished it off on the House floor without debate.
But more often it’s with a roar. From the downfall of Marsy’s Law in April, to the narrow defeat of education savings accounts after a key committee defection, to the slow-motion demise of the 2017 House budget, House membership has practically relished in taking fully-formed policies from the Senate and governor and leaving them in shreds.
So why does it happen – and keep happening? And with an open speaker’s race approaching, how might it be stopped down the line?
For House leadership, the problem starts with the size, said Dante Scala, professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire. Even if top legislators were interested in whipping their members toward their preferred outcome, the means to keep track of and discipline the full Republican caucus are constantly lacking, Scala pointed out.
Add to that a deliberate effort by those at the top this year to avoid conflict. House Speaker Gene Chandler promised late last year that he wouldn’t shake up how things are run if elected, instead vowing to act in the caretaker role until the next election. Presently, it would seem, the building is primed against strong leadership from the Speaker’s office.
But there are deeper issues at work. Chief among them, Scala said, is that House members are motivated differently than senators. Those in the upper chamber, with thousands more constituents, are focused on the mechanics of re-election and may be more inclined to tie their decisions to their caucus leadership and party. That often means towing a tighter, more consistent line for Sununu.
Those in the House, meanwhile, are freer to pursue ideology.
“From the perspective of a House member, the House is much more democratic with a ‘small D,’ ” Scala said. “New Hampshire state senators are much more – they’re not professional politicians, but they’re a lot closer to incumbents in Congress than your average member of the House.”
House members tend to splinter in subgroups. Balancing those groups, commanding their respect, keeping unity – all fall within the toolkit of an effective speaker, Scala said.
“The potential for different factions in the majority means that you need a leadership structure that is very, I think, sensitive and kind of responsive,” he said.
Does that mean a heavy hand from the third-floor office? Not everyone agrees. For one House speaker candidate, seeking out top-down leadership in the House is looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
The leadership culture must improve, said Rep. Laurie Sanborn, R-Bedford, who voted in favor of the tax bill Wednesday. But if change is to happen, she argued, it needs to come from the backbenchers, not the corner office.
“The longstanding tradition of an exclusive, top-down management style has marginalized House members and needs to change if we are to make the most of their volunteer enthusiasm, talents and valuable time,” she said.
It’s a tantalizing idea, but one far easier laid out in speeches than actions. Majority Leader Dick Hinch, after all, said something similar back in June, upon announcing his own run for Speaker. A month later, reacting to the downfall of a bill he helped craft, Hinch was blaming Democrats.
Whatever promises are made, if the last two years have shown anything, pleasing the House rank-and-file is going to take a lot more than lip service.
Still, for all the political philosophy, Sanborn offered a simpler rationale for Wednesday’s result. “The House doesn’t like it when the Senate ‘calls the shots’,” she said.
That much is clear.
For New Hampshire businesses, the political machinations in Concord are likely to matter far less than what comes next. Absent a detailed process in state law, how should those businesses react to a letter from a jurisdiction demanding sales tax?
Even as the bill was going down in flames, lawmakers were giving a clear answer Wednesday: the Department of Justice. Despite a lack of formal process in law, legislators said, the department is still available for advice.
Department officials echoed that suggestion. James Vara, department chief of staff and associate attorney general, said the Attorney General’s office is still evaluating what its options are in lieu of Wednesday’s bill, and will be releasing a detailed roadmap in the coming days. But he invited businesses to reach out to the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau within the department with their letter, if for no other reason than to determine whether it’s fraudulent.
“We want to ensure that if someone is receiving something, that they’re receiving something properly,” Vara said. “Like in any scenario, there’s people out there who would want to take advantage.”
As for the threat itself? Many have argued that given the present uncertainties – not least of which is a pending South Dakota Supreme Court final decision on that state’s law after the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case on its facts – little action is likely to be taken on a grand scale.
But jurisdictions other than the state of South Dakota are free to do as they please, and some lawmakers say the problem has already arrived. Rep. Lynne Ober, R-Hudson, a member of the task force, said last week she had already heard from businesses who have received the letters.
Vara could not comment directly on whether the department has received complaints from businesses.
It was never really going to work, but the Democrats still gave it a try.
As members of the House idled in their seats in anticipation of the Senate’s decision on Wednesday’s tax bill, Sen. Dan Feltes and other Democrats had their eyes on different matters. Feltes had drafted a bill that would set aside $7.5 million from the state’s $22 million surplus to go toward state-set reimbursement rates for mental health and substance abuse treatment facilities.
Under the new Medicaid expansion bill, those rates are set to automatically dip next year due to a change in the program’s delivery system, but the Department of Health and Human Services is tasked with making sure the new rates are still “sufficient” to provide adequate care. Feltes and other Democrats argued that while the department is not set to unveil its decided rates until September at the earliest, setting aside emergency money would ensure that providers could rest easy that the state would meet its obligations.
The effort prompted more than a few eye-rolls from Sen. Jeb Bradley, one of the key architects of the bill.
“His proposition is way premature,” he said. He added: “Senator Feltes has no plan. He’s just shoveling money at something that we know there is an issue, but there has to be a process that deals with actuaries.”
Instead, Bradley countered, the Legislature should let Health and Human Services Commissioner Jeffrey Meyers set the rates, and any need to move department funds around could be done later through the Fiscal Committee.
In a series of votes, Senate Republicans blocked the amendment from proceeding.
The votes marked one of a series of defeats for Democrats on Wednesday. Legislation by Feltes and Sen. Donna Soucy, D-Manchester, to explore ways to combat tariffs set by President Donald Trump that have hurt some New Hampshire businesses in recent weeks were also rebuffed.
Perhaps to head off Democrats’ hopes of election year soundbites, Senate President Chuck Morse quickly moved that the efforts be found non-germane, ending debate before it had begun.
Republican senators agreed.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen is getting a familiar neighbor.
The former governor’s portrait in the reception area of the governor’s office will soon be bordered to its right by the official portrait of John Lynch, New Hampshire’s 80th governor. The portrait, estimated to be worth $22,000, was accepted by the Executive Council on Friday to be hung in the reception room, which houses the six most recent gubernatorial portraits.
Moving out of the room? Governor number 74: Hugh Gallen, a Democrat who served from 1979 to 1982. He’ll be placed in the hall.