Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.

 

House had every reason to vote to override veto on Wednesday

  • Published in Letters

To the editor,

There was not a reason in the world that Wednesday's N.H. House schedule could not be changed to reflect the governor’s veto of last Friday, March 23.

There were 54 bills and 28 amendments coming up on Wednesday and Thursday. If each of them is to be given there usual 20 minute hearing, we would be in session from 9 a.m., all the way to midnight, each day, 15 hours each day.

Most of the bills that are on the scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday ...

To the editor,

There was not a reason in the world that Wednesday's N.H. House schedule could not be changed to reflect the governor’s veto of last Friday, March 23.

There were 54 bills and 28 amendments coming up on Wednesday and Thursday. If each of them is to be given there usual 20 minute hearing, we would be in session from 9 a.m., all the way to midnight, each day, 15 hours each day.

Most of the bills that are on the scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday — certainly half of them, if not more than half of them — have been well heard by the various committees and essentially all of them can be placed on the Consent Calendar

Allowing the veto to be heard on Wednesday was important enough to occasion a change in schedule, because none of them, none of the approximately 54 bills AND 20 amendments, none of them have anywhere nearly as much importance as the redistricting bill.

Alternatively we could have fallen back on “Miller’s Law” Dr. Miller came up with “Miller’s” Law as a way to understand unusual happenings.

Briefly Miller’s Law states whenever you see something unexplainable Assume that it is explainable and then find out what it could explain.

In this case what is attained is what was intended. It make no difference whether we voted to over-ride the veto or not. It is almost certain that the bill will become a court case and that the Supreme Court will again “hear” the case, and (unnecessarily) the court will again decide that the court will again re-district the House election districts.

What is about to be attained is that the court, again, will set the election districts for the House. Everything that has happened about redistricting is explainable when one sees that what was attained (to take redistricting out of the hand of the Legislature) is what was, from last March even until today, was the result that was “always intended”.

Rep. Robert Kingsbury

Laconia