Floor fight on #SB129 requiring id to vote-passed259 to 116. I voted in minority. blurb attached #nhhouse #nhpolitics

SB 129-FN, relative to presenting photo identification to vote in person and relative to the election fund.  MAJORITY:  OUGHT TO PASS.  MINORITY:  INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.

Rep. Charles E Sova for the Majority of Finance:  The fiscal notes for this bill left a great deal to be desired.  The data was mostly guesses and the preparers when pressed admitted there was no way to really know what is going to happen.  However this bill provides an opportunity to collect data in the 2011 city elections, the 2012 Presidential primary and the 2012 municipal elections that would lead to more accurate fiscal calculations.  The question of whether the legislation was legal or not also kept coming up.  Due to the November 1, 2012 effective date for using photo ID, in order to receive a ballot or a provisional ballot should you not have an ID on the day of the election, it will provide more than ample time to answer all these fiscal and legal questions.  Finally, if the data or legal questions produce unfavorable results for the bill, there will be time next year to fix the legislation or delay its implementation. Vote 18-8.      

Rep. Robert A Foose for the Minority of Finance:  The minority cannot support the committee recommendation on SB 129 and asks that a vote of ITL be made.  Reacting solely from the perspective of how SB 129 would impact the budget, there will be an additional cost to the secretary of state's budget.  While there also was inconclusive testimony regarding the impact on cities and towns, there was a clear indication that there will be some level of additional costs downshifted from the state.  The minority believes that, in a period that demands fiscal restraint, it is not logical to incur additional budgetary pressure.  Regarding the transition period before the law is fully implemented, the minority has a real concern that the recent improper behavior by the clerk in New Boston may be repeated across the state with real consequences on voter access unless a serious budgetary investment is made in additional training and voter education.  

#nhhouse is in session

#nhhouse not convened yet...

Roll call to end session passes 255 to 119. #nhhouse session closes

"no other business in front of this House" Rep Jasper #nhhouse #fightforRTWvote #rtw #nhpolitics

Roll call on third reading which will close session for the day. #nhhouse #nhpolitics #Rtw

Point of order by Rep Vaillancout. Member is called to order by Speaker. Rep Soltani is escorted to seat. #nhhouse #nhpolitics #rtw

Rep Soltani arguing with Speaker and challenging decision not to take up vote on veto. #rtw #nhhouse #nhpolitics

No vote on #RTW today. What a shame. #rtw #nhhouse #nhpolitics

NH Works Now; Why Change it?" 1985 Union-Leader editorial AGAINST RTW @unionleader #rtw #nhhouse #nhpolitics

"NH Works Now; Don't Change it"
1985 Union-Leader editorial AGAINST RTW

One of the most unnecessary bills before the Legislature is House Bill 5-97. Called the "right to work" bill, it is also the most misnamed. It should be called the "right to bust unions" bill, the "right to freeload" bill, or the "right to low pay" bill. New Hampshire is known as a good place to live and a good place to work, so why make changes? Business keeps coming into the state, our work force grows, and our unemployment drops. , So~ evidently, the threat of unions isn't scaring off industry. Only about 20 percent of our labor force are union members. There are many more happy, well-respected working people in New Hampshire than there are in some, of the southern' 'right to work" states, and their businesses down there aren't doing that much better, if at all. Those who support the bill in the name of freedom of choice have forgotten freedom of voice. The team of employer-employee is what makes a business succeed and we wonder at the justice of denying part of that team the chance to speak for themselves. A new worker accepts the benefits of decent wages and conditions and we see little wrong in his or her support of whoever made that possible. He also accepts the regulation of company rules and those rules don't deny him freedom any more than the rules of union membership. We would rather be part of an organization that respects the rights of all and we can speak from experience. The Union Leader has a fine team of five unions and we have had some good, healthy disagreements. However, we would hope that the success of this company is the mutual aim of management and labor here. We may represent different personal interests, but we couldn't get the paper to your door without the efforts of all of us. . For those who say that big 'union bosses can be bad, there have been bad managers as well. It's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater to condemn all for a few bad actors. If you want to talk about political influence, we ask just how well big-union-supported Walter Mondale did in 1984? Those who want the "right to work" bill in New Hampshire are, we suspect, hypocritical in claiming to defend the rights of the common man. They seem more interested in punishment for political reasons or in putting the working men and women in their "place." They show little interest in preserving New Hampshire’s healthy business and industry climate for the welfare of all. It works. Why change it?