Representation in the New Hampshire State Legislature

         State governments across the United States vary in design for many reasons. Every state is different and wants their governments to reflect that. One big way many are different is the size of their legislature. New Hampshire has an abnormally larger sized Legislature than other states, the question is, does it truly represent the constituents a greater deal than other states?   Similar to many people, I have always wondered if my Representatives were actually representing their constituents and actually doing a public service or not.
        Vermont for example has 150 State Representatives to their population of roughly 630,000 compared to their neighbor, New Hampshire with 400 State Representatives to a population around 1.3 million. In 2014, a Vermont State Representative earned about $660.00 a week during session plus $61.00 a day for meals and commute (Legislators). At the same time, a New Hampshire State Representative earned $100.00 a year plus $.56 a mile for commute. Just between two neighboring states shows a dramatic difference is size.
        With the fourth largest chamber in the world, does it perform for it's constituents better than Vermont's? The only way to find out is to do an experiment. Working with two family friends who live in Vermont in two different districts and also working with two New Hampshire residents, we designed the experiment. Each resident would contact their State Representative with a personal issue they wanted help on. Our hypothesis was with a Vermont State Representative working with larger district geographically, it would take longer to hear back from them than it would for the New Hampshire resident.
         The results were both of the New Hampshire residents heard back from their representatives within a week while both of the Vermont residents are still waiting a response. There are various reasons we may have not yet heard back from either Vermont State Representative, but the advantage the New Hampshire residents had was they have a floterial  State Representative also to contact if their district Representative
        As a New Hampshire State Representative myself, I experience first hand the amount of work and constituent service the job takes. There are times it is almost impossible to reply every constituent who contacts you about an issue or a personal problem, but the dedication to public service is the reason why I and many of my colleagues do what we do because it surely is not for the money. While there may be flaws with the New Hampshire State Legislature, there are in all governments, the one thing to be assured of is with the fourth largest Legislature, you can be assured you will get help from your government. It may not be the most efficient because of the amount of Representatives, but it represents the people of New Hampshire very well.

Legislators, National Conference of State. 2014 State Legislator Compensation | Living Expense Allowances During Session . 11 April 2014. 23 February 2017.

 

Women in Politics...New Hampshire

New Hampshire was home to the Republican Party; the party was founded in 1853  in the town of Exeter, New Hampshire. New Hampshire voted mainly Republican up until the 1970’s. It wasn’t until the 1990’s when the state became a swing state. I believe that being a swing state is a benefit, it brings the ideologies of so many different people together and not just one majority way of thinking. It can change election to election, I’m hopeful in our history that it continues to be a swing state. I believe each party has good ideologies that need to have the switching on and off to keep things in the right direction and a group doesn't take charge that doesn't represent everyone.

New Hampshire has had a number of milestones when it comes to a number of things; politics is no different. The 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920, it is what gave women the right to vote in every single state. In the election right after women’s suffrage ended, two women were voted into legislation by the people. That was 1921, that women were already becoming involved in something that was a man’s job.  

Women have had a major victory in New Hampshire politics in the recent history. It was 2008 that women held a majority in the Senate. Women in New Hampshire had another big victory in 2012 when for the first time it held a all-female congressional delegation. It was the first all-female congressional delegation in the nation. Having women have a big role in what is basically a volunteer position is extremely important because it shows women can be good wives and mothers but also be smart, career women. It gives off a positive role that hasn't always been portrayed throughout the United States history. (Women Wielding Power-New Hampshire)

Hillary Clinton ran for President in 2008 with the state of New Hampshire being the first state to back a woman running for one of the two parties. Though she lost the primary, it was at the time the closest a woman had gotten to breaking the ultimate glass ceiling. Hillary ran for office again for the 2016 Presidency where this time during the primary she wasn't favored in New Hampshire, yet she went on to secure the nomination for the Democratic party. In the election, Clinton secured New Hampshire by only about 2,000 more votes than her Republican opponent. The diverse group of New Hampshire people had a hand in what could have been a historic night for women and America in general; again the ultimate glass ceiling was not broken with the election of a women president, instead Hillary’s opponent was elected to office. No matter who says her being a women didn't matter, it did. There are people who say women can't do a "man's job", women in politics are here to show that it isn't a man's job.

This was the first Presidential election that I would personally vote in and would I be lying if I said the idea of voting for a woman to become President didn't make me giddy with delight? Probably. For me, the ultimate decision wouldn't be made to cast my ballot because she was a woman, she happened to be the candidate for the party my ideologies align with more but still the idea of giving girls someone to look up a positive role was empowering. Children are told they can do anything and growing up I never thought I could be President because I was a girl (a little timid too) and I don't remember my teacher in saying girls could become President. I hope women continue to run for office and try to move into the White House as more than the First Lady. I’m proud my beautiful state and their history has made it easier for women to become involved in politics and everyone should be excited for the amount of history New Hampshire has left to make.

Women Wielding Power-New Hampshire. (n.d.). Retrieved February 21, 2017, from

https://www.nwhm.org/online-exhibits/legislators/New_Hampshire.html

Rogers, J. (2012, November 10). What An All-Female Delegation Says About N.H.

Retrieved February 21, 2017, from

http://www.npr.org/2012/11/10/164842066/what-an-all-female-delegation-says-about-n-h

Party politics across state lines

As we all know the structure of a state government varies state by state. With my own personal experiances I was able to pin point some of the major differences between the New Hampshire and Massachusetts legislature. 

New Hampshire:
        In the granite state there are a few things you should know about the set up of their current legislature. This basically volunteer job is an attempt to ward off any corruption seen between members of the legislature and lobbyists alike. Walking into the front flag room of the state house is mesmerizing and the crowds of protesters make it feel like you are in a hearing that could change someones life.... oh wait. Sitting in on a Health and Human services hearing is often times emotional and combative due to the severity of the material being argued. I was lucky enough to witness our state legislature set up things like drug courts and object (but later pass) medicaid expansion. All of which was irrelevant to me at the time until I started to see things passed into law. Needless to say, it opened my eyes to just how much legislature is passed that effects me daily. I worked for the Senate Finance committee where we talked about the budget.... A LOT. Everyone wants funding, I don't care if you are at a local, state, or federal level, everyone has an opinion on where the funds should be allocated. This stepping stone internship taught me things like workplace behavior, how to dress in a formal setting, and how to interact properly with dignified individuals.
          Senate sessions were on Thursday each week and sometimes lasted all day. I worked directly with one of the most powerful members of the senate. Her opinions helped shape some of the social programs New Hampshire has in place today (and she was a Republican). With 400 members of the house and 24 senators, plus an executive council and a governor, the passing of a bill that leans too far either way is VERY hard. In this republic, members are elected to vote in a way that represents their consitiuents accurately. Meaning legislators from the north country may vie for different bills to pass than ones from the seacoast, and so on. I was able to see first hand how New Hampshire handles expenses with very little tax revenue. I could go on and on about the monotonous details but I think you get the big picture.

What should be asked, is this the best way for a state to represent the ideas of its constituents?


Massachusetts:
       In my home state of Massachusetts, I found comfort in knowing that I was involved in the passing of laws that would one day effect my family. For some reason that hits home.... literally. One issue I was working in the commonwealth for was the assault weapon ban that Attorney General Healey put forth. This caused an uproar from the constituents of now Governor, Charlie Baker. My duties included answering calls and how I like to put it, talking people off the ledge. The calls varied when we weren't at press events we were to man the phones. Some pleading with us to help them get their child back from DSS or that they only have a week left and need housing before they live on the streets. What I found more often than not was that there was a reason these people kept calling, their message often times went unanswered. That was until they hired paid interns. On my first day I remember feeling so overwhelmed because I was no longer in a room of my peers be also my competitors. Kids from well connected, extremely wealthy families that knew the governor PERSONALLY, I mean they practically brunched together every weekend. For me this challenge was one I could not lose. I made friends with these kids and found some only have their resume to offer, they had no personal skills and could not carry a conversation to save their lives. But thats beside the point.... this is about government structure.
       I have my qualms about the state legislature like I do with any aspect of government. One thing I had a few questions about was the rule in the state constitution that says the legislature must meet every 72 hours. In Mass voters get the opportunity to vote on line items that go into effect at a later date. The major difference between state lines is that people now have an opportunity to vote on things even their elected officials would say no to.... that could be why Mass is considered a more progressive state (just my theory).  These full time legislators seemed more involved and present because they were paid adequately for the job preformed. All in all, neither is perfect and both approaches seem to please residents of the state but backlash is inevitable.

As a critical thinker and tech savvy milennial, I suggest going on each state government's website to see which would best represent your political agenda before packing your bags.

Political Party History of New Hampshire

This is from an article Dr. Egbert and I wrote for State Party Profiles: A 50-State Guide to Development, Organization, and Resources, Andrew M. Appleton and Daniel S. Ward, eds. for CQ Press, 1997.

Political Parties in New Hampshire reflect the enduring characteristics of the state: a homogeneous population, a moderately high level of economic prosperity, dominance by a narrow range of political interests, and a traditional and amateur governmental structure. New Hampshire, with a population less than 2% racial minority and ethnic minorities that have tended to be as conservative as the majority white populatioon, has endured few deep and lasting cleavages among its major groups. The state has no large cities, few large employers, and no dominant industry. Interests such as railroads, newspapers, textile manufacturing, lumber, and tourism have been dominant only in alliances with one another rather than individually. The structure of government, especially the amateur nature of the 424 member legislature, has made party organization difficult. Consequently, the state has had a one-party system except during a few transitional periods. Further, dominance by a single party has made strong organization difficult for the minority party and unnecessary for the party in the majority. The recent switch to a Democratic Majority bodes change for the state's party structucture.

PARTY HISTORY

Several themes run through the history of New Hampshire political parties: dominance by a single party, strong party organization and competition only during transitional periods, cycles of corruption and reform, the influence of coalitions of powerful interests, and the impact of strong personalities.

At first, New Hampshire was among the strongest of the Federalist states; the state's Puritan Congregationalism was synonymous with the Federalist Party. Most town charters required that land be set aside to build a church, the state constitution required towns to support a Congregational minister, and public office was restricted to Protestants (Heffernana and Stecher 1981, 103).

Federalists began to lose support in the granite State when their reckless abuse of power became evident in the Union Bank fight of 1800. John Langdon, a Democrat-Republican, organized a new bank which made small loans on easy terms. The state legislature refused to charter Langdon's bank since the state owned a considerable interest in the state's only bank, the New Hampshire Bank. Langdon and the Democratic-Republicans, unable to obtain loans at the New Hampshire Bank, paralyed this into a hard-fought campaign alleging the denial of the charter was just "another piece of Federalist intolerance." (Robinson, 1916, 30).

In 1806 the Democratic-Republican Party became the majority party. New Hampshire's people were ideologically much more closely aligned to the party of Jefferson, so the change is not surprising. During the transitional period after the turn of the century, the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans created permanent hierarchical organizations. The latter, still using the legislative caucus for nominations, created a "Grand Committee of Elections and Correspondence" and subordinate local bodies, and the existing New Hampshire Gazette (which continues publishing today) became the party organ. The grand committee appointed and controlled county committees, which in turn appointed and controlled town committees (Robinson 1916, 63).

Bitter conflict between the parties was in evidence when the newly empowered Democratic-Republican legislature took over Dartmouth College as a state university, revising its governance and relieving former Federalist trustees of the property and records of the institution. Daniel Webster represented the trustees in court to reverse what Jager and Jager (1983, 58) referred to as this "novel process of creative theft." The decision against the trustees in the Supreme Court of New Hampshire was reversed by the Federalist-leaning United States Supreme Court (Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat 518 [1819]), which found the legislature's actions in violation of the impairment of contracts clause of Art. I, sec. 10.

The transfer of power from the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans to the Jacksonian Democrats was complete in New Hampshire by about 1835. Important political figures, of former or later national stature, behind the Democratic Party organization in the state included Isaac Hill, editor, U.S. senator, and governor; Levi Woodbury, governor, U.S. senator, secretary of the navy and the Treasury, and justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; and Franklin Pierce, W.S. senator and later president of the United States. Jacksonian Democrats brought the spirit of reform to the state, and New Hampshire became a leader in the treatment of the insane, prison reform, public education, religious toleration, improved working conditions, and abolition of imprisonment for debt. The Democrats replaced "king caucus" with the state party convention and solidified their power by controlling most newspapers in the state.
The next transitional period began as the Democratic Party split into two conflicting wings in 1842. Independent Democrats, Whigs and abolitionists combined to control the legislature in 1846. Reform efforts continued as railroads and other large interests were subject to state regulation. The issue of slavery unified the remnants of the Whig Party, the Free Soilers, the Know Nothings, rebellious Democrats, and other smaller groups to provide the basis for the Republican Party. In 1853 Amos Tuck called a meeting at his home in Exeter, New Hampshire, where those invited claimed to have conceived and named the Republican Party (Jager and Jager 1983, 61). The Republicans elected their first governor in 1857, and in the 150 years since, only seven Democrats have occupied the New Hampshire executive office.

Following the Civil War, Republican hegemony supported rampant corruption and huge increases in political spending. William Chandler, former owner of the New Hampshire Statesman and Concord Monitor, while serving in the U.S. Senate chronicled the heightened role of political money at the time. he wrote that big money first appeared in 1882, when railroads began to spend "immense" amounts (Chandler 1898, 8). The state party supported candidates directly, and the state committee chair had the discretion to dispense all state party funds (Chadler 1898, 13). Some recipients signed contracts: "In consideration of one hundred dollars, I agree to vote as the maker and prior endorser [party chair, railroad, etc.] of this draft may direct" (Chandler 1898, 15). Free railroad passes and retainers for lawyers were provided openly. By 1907, critic Frank Putnam would write that the man who really governed New Hampshire was "the president of the Boston and Maine Railroad" (Jager and Jager 1983, 61). Republican ascendance in this era did not translate into party government. There was an absence of clear party ideology and organization. Tradition, slogans, "strong personalities, enormous egos and ambitions both broad and narrow fired the political system" (Wright 1987, 53).

New Hampshire joined the progressive movement by passing legislation curbing free railroad passes in 1907. In 1909 the legislature voted to require reporting of legislative concerns and expenditures of lobbyists, to require use of the direct primary to nominate party candidates. Progressives were the first to understand and take advantage of the new nomination process, electing Robert Bass as governor in 1910. Under Bass, the legislature regulated utilties and monopolies and provided for child labor reform, workmen's compensation, factory inspections, and forest protection.

The feud between Roosevelt Bull Moose Progressives and the Taft Republicans spilled into New Hampshire. As the Republicans feuded, New Hampshire Democrats organized to elect Samuel Felker governor in 1912, the Executive Council, a majority of the legislature, and a United States senator. In the first election following ratification of the 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1913 mandating the direct election of U.S. Senators, the Republicans swept back into power and remained the dominant party, until the 2006 elections.

ReferencesChandler, William E. 1898. The growth in the use of money in politics in New Hampshire. Manchester Union, Dec. 24 and 28 (A reprint, by Rumford Press, Concord, N.H., appeared in 1899.)

Heffernan, Nancy Coffey, and Ann Page Stecker. 1981. New Hampshire: Crosscurrents in its development.Grantham, NH: Tompson and Rutter.

Jager, Ronald, and Grace Jager. 1983. New Hampshire:An illustrated history of the Granite State.
Woodland Hills, Calif.: Windsor.

Robinson, William A. 1916. Jeffersonian democracy in New England. New York: Greenwood Press.

Wright, James. 1987. The Progressive Yankees: Republican reformers in New hampshire: 1906-1916.
Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. 

Welcome to the Spring 2017 Class!

Welcome to our blog! The first step for class members is to set up an account with Blogger if they do not already have a google account. so I can add you to this blog so you can get started posting! You should have received an invitation from me. You do not have to use your name, but please be sure to let me know what it is so that you get credit for your participation.

A few rules to follow:

1. No profanity or obscenities! This Blog will maintain professional standards of discourse!

2. No jerks.

3. No incivility. You are expected to treat one another with respect and offer constructive comments.

4. follow all rules about fair use of material--copyrights etc.

Remember you are expected to comment on your classmate's posts!!

Now....get blogging!