|
|
|
 |
Question 2 Defeated -
Thanks to all for their efforts
Unofficial and incomplete vote totals show that the NO vote on Question 2 appears to have prevailed, 51 to 49 percent.
The measure did not get as closeto a 2/3 vote as in previous elections in 2002 and 2004, and the NH Bar Association wishes to thank all of the members and other supporters of the constitution for their advocacy on the issue.
Reminder to everyone who placed a sign. Please be sure to retrieve any signs that you placed. Please recycle or dispose of them.
The Bar Association provided information about sign availability, but the signs were actually made possible by the "Keep Politics Out of the Courts Political Committee," formed by Jack Crisp and John MacIntosh to finance the signs and some advertising.
This Committee still needs support to cover these costs, and a small donation from everyone who cared about defeating Q2 would be gratefully appreciated. Donations could be made in the form of checks payable to:
Keep Politics Out of the Courts Committee
John D. MacIntosh, Treasurer
24 Montgomery Street
Concord, NH 03301
To comport with the requirements of RSA 664:6, please include the following information:
· Full Name (including middle name or initial)
· Home Address
(for Generous Contributions of $100 or more, please also include:
· Occupation, including job title
· Name of employer
· City or Town of Principal Place of Business )
Thanks again for all your efforts!
|
|
Text of Question 2
|
Art.] 73-a. [Supreme Court, Administration.] The chief justice of the supreme court shall be the administrative head of all the courts. [He] The chief justice shall, with the concurrence of a majority of the supreme court justices, make rules governing the administration of all courts in the state and the practice and procedure to be followed in all such courts. The rules so promulgated shall have the force and effect of law. The legislature shall have a concurrent power to regulate the same matters by statute. In the event of a conflict between a statute and a court rule, the statute, if not otherwise contrary to this constitution, shall prevail over the rule.
Italics and bold indicates amended language.
|
|
Tools For Advocacy
|
• Reasons to Vote NO (1 page flyer)
• Image for Sharing
• Where to Write Letters - Media
• Want to Donate?
• Lawn Sign Information
Lawn signs, paid for by an independent political committee (Keep Politics Out of the Courts Committee)
• Sign Placement Instructions
• Make Your Own Sign
|
|
Resources
|
• Official Voter's Guide Distributed at Polls
|
|
Related News Coverage
|
• Amendments face uphill climb
Lawrence Eagle Tribune , October 30, 2012
• Judge, former N.H. governor warn against ballot Question 2
Foster's Daily Democrat, October 22, 2012
More news coverage
• Going Thru...Question Two
The Exchange on NHPR, October 15, 2012
• Voters to decide 2 amendments
Union Leader, October 11, 2012
• Proposed constitutional amendment tweaks balance of power between courts, Legislature
Nashua Telegraph, October 9, 2012
• UNH Law Dean Broderick: Amendment is 'Risky'
Concord Monitor, October 8, 2012
• Supreme Court Justices Offer Amendment Compromise
Union Leader, May 3, 2012
|
|
|
|
Supporters say...
|
Opponents say...
|
...the current language is "confusing" because "some interpret it to give the judicial branch lawmaking authority" because the rules enacted by the court have the force and effect of law.
...the Legislature should be given greater authority over the courts so that it can provide more effective oversight of the Judicial Branch.
... adding this language to the Constitution will allow the Legislature to address problems, particularly in family law cases, that it has identified.
Opinion from Supporters
|
...the amendment will alter the relationship between the branches of government, tipping the balance in favor of the legislature.
... giving the legislature the power to override the courts in the creation of its rules will not address problems of alleged error or unfavorable outcomes in individual cases.
...the changes in language will NOT reduce friction and may introduce additional areas of conflict between the branches.
Opinion from Opponents
• Voter Guide One-SidedBy Larry Vogelman
• Voters Should Reject Amendment on Courts
Concord Monitor, October 29, 2012
• Separation of Powers is Fundamental
By Kristin Ross, Grafton County Bar Association President; signed also by Jason Crance and Barney Brannen
• Question 2 Erodes Separation of Powers
By Hon. Edwin Kelly, Hon. Tina Nadeau and former House Speaker Douglas Scamman
• The "Voters Guide" on Question 2 is MisleadingBy Former Supreme Court Justice Joseph Nadeau and Former Governor Stephen Merrill
• No 'confusion' about control over courts
By Rick Watrous
Concord Monitor, October 18, 2012
• CACR 26: We need to keep those ‘Checks and Balances’
The New Hampshire Labor News, October 15, 2012
• Why I Will Vote No on Question 2
By James E. Duggan
• Keep Courts Independent of Meddling Legislators
By John Broderick
Union Leader, October 12, 2012
• Amendments to Think Hard About
By Marjorie Smith (letter to editor)
Foster's, October 10, 2012
• Question 2 Won't Serve the People
By Gov. Stephen Merrill and Supreme Court Justice (retired) Joseph P. Nadeau
• Amendment Risks Separation of Powers
Nashua Telegraph, October 2, 2012
• Amendment Proposal is 'a vendetta'
By Shir Haberman
Portsmouth Herald, September 16, 2012
• The Legislature Should Not Run the Courts
Bar News, September 14, 2012
• Reject amendments to state constitution
Concord Monitor, June 8, 2012
|
|
|
|
