Chairman's Corner
Welcome to the Chairman's Corner, where Committee Chair Bob Perry keeps us up on issues and actions. Check back often!
New! Update on Independent Redistricting |
REPEAL OF THE NH DEATH PENALTY (May 2019)
Since 1998, Robert “Renny” Cushing, current state representative from Hampton, has advocated for repeal of the state’s death penalty, even after his father and another member of his family were murdered. Cushing has traveled to other countries with the same message. Sponsors of the bill include Democrats and Republicans. Core to the intent of the bill is the analysis set forth within the bill’s framework below:
ANALYSIS
This bill (House Bill 455) changes the penalty for capital murder to life imprisonment without the possibility for parole. On Tuesday, May 21, the NH House of Representatives, by a single vote, overrode Gov. Sununu’s veto. A 2/3 vote was required to override. On Thursday, May 30, the NH Senate voted 16 – 8 to override the governor’s veto, making NH the 21 st state to eliminate capital punishment. A 2/3 vote was required to override. With the advent of DNA evidence, together with barbaric executions via botched lethal injection, public support for the death penalty has plummeted. Below is brief background justifying life imprisonment versus execution:
Illinois placed a moratorium on the death penalty, and later repealed it, after the courts dismissed the cases of 13 men placed on death row. Before leaving office in 2003, doubting the criminal justice system’s ability to prevent wrongful executions, Republican Gov. George Ryan commuted the sentences of 167 inmates to life in prison. Among the many defendants sentenced to death or extended prison described at The Innocence Project, Kirk Bloodsworth, wrongly convicted multiple times of rape and murder of a 9-year old girl in 1985, and sentenced to die in Maryland’s gas chamber, was the first to be exonerated by DNA evidence after serving 8 years on death row. Before being exonerated, an Innocence Project case study reports that Malcolm Alexander holds the record for having served the most time in prison, 38 years, for a crime he did not commit. The most common reasons for wrongful convictions are witness misidentification, government misconduct, incompetent legal counsel, and faulty forensic evidence.
The Innocence Project has concluded that among other Texas executions, Cameron Todd Willingham was likely put to death wrongfully. Willingham was convicted of intentionally setting fire to his home with the intent to kill his 3 daughters. The opinions of forensic experts regarding how the fire started was questioned before and after the execution. NPTV Frontline documentary on the Willingham investigation: https://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-death-by-fire/
Many more examples of wrongful death or imprisonment: https://www.innocenceproject.org/all-cases/
Due to the number of appeals advanced on behalf of those convicted, sometimes spanning decades, it is less expensive to sentence a person to a lifetime of imprisonment than to sentence to death. The fiscal note attached to HB 455 recognizes the statement above as factual.
View In Depth NH’s video coverage of the history-making senate session, including the views of senators pro and con on death penalty repeal, as presented by Chair of the Senate Election Law and Municipal Affiairs Committee, Rep. Melanie Levesque (D-Brookline); and Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0V8khVppfY&feature=youtu.bewww.youtube.com/watch?v=O0V8khVppfY&feature=youtu.be
The three sentencing goals of long standing established by our judicial system to establish justice are punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation. Vengeance and political gain are not among them. Death is final. Once executed, the result is the same, and no amount of post-death exculpatory evidence collection will ever matter.
How did Strafford’s representatives and senator vote on whether to support the governor’s veto?
Sen. John Reagan – supported the governor’s veto
Rep. Michael Harrington – supported the governor’s veto
Rep. Kurt Wuelper – supported the governor’s veto
“And so, to the end of history, murder shall breed murder, always in the name of right and honor and peace, until the gods are tired of blood and create a race that can understand.” - George Bernard Shaw
ANALYSIS
This bill (House Bill 455) changes the penalty for capital murder to life imprisonment without the possibility for parole. On Tuesday, May 21, the NH House of Representatives, by a single vote, overrode Gov. Sununu’s veto. A 2/3 vote was required to override. On Thursday, May 30, the NH Senate voted 16 – 8 to override the governor’s veto, making NH the 21 st state to eliminate capital punishment. A 2/3 vote was required to override. With the advent of DNA evidence, together with barbaric executions via botched lethal injection, public support for the death penalty has plummeted. Below is brief background justifying life imprisonment versus execution:
Illinois placed a moratorium on the death penalty, and later repealed it, after the courts dismissed the cases of 13 men placed on death row. Before leaving office in 2003, doubting the criminal justice system’s ability to prevent wrongful executions, Republican Gov. George Ryan commuted the sentences of 167 inmates to life in prison. Among the many defendants sentenced to death or extended prison described at The Innocence Project, Kirk Bloodsworth, wrongly convicted multiple times of rape and murder of a 9-year old girl in 1985, and sentenced to die in Maryland’s gas chamber, was the first to be exonerated by DNA evidence after serving 8 years on death row. Before being exonerated, an Innocence Project case study reports that Malcolm Alexander holds the record for having served the most time in prison, 38 years, for a crime he did not commit. The most common reasons for wrongful convictions are witness misidentification, government misconduct, incompetent legal counsel, and faulty forensic evidence.
The Innocence Project has concluded that among other Texas executions, Cameron Todd Willingham was likely put to death wrongfully. Willingham was convicted of intentionally setting fire to his home with the intent to kill his 3 daughters. The opinions of forensic experts regarding how the fire started was questioned before and after the execution. NPTV Frontline documentary on the Willingham investigation: https://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-death-by-fire/
Many more examples of wrongful death or imprisonment: https://www.innocenceproject.org/all-cases/
Due to the number of appeals advanced on behalf of those convicted, sometimes spanning decades, it is less expensive to sentence a person to a lifetime of imprisonment than to sentence to death. The fiscal note attached to HB 455 recognizes the statement above as factual.
View In Depth NH’s video coverage of the history-making senate session, including the views of senators pro and con on death penalty repeal, as presented by Chair of the Senate Election Law and Municipal Affiairs Committee, Rep. Melanie Levesque (D-Brookline); and Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0V8khVppfY&feature=youtu.bewww.youtube.com/watch?v=O0V8khVppfY&feature=youtu.be
The three sentencing goals of long standing established by our judicial system to establish justice are punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation. Vengeance and political gain are not among them. Death is final. Once executed, the result is the same, and no amount of post-death exculpatory evidence collection will ever matter.
How did Strafford’s representatives and senator vote on whether to support the governor’s veto?
Sen. John Reagan – supported the governor’s veto
Rep. Michael Harrington – supported the governor’s veto
Rep. Kurt Wuelper – supported the governor’s veto
“And so, to the end of history, murder shall breed murder, always in the name of right and honor and peace, until the gods are tired of blood and create a race that can understand.” - George Bernard Shaw
Open Democracy Action (March 2019)
This photo was taken March 29, 2019, from the NH senate gallery as members of the public and Open Democracy Action (ODA) awaited the vote of the full senate on SB 106, a bill ODA submitted through prime sponsor, Sen. Dan Feltes (D-Concord). The bill is one of several that ODA has prioritized, as it focuses on eliminating loopholes in current law related to registering with the state and reporting of campaign contributions. Currently, a sizable percentage of expenditures that influence our elections go unreported. If the House also supports the bill and it becomes law (with or without the governor's signature), it will plug the loophole and, if enforced, provide a much greater degree of public access related to who is influencing our elections.
The senate vote was unanimous at 24 - 0, Strafford's senator, John Reagan, was among the bill's supporters.
Strafford Town Democratic Committee Chair Bob Perry submitted the following testimony:
SB 106 – relative to the definition of political advocacy organization and expenditure.
Wednesday, March 13, 2019, 10:30 A.M.
Rm. 102, LOB
Time: Mts. 3:10
Madam Chair and members of the committee,
I speak in support of SB 106. I first note an error in the bill at Line 1, which references RSA 644:2, IX. The reference should be to RSA 664:2, IX.
In 2015, the NH Attorney General’s office concluded that a flaw existed in law meant to require the registration and reporting of campaign contributions made by a political advocacy organization. It is the intent of this bill to remove the interpretation of language that is required by current law.
The language reflected in this bill is simple. It requires that upon making $5000 in political expenditures, together with the timing of the communication and it being directed to a relevant audience, registering and reporting is required, regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate.
While Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Citizens United consisted of 57 pages, the blistering opinion of dissent by Republican justice, John Paul Stevens, consisted of 90 pages.
Justice Stevens’ parting comment: “At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”
The majority court opinion in Citizens United ultimately held 8 – 1, disclosure to be constitutional, unless ruled otherwise in a specific case. The court held, in part, that “disclaimer and disclosure requirements may burden the ability to speak, but they impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities,” citing Buckley, 424 U. S., at 64, or “ ‘ “prevent anyone from speaking,” ’ ” McConnell, supra, at 201. The Buckley Court explained that disclosure can be justified by a governmental interest in providing “the electorate with information” about election-related spending sources.
When I last spoke in support of disclosure in January of 2017, investigations were being conducted into whether campaign contributions could be traced to China. As recently as days ago, unrelated investigations are being conducted into whether campaign contributions can be traced to China. Federal law prohibits campaign contributions from foreign sources. The only way we can know who is influencing our elections and to what extent is through rigorous reporting requirements.
New Hampshire has strong disclosure requirements for candidates for elected office. They must report the name, address, date of receipt of contributions exceeding $25, aggregate contributions to date, and if in the aggregate more than $100, the occupation and place of business of those donors. The same demands need to be made of political advocacy organizations, whose political influence is on a much grander scale than is reflected in the reporting requirements of candidates for state representative.
Bob Perry, Strafford, NH
The senate vote was unanimous at 24 - 0, Strafford's senator, John Reagan, was among the bill's supporters.
Strafford Town Democratic Committee Chair Bob Perry submitted the following testimony:
SB 106 – relative to the definition of political advocacy organization and expenditure.
Wednesday, March 13, 2019, 10:30 A.M.
Rm. 102, LOB
Time: Mts. 3:10
Madam Chair and members of the committee,
I speak in support of SB 106. I first note an error in the bill at Line 1, which references RSA 644:2, IX. The reference should be to RSA 664:2, IX.
In 2015, the NH Attorney General’s office concluded that a flaw existed in law meant to require the registration and reporting of campaign contributions made by a political advocacy organization. It is the intent of this bill to remove the interpretation of language that is required by current law.
The language reflected in this bill is simple. It requires that upon making $5000 in political expenditures, together with the timing of the communication and it being directed to a relevant audience, registering and reporting is required, regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate.
While Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Citizens United consisted of 57 pages, the blistering opinion of dissent by Republican justice, John Paul Stevens, consisted of 90 pages.
Justice Stevens’ parting comment: “At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”
The majority court opinion in Citizens United ultimately held 8 – 1, disclosure to be constitutional, unless ruled otherwise in a specific case. The court held, in part, that “disclaimer and disclosure requirements may burden the ability to speak, but they impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities,” citing Buckley, 424 U. S., at 64, or “ ‘ “prevent anyone from speaking,” ’ ” McConnell, supra, at 201. The Buckley Court explained that disclosure can be justified by a governmental interest in providing “the electorate with information” about election-related spending sources.
When I last spoke in support of disclosure in January of 2017, investigations were being conducted into whether campaign contributions could be traced to China. As recently as days ago, unrelated investigations are being conducted into whether campaign contributions can be traced to China. Federal law prohibits campaign contributions from foreign sources. The only way we can know who is influencing our elections and to what extent is through rigorous reporting requirements.
New Hampshire has strong disclosure requirements for candidates for elected office. They must report the name, address, date of receipt of contributions exceeding $25, aggregate contributions to date, and if in the aggregate more than $100, the occupation and place of business of those donors. The same demands need to be made of political advocacy organizations, whose political influence is on a much grander scale than is reflected in the reporting requirements of candidates for state representative.
Bob Perry, Strafford, NH
Working for Open Democracy (November 2018)
Committee Chair Bob Perry attends a Democracy in Action breakout session at the New Hampshire Technical Institute in November 2018. This workshop focused on Using the Power of Social Media to Engage, Educate, and Move to Action. The day of training was sponsored, in part, by the Coalition for Open Democracy in Concord. Bob has been a board member since January 2010.
Learn more about the Coalition for Open Democracy.
Learn more about the Coalition for Open Democracy.
