|
|
|
|
 HelloReturn to index of stories... |
Hello and welcome. I'm Mike Nikitas from NECN. New England Cable News, guest hosting tonight on NH Outlook. |
| Preshow #1 Return to index of stories... |
In this edition, It's the showdown over state education funding. Will New Hampshire voters have the final say? |
| Preshow #2 Return to index of stories... |
Plus, we'll take you back in time to an exhibit that captures memorable moments in the New Hampshire presidential primary. |
| Intro Constitutional Amendment Return to index of stories... |
But first. this Thursday, the Legislature will debate a constitutional amendment that would effectively end the Claremont education lawsuit. The proposed amendment would greatly restrict the state supreme court's ability to rule on education issues - including whether the state is providing an adequate education. If this measure passes at the state house, it will be on the ballot in November. We'll talk about the pros and cons of changing the state constitution in moment, but first producer Richard Ager reminds us this debate is far from new. |
| Constitutional Amendment Return to index of stories... |
Script: Soundup: Tape 14L 00:00:59 Old one-room school - "It is now time for… Track: First, a very short history - since this case is about what the writers of the constitution intended when they wrote about education. In 1981, Laconia attorney Arthur Nighswander sued the state on behalf of 28 poor districts, citing these words in the constitution: Soundup: Tape 14L 00;01;35 "Knowledge and learning, being generally diffused through a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government, it shall be the duty of legislators in all future periods of this government to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences in public schools." Track: That lawsuit led to a settlement with the legislature in which the state agreed to increase its aid to the poorest schools. Track: That settlement, known as the Augenblick formula, did not last. Over the years, it was underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars. And so a new coalition of school districts, led by Claremont, sued again. And in 1993, the Supreme Court heard the case. Bite: Tape 14L 7:45 Brock ** "I was hoping that you'd begin by making a confession - that the state of NH has a duty to assure an adequate public education is provided to the students of this state. Are you willing to make such a concession." "No your honor, the state is not willing to make that concession." Track: In it's decision, the Court ruled the state has a duty "…to provide constitutionally adequate education to every educable child in the public schools in New Hampshire and to guarantee adequate funding." Track: Then-governor Steve Merrill called the ruling… Soundup: Tape 14L 09;04 A storm that can destroy much of what this state is all about. Track: The Claremont decisions forced greater equality in education funding around the state and led to the statewide property tax. Two years ago, the court revisited the case when the Claremont attorneys asked the court to order the legislature to come up with a comprehensive definition of an adequate education and a way to enforce it. Bite: Supreme court tape 1-3-02 09:36:47 Irrespective of what has happened in the past, why we should now continue to exercise jurisdiction. We have a government of three separate branches. Why should we sit as a superlegislature and isn't that what you're asking us to do? Isn't that the first question we have to answer? Whether we should do that? Track: But the court ruled it would retain its authority - and legislators continued trying for a constitutional amendment. Now the governor has taken up the cause. On Saturday, he held the first in a series of town hall meetings to argue for an amendment. Bite: Benson tape 1 21:17:16 Mike Harris/ Hollis Budget Cmte - You mentioned an initiative to put something on the ballot about school funding but I didn't hear you say what you were thinking of. What I'm thinking of - and the legislature has to pass it - is a constitutional amendment that requires 60% of the legislature - both House and Senate - to pass it. Of course it requires me to pass it - and it requires 2/3 of the people to pass it. And that would be a permanent change to the constitution that clearly defines who in the state decides what happens in education. Bite: Legislature 1-07-04 tape 2 13;00:34 CACR2 returns the power to fund education to the legislature. Takes the court entirely out. Well that will take us right back to where we were in 1990 when the state paid only 4.5% of the total cost of education. That's a catastrophe for the local property tax payer. It's also a catastrophe for our kids. Bite: Benson tape 2 21:31:02 but if your constitutional amendment passes, those towns have no recourse to go to the courts. They have no recourse. We have clearly defined responsibility to do this and I think there's plenty of momentum to help those towns. Track: The test of that begins on Thursday at the state house. For NH Outlook, I'm Richard Ager. |
| Intro Discussion Return to index of stories... |
Joining us now, John Tobin, Attorney for the Claremont Education Lawsuit and Eugene Van Loan, an attorney who has frequently argued that the court has no role in education funding. Thank you both for being here. |
| Discussion Return to index of stories... |
Mike: MAYBE WE CAN START WITH YOU. WHY DO YOU FEEL THE STATE NEEDS TO PUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BACK ON THE BALLOT AND TAKE THINGS BACK AS ONE GENTLEMAN SAID IN RICHARD'S PIECE, TO 1990? I WOULD CHARACTERIZE THIS AS ABOVE ABOUT DEMOCRACY. THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT IS TO RESTORE TO THE LEGISLATURE ITS AUTHORITY TO MAKE POLICY DECISIONS ABOUT EDUCATION BECAUSE EDUCATION IS FUNDAMENTALLY A POLICY DECISION. IT IS NOT A MATTER OF LAW, AND COURTS ARE DESIGNED TO RULE ON ISSUES OF LAW. SO THIS IS TO RETURN THE MATTER TO THE LEGISLATURE, WHICH, AS I SAY, IN MY OPINION, IS ABOUT DEMOCRACY. Mike: IS THAT THE NUB OF THE ISSUE AS YOU SEE IT? NOT AT ALL. THE EDUCATION ISSUES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN THE LEGISLATURE AND WILL ALWAYS BE. THIS IS REALLY ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY. THE KEY WORD IN THE AMENDMENT IS EXCLUSIVE. WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD DO IS TAKE ALL THE POWER TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS ABOUT EDUCATION TO THE LEGISLATURE AND THEN BAR ANYONE, NOT JUST IN THE CLAREMONT LAWSUIT, ANYONE CHALLENGING ANY DECISION THE LEGISLATURE MADE ABOUT FUNDING, ABOUT HOW EDUCATION IS STRUCTURED, ANY OF THAT STUFF. IT'S INTERESTING RIGHT NOW IN EDUCATION ONE OF THE WATCH WORDS IS ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE LEGISLATURE IS ASKING SCHOOLS AND PARENTS AND KIDS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD SAY THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE. IT WOULD BUST UP THE CHECKSS AND BALANCES THAT WE'VE OPERATED UNDER FO MANY YEARS. Mike: LET'S JUST TAKE A SECOND AND SHOW FOLKS WHAT EXACTLY THE QUESTION WOULD SAY AS IT IS PROPOSED AGAIN AND HAS TO BE PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE. IF IT WERE TO BE ON THE BALLOT, IT WOULD SAY THIS. THAT THE LEGISLATURE THAT WILL HAVE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY UNDER THIS ARTICLE TO DETERMINE DIRECTLY OR THROUGH A DELEGATION OF POWER TO LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS OR BOTH, THE CONTENT, EXTENT, BENEFICIARIES, LEVEL AND SOURCE OF FUNDING OF PUBLIC EDUCATION. SO A VOTER HAS TO UNDERSTAND THAT. IT SAYS RIGHT HERE THAT THE LEGISLATURE CAN GIVE THE POWER TO THE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS. IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP THE POWER. IT'S ABOUT CHECKS AND BALANCES. GOVERNOR BENSON DIDN'T LIKE A LAW THE LEGISLATURE PASSED ABOUT WHO APPOINTED THE CHIEF JUSTICE. WHAT DID HE DO? HE WENT TO COURT TO CHALLENGE THAT LAW BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. BASICALLY WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD DO IS SAY THAT NO ONE COULD CHALLENGE A LEGISLATIVE DECISION ABOUT FUNDING. A LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COULDN'T CHALLENGE IT, A PUPIL OR A PARENT. Mike: COULDN'T THEY CHALLENGE IT THROUGH THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD IF THEY HAD A PROBLEM WITH SOMETHING GOING ON. IF THE LEGISLATURE HAS A PROBLEM WITH SOMETHING GOING ON AND SAYS THEY'RE GOING TO CUT FUNDING IN HALF. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD MEAN THAT NO ONE COULD CHALLENGE THAT. THE TOWNS WOULD HAVE TO ABIDE BY THAT. Mike: DO YOU SEE IT THAT WAY, THAT THERE WOULD BE NO RECOURSE THAT WOULD BE TAKEN AWAY FROM PEOPLE IS THERE. LET ME ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OF ACCOUNTABILITY SINCE I FIND IT MOST IRONIC THAT THIS IS A DISCUSSION IN THOSE TERMS BECAUSE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR ARE ACCOUNTABLE BUT THEY'RE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE. THAT'S IN FACT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION IN ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. Mike: BY WAY OF THE BALLOT BOX. THAT'S THE ACCOUNTABILITY OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM PROVIDES FOR. TO SUGGEST THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD SOMEHOW BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE FIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, SEEMS TO ME, TO BE A PERVERSION OF OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM. THEY WERE NEVER INTENDED TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THAT BODY AND THEY ARE IN FACT ACCOUNTABLE AS YOU SUGGEST, NOT ONLY TO THE VOTERS, BUT LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS ARE ACCOUNTABLE IN THEIR OWN WAY TO THE VOTERS. AND THE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM IS THE SAME ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE FOR ALL LEGISLATION. THE NOTION THAT YOU CAN GO TO COURT OR YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO GO TO COURT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T FUNED EDUCATION TO A PARTICULAR LEVEL THAT SOMEBODY THINKS IS APPROPRIATE IS A MOST PECULIAR IDEA. I'VE NEVER HEARD OF ANYBODY SUGGESTEDING THAT WE COULD GO TO COURT BECAUSE WE'RE UNHAPPY WITH THE FUNDING FOR OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, FOR OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. WE DON'T GO TO COURT TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH GOVERNMENT CAN GIVE US. WE GO TO COURT WHEN GOVERNMENT IS DOING SOMETHING TO US THAT IS INVADING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. AND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE THE LIBERTIES TO DO SOMETHING. IT IS A MOST UNUSUAL SITUATION. Mike: LET ME JUST JUMP IN HERE FOR A SECOND BECAUSE WE WANT TO HEAR YOU MAKE YOUR ARGUMENTS AS GOOD AS YOU CAN MAKE THEM. COULD YOU MOVE YOUR GLASSES A LITTLE BIT? THEY'RE TOUCHING THE GLASS. JOHN, WHAT HE'S SAYING, HOW DO YOU FEEL? I GUESS THE THING GOES BACK TO WHAT WE LEARNED IN SCHOOL ABOUT CHECKS AND BALANCES AND GOES BACK TO WHAT HAPPENS WITH WHAT THE LEGISLATURE DOES. EVERY YEAR THE LEGISLATURE PASSES THREE OR FOUR OR 3500 BILLS AND ONE OR TWO TIMES IN THOSE SESSIONS THEY USUALLY MISS THE MARK AND DO SOMETHING THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION. AND THE GREAT VIRTUE OF OUR CHECKS AND BALANCES IS WHEN THAT HAPPENS, PEOPLE. CITIZENS HAVE RECOURSE TO THE COURTS TO BRING THE LAWS BACK IN CONFORMITY WITH THE LEGISLATURE. AND THE CHECKS AND BALANCES IS A WONDERFUL SYSTEM. THE GOVERNOR CAN VETO WHAT THE LEGISLATURE DOES. THE LEGISLATURE CAN VETO A REGULATION THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH PUTS OUT. IT'S A THREE-PART SYSTEM WHERE THEY ALL HAVE CHECKS AND BALANCES AND WE'VE ALWAYS HAD THAT BECAUSE WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN SKEPTICAL OF TOO MUCH POWER IN ONE INSTITUTION. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD PUT ALL THE POWER AND IN THE LEGISLATURE AND THE LEGISLATURE DESERVES MOST OF THE POWER. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THEY'RE THE ONES THAT SHOULD SET BUDGETS. THEY'RE THE ONES THAT SHOULD SET TAX POLICY. AND ALL THE COURT IS IS REALLY AN UMPIRE, NOT WHAT THE TAX SHOULD BE, NOT WHAT KIDS SHOULD LEARN. Mike: YOU'RE TAKING THAT UMPIRE ROLE AWAY FROM THEM WITH THIS? EXACTLY. IT TAKES IT AWAY. THE UMPIRE ROLE WORKS ALL THE TIME. WE ARE THANKFUL WE HAVE IT. GENE BROUGHT A WONDERFUL CASE A FEW YEARS AGO ABOUT A TAX POLICY IN THE CONSTITUTION. HE WAS CHALLENGING A POLICY AT THE PRISON COMMISSARY WHERE THERE WAS A SURCHARGE IMPOSED. IT WAS AN ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE. HE WENT TO THE COURT. THE COURT AGREED WITH HIM THAT IT WAS WRONG. BASICALLY THIS AMENDMENT WOULD SAY NOBODY CAN DO THAT ABOUT EDUCATIONAL POLICY, NOBODY CAN DO THAT ABOUT EDUCATIONAL TAX POLICY. WE CAN GO BACK AND FORTH ON THE RECOURSE QUESTION ALL THE TIME. DOES HE HAVE IT RIGHT. |
| Discussion #2 Return to index of stories... |
HE HAS THE WORDS RIGHT. HE DOESN'T HAVE THE CONCEPT RIGHT, IF YOU'LL PARDON ME. THE NOTION OF CHECKS AND BALANCES IS, OF COURSE, PART OF OUR SYSTEM AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, BUT IT IS. IT JUST DOESN'T FIT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME KIND OF AFFIRMATIVE SOCIAL GOOD. AND THAT'S WHY THE NOTION OF EDUCATION POLICY AS SOMETHING THAT THE COURT IS SUPPOSED TO BE CHECKING AND BALANCING IS INFRONT. THE CONSTITUTION WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT GOVERNMENT FROM TAKING OUR LIBERTIES AWAY FROM OUR US, NOT SEEING HOW MUCH WE DESERVE OR HOW MUCH WE WANT. IT'S THIS NOTION OF HOW MUCH YOU CAN GET THAT THE COURT IS NOT CAPABLE OF DETERMINING, OR IF IT IS CAPABLE MUCH IT, IT IS DOING IT IN THE SAME SENSE THAT THE LEGISLATURE DOES IT. IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S NOT LIKE BEING AN UMPIRE. AN UMPIRE SAYS YOU'RE SAFE OR YOU'RE OUT. AND THAT'S GREAT. THAT WORKS FINE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A TYPICAL NEGATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WHEN SOMEBODY IS CHALLENGING THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS TAKING AWAY SOMETHING FROM ME LIKE MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH. BUT WHEN THE COURT IS ASKED TO SAY OR TO RULE, WHAT IS AN ADEQUATE EDUCATION, HOW DOES THE COURT DECIDE THAT? HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? HOW HIGH IS UP? THAT IS NOT YOU'RE SAFE OR YOU'RE OUT OF THE. IT IS NOT A SIMPLE PROPOSITION. IF WE WERE TO, FOR EXAMPLE, PUT 100 PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM RIGHT NOW AND IF I WERE TO ASK THEM WHAT IS AN ADEQUATE EDUCATION, WE WOULDN'T GET AN ANSWER. WE'D GET 100 ANSWERS. BECAUSE THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF AN ADEQUATE EDUCATION THAT IS SOMEHOW WRITTEN IN STONE OR WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS A MATTER OF OPINION. AND BECAUSE IT IS A MATTER OF OPINION, IT IS THE QUINTY TENSION TYPE OF A THING THAT LEGISLATORS DECIDE. THEY DECIDE POLICY ISSUES. AND FOR THE COURT TO CHECK AND BALANCE MUST MEAN THAT IN THAT SITUATION, THAT THE COURT WOULD SOMEHOW BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT AN ADEQUATE EDUCATION IS. AND THE ONLY WAY THEY COULD DO THAT IS TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINION. AND WHY IS THEIR OPINION ANY BETTER THAN MINE OPINION OR THE LEGISLATURE'S OPINION? THAT IS NOT DETERMINING AN ISSUE OF LAW. IT IS DETERMINING POLICY. Mike: CHECKS AND BAMS ASIDE, LET'S GET BACK TH BACK TO KIDS AND EDUCATION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT. WHAT IMPACT DO YOU FEEL THIS IS GOING TO HAVE ON THE LEVEL OF EDUCATION KIDS HAVE? WHAT IS GOING ON IN CLAREMONT THAT THINGS NEED TO BE CHANGED? IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORICAL PATTERN, WHAT THE PATTERN WAS BEFORE THE FIRST CLAREMONT LAWSUIT WAS THAT, AND THE COURT FOUND IT, AND I WOULD URGE PEOPLE TO GO TO CLAREMONT LAWSUIT.ORG WHERE ALL THE DECISIONS ARE POSTED. DON'T READ ANYTHING WE WROTE. READ WHAT THE COURT SAID BECAUSE WHAT THE COURT SAID ABOUT ITS ROLE IS VERY INSTRUCTIVE. THEY DON'T WANT TO TAKE OVER THE LEGISLATURE'S JOB. THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THE LEGISLATURE DOES WHAT ITS JOB IS IN TERMS OF THE ORIGINAL REALITY WAS THAT TAX RATES IN PITTSFIELD OR ALLENSTOWN WERE FOUR TIMES AS HIGH, 400% AS HIGH, AND BECAUSE THE PROPERTY TAX BASE IN THOSE TOWNS WERE SO LOW, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY RAISED WAS LESS, SO PEOPLE WERE PAYING DISPROPORTIONAL TAXES. WE HAVE SOMETHING IN OUR CONSTITUTION WHICH IS A LEGACY OF OUR DAYS WITH ROYAL GOVERNORS WILL DISPROPORTIONATE TAXES. AND EDUCATION FUNDING WAS GREATLY UNEVEN AND UNFAIR. AND WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW AFTER SOME HIGH WATER MARKS IS THAT WE ARE GOING BACK IN THE SAME DIRECTION. THE BURDEN IS GOING BACK TO THE LOCAL PROPERTY TAXPAYER AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT CAN BE RAISED IN WATERVILLE VALLEY IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT CAN BE RAISED IN FRANKLIN. WHAT THE COURT SAID, BASED ON WHAT THE CONSTITUTION IS, IS THAT A KID IN FRANKLIN OR A KID IN WATERVILLE VALLEY BELONGS TO ALL OF US. THE DUTY BELONGS TO ALL OF US. IT DOESN'T STOP AT THE TOWN LINE. AND WE HAVE A DUTY AS A STATE TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THEM GET AN EDUCATION. IS THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE AS FAR AS YOU SEE IT, TOO? YOU DISAGREE I'M GUESSING. THE IRONY OF IT IS THAT JOHN AND I, AND I SUSPECT MANY OF THE ADVOCATES OF THE CLAREMONT DECISION WOULD AGREE ON EDUCATION POLICY. I PERSONALLY THINK THAT THE STATE HAS NOT, IN PAST YEARS, PROVIDED FUNDS THAT I THINK IT OUGHT TO PROVIDE TO THOSE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE UNABLE TO SUPPORT AN EDUCATION SYSTEM IN THE SAME FASHION THAT SOME OTHER EDUCATION-- SOME OTHER COMMUNITIES DO. HOWEVER, I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M ENTITLED TO OR ANYONE ELSE IS ENTITLED TO GO TO COURT ABOUT. I THINK THAT IS A POLICY MATTER THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD BE DETERMINING AND IN THE SAME FASHION THAT IT DETERMINES, AS I SAID, DETERMINES HOW MUCH HEALTH CARE WE GET. BUT TO SUGGEST THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS ABOUT EDUCATION I THINK IS A VERY. IS MISTAKEN AND UNFAIR CRITICISM. THIS AMENDMENT DOESN'T REPEAL ANY LAW. IT DOESN'T PUT ANY NEW LAW INTO PLACE. IT DOESN'T GET RID OF ANY TAX. IT DOESN'T RAISE ANY TAX. IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF EDUCATION. IT DOESN'T DEFINE AN ADEQUATE EDUCATION. IT SIMPLY REVERSES THE QUESTION OF WHO MAKES THESE DECISIONS. SO ALL OF THIS HOORAH, IF YOU WILL, ABOUT THE AMENDMENT AS SOMEHOW BEING DESIGNED TO GO BACK TO A CERTAIN BY GONE ERA WHEN THE LEGISLATURE DID OR DIDN'T FUND EDUCATION. Mike: THERE ARE SOME IMPORTANT ISSUES I WANT TO GET TO. THIS GIVES THE LEGISLATURE IMMUNITY FROM ACCOUNTABILITY BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE WILL BE FREE TO GO BACK IN THOSE DIRECTIONS AND NOBODY CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. Mike: LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE OF HOW MUCH TAX PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO PAY IF THIS PASSES. THAT'S THE SECONDARY ISSUE. IF IT PASSES THE LEGISLATURE, IT IS ON THE BALANCE O.PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW IS IT GOING TO RAISE OR DECREASE MY PROPERTY TAXES? THERE IS NO ANSWER TO THAT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING TO ANYBODY'S PROPERTY TAXES. SIMPLY SAYS THE BODY AND GOVERNMENT THAT DECIDES TAX POLL SAND EDUCATION POLICY IS THE LEGISLATURE. Mike: IS THAT THE CASE? THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THIS, AND WOULD I BET MY HOUSE ON THIS, IF THIS PASSES, LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES WILL GO UP. Mike: ALL OVER THE STATE? ALL OVER THE STATE BECAUSE THE STATE WILL DECREASE ITS COMMITMENT. THE STATE HAS ONLY RAISED ITS COMMITMENT AND TO SOME EXTENT LEVELED THAT DISPARITY BECAUSE THE COURT TOLD IT TO. IF THE COURT IS OUT OF THE PICTURE, LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES WILL GO UP. DON'T PUT YOUR DEED IN ESCROW. IT HAS TO PASS THE LEGISLATURE, THE HOUSE AND SENATE ON A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE? 60%? OF THE ENTIRE HOUSE AND THE ENTIRE SENATE. Mike: THAT AND THEN NO GOVERNOR SIGNATURE IS NEEDED CONTRARY TO WHAT THE GOVERNOR SAID IN OUR PIECE THERE. AND THEN AFTER THAT, WOULD IT GO ON THE BALLOT AND WHEN WOULD IT GO ON THE BALLOT? WHAT IS THE TIMING? NOVEMBER THIS, NOVEMBER. IS. Mike: AND WOULD IT THEN BE UP TO A SIMPLE MAJORITY. TWO-THIRDS OF THE VOTERS HAVE TO PASS IT. VERY DRI TO GET A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PASSED, AS IT SHOULD BE. Mike: 30 SECONDS WE HAVE LEFT. I WANT TO KNOW YOUR QUICK PREDICTION. DO YOU THINK THE LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO PASS IT? IT IS GOING TO BE A TOUGH ROAD TO HOE. I'M NOT A POLITICIAN. I DON'T RUN IN THOSE SOIRKZ. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. IF IT DOES, IT WILL BE BY A RAZOR'S EDGE, I'M SLUR. VERY DIFFICULT TO GET A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Mike: JOHN. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WILL PASS. I DON'T THINK IT WILL PASS BY THE VOTERS. I DON'T THINK THE VOTERS WANT TO GO BACKWARDS. Mike: INTERESTING. WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS. THANKS FOR ADDING YO YOUR PERSPECTIVES BOTH OF YOU, GENTLEMEN. A PLEASURE. |
| Amendment Graphic Return to index of stories... |
"that the legislature shall have exclusive authority under this article to determine, either directly, or through a delegation of power to local school districts, or both, the content, extent, beneficiaries, and level and source of funding of public education" |
| Intro First Stop Return to index of stories... |
Finally, if you want to learn more about the primary, an exhibit at the Museum of New Hampshire History may be just the place to visit. The exhibit captures memorable moments in the New Hampshire presidential primary in photographs, moving images, memorabilia and folk art. It's called "First Stop". Chip Neal takes us there. |
| First Stop Return to index of stories... |
THEREFORE, WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE TODAY, I BELIEVE, MUST EXCEED NEXT SUMMER AND NEXT NOVEMBER. THEREFORE, I WANT TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION TO YOU AND ASK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN THE PRIMARIES THIS MARCH. THANK YOU. STARTED BACK IN 1948 AND 1949 WHEN THEN SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE RICHARD UPTON DRAFTED NEW LEGISLATION FOR THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY. RICHARD UPTON DECIDED THAT THERE HAD TO BE MORE ATTENTION AND FOCUS GIVEN TO THE PRIMARY AND ONE WAY TO DO THAT WAS TO MOVE FROM HAVING A NEW HAMPSHIRE VOTER VOTE FOR A DELEGATE, PLEDGED TO A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE TO A DIRECT VOTE. THAT IS, YOU WALK INTO THE VOTING BOOTH IN 1952 FOR THE FIRST TIME, YOU CAST YOUR VOTE FOR A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. BY STATE LAW, NEW HAMPSHIRE IS REQUIRED TO HOLD ITS FIRST IN THE NATION PRIMARY ONE WEEK AHEAD OF ANY OTHER SIMILAR ELECTION IN THE COUNTRY. ONE OF THE MORE MEMORABLE MOMENTS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY HISTORY IS RONALD REAGAN'S REMARKS AT A DEBATE IN 1980. A DEBATE SUPPOSEDLY LIMITED TO REAGAN AND GEORGE BUSH, BUT BEFORE THE DEBATE GOT STARTED, THE EXCLUDED CANDIDATES, ALEXANDER, BAKER, CRANE AND DOLE TOOK TO THE STAGE ANYWAY. AND THAT ELICITED THIS NOW FAMOUS REMARK FROM GOVERNOR REAGAN. I AM PAYING FOR THIS MICROPHONE. ESSENTIALLY THIS MOMENT WAS BROADCAST NATIONWIDE AND CLEARLY SET RONALD REAGAN AHEAD OF HIS CLOSEST CONTENDER, GEORGE BUSH. Reporter: ANOTHER FAMOUS MOMENT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY HISTORY IS THIS EMOTIONAL SPEECH BY THEN DEMOCRATIC FRONTRUNNER MAINE SENATOR EDMUND MUSKIE OUTSIDE THE UNION LEADER WHOSE EDITORIAL PAGES HAD BEEN ATTACKING HIS CANDIDACY. THIS WAS A MOMENT WHERE THIS CANDIDATE HAD HAD ENOUGH, AND THERE WAS A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER HE HAD CRACKED. DID HE CRY? THERE'S STILL A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. NONETHELESS, THE IMAGE AND THE MOMENT REMAINS AS THE TIME THAT THE CANDIDATE BITTERLY ATTACKED THE NEWSPAPER AND BROKE DOWN IN THE PROCESS. THUS CALLING INTO QUESTION HIS CAPACITY FOR THE TOUGH DECISIONS OF THE PRESIDENCY. Reporter: THE EXHIBIT ALSO HIGHLIGHTS THE CONCEPT OF RETAIL POLITICS NEW HAMPSHIRE STYLE. THE CANDIDATE IS FORCED TO COME TO NEW HAMPSHIRE AND ANSWER QUESTIONS PUT TO THEM BY REAL VOTERS ABOUT REAL ISSUES. WHEN YOU'RE IN FRONT OF SOMEONE IN A LIVING ROOM OR A COUNTRY STORE OR OTHER NEW HAMPSHIRE STYLE CAMPAIGN EVENT, YOU NEED TO BE CONVERSANT WITH THE ISSUES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THIS IS THE PROVING GROUND FOR THAT. NEW HAMPSHIRE'S POLITICAL TRADITION REQUIRES A CANDIDATE TO GO FROM THE HIGH-TECH FACTORY IN THE SOUTHERN TIER OF THE STATE TO THE PAPER MILLS IN BERLIN AND THEIR LONG HISTORY TO EVERY SIZE INDUSTRY IN BETWEEN. IN TERMS OF REACHING OUT TO POTENTIAL VOTERS, NEW HAMPSHIRE HAD A SAYING THAT NEW HAMPSHIRE WAS ALWAYS FIRST, ALWAYS RIGHT IN PRESIDENTIAL SELECTION. BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE 1990s BROUGHT A CHANGE TO THAT. IN FACT, BILL CLINTON IN '92 DID NOT WIN THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY. Reporter: BUT HE DID WIN THE PRESIDENCY. SO HOW ABOUT ALWAYS FIRST MOSTLY RIGHT? IN CONCORD, FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE OUTLOOK, I'M CHIP NEAL. |
| Web Pointer Return to index of stories... |
That is it for this edition of our program. For more information and links to our guests and interviews, connect with us on-line at nhptv.org. Join our online discussion and tell us what's on your mind. You can also find streaming video of all our broadcasts. |
| Tomorrow Return to index of stories... |
On the next New Hampshire Outlook - understanding the new law on small group insurance reform. |
| Goodnight Return to index of stories... |
We'll see you next time. I'm Mike Nikitas. Thanks for watching. |
| Founders Return to index of stories... |
Thanks to our founding sponsors who have provided major funding for the production of New Hampshire Outlook: New Hampshire Charitable Foundation Public Service of New Hampshire Stratford Foundation |
| Tonight 10:00 Return to index of stories... |
Tonight on New Hampshire Outlook. Understanding the new law on small group insurance reform. If you're a small business owner you'll want to watch this report. Join us tonight at 10:00 only on New Hampshire Outlook. |
| key: State Politics / Government Return to index of stories... |
NEW HAMPSHIRE OUTLOOK Air Date/Time: 01/13/04 22:00 HOST: Mike Nikitas Length: 20:00 minutes In this edition of New Hampshire Outlook, NHPTV's nightly news magazine, it's the showdown over state education funding. Will New Hampshire voters have the final say? Plus, we'll take you back in time to an exhibit that captures memorable moments in the New Hampshire presidential primary. But first. this Thursday, the Legislature will debate a constitutional amendment that would effectively end the Claremont education lawsuit. The proposed amendment would greatly restrict the state supreme court's ability to rule on education issues - including whether the state is providing an adequate education. If this measure passes at the state house, it will be on the ballot in November. We'll talk about the pros and cons of changing the state constitution in moment, but first producer Richard Ager reminds us this debate is far from new. Joining us in studio, John Tobin, Attorney for the Claremont Education Lawsuit and Eugene Van Loan, an attorney who has frequently argued that the court has no role in education funding. PRODUCER/REPORTER: Richard Ager NAME OF PARTICIPANTS: David Brock\Chief Justice, NH Supreme Court, Steve Merrill\NH Governor, Joseph Nadeau\NH Supreme Court Justice, Mike Harris \Hollis Budget Cmte, Craig Benson\NH Governor, Rep. Peter Burling\D - House Minority Leader, John Tobin\Attorney - Claremont Education Lawsuit, Eugene Van Loan\Attorney |
| key: Education Return to index of stories... |
NEW HAMPSHIRE OUTLOOK Air Date/Time: 01/13/04 22:00 HOST: Mike Nikitas Length: 20:00 minutes In this edition of New Hampshire Outlook, NHPTV's nightly news magazine, it's the showdown over state education funding. Will New Hampshire voters have the final say? Plus, we'll take you back in time to an exhibit that captures memorable moments in the New Hampshire presidential primary. But first. this Thursday, the Legislature will debate a constitutional amendment that would effectively end the Claremont education lawsuit. The proposed amendment would greatly restrict the state supreme court's ability to rule on education issues - including whether the state is providing an adequate education. If this measure passes at the state house, it will be on the ballot in November. We'll talk about the pros and cons of changing the state constitution in moment, but first producer Richard Ager reminds us this debate is far from new. Joining us in studio, John Tobin, Attorney for the Claremont Education Lawsuit and Eugene Van Loan, an attorney who has frequently argued that the court has no role in education funding. PRODUCER/REPORTER: Richard Ager NAME OF PARTICIPANTS: David Brock\Chief Justice, NH Supreme Court, Steve Merrill\NH Governor, Joseph Nadeau\NH Supreme Court Justice, Mike Harris \Hollis Budget Cmte, Craig Benson\NH Governor, Rep. Peter Burling\D - House Minority Leader, John Tobin\Attorney - Claremont Education Lawsuit, Eugene Van Loan\Attorney |
| key: National Politics / Government Return to index of stories... |
NEW HAMPSHIRE OUTLOOK Air Date/Time: 01/13/04 22:00 HOST: Mike Nikitas Length: 4:00 minutes In this edition of New Hampshire Outlook, NHPTV's nightly news magazine, it's the showdown over state education funding. Will New Hampshire voters have the final say? Plus, we'll take you back in time to an exhibit that captures memorable moments in the New Hampshire presidential primary. Finally, if you want to learn more about the primary, an exhibit at the Museum of New Hampshire History may be just the place to visit. The exhibit captures memorable moments in the New Hampshire presidential primary in photographs, moving images, memorabilia and folk art. It's called "First Stop". Chip Neal takes us there. PRODUCER/REPORTER: Chip Neal NAME OF PARTICIPANTS: Michael Chaney\Exec Dir, NH Political Library |
| WEB PROMO Return to index of stories... |
Tonight on New Hampshire Outlook. . Tonight at 10pm on New Hampshire Public Television. |