“We must be certain that government will be long to the people, not the people to the government”.

Bernard Baruch

A famous writer is reputed to have said, the only time he felt safe from Congress was when it was not is session. … a feeling with which many Americans appear to empathize.  Unfortunately, too many of our elected representatives quickly become aloof from the views of their constituents. 

In nonstop quests for reelection or political immortality, they exempt their members from many onerous laws and insulate themselves from any personal accountability for their actions, secure in the knowledge their legislative handiwork can not be overturned by the people who hired (elected) them.  Moreover, pressure and intimidation tactics exerted by special interests frequently have adverse impacts on good government and thus the public’s well-being.

Regretfully, a similar environment exists in New Hampshire. 

To address such concerns, several controversial bills await the New Hampshire Legislature when it reconvenes in January.  Two of them would give the state’s voters more political muscle.  As expected, well-organized lobbies and their State House sympathizers have launched campaigns to emasculate, if not kill both initiatives.

The first bill would permit school districts, and possibly town meetings, to use secret ballots to decide major budgetary issues.  While the details of competing bills vary, each represents a valid effort to eliminate the intimidation which frequently infiltrates annual school/town meetings in many communities.

The major problem with this legislative effort stems from the time delay between the public meeting, during which warrant articles would be discussed and possibly amended, and the actual “up or down” vote.  Eventually, small cadres of activist residents are likely to dominate these public sessions where warrant articles will be validated for insertion on the ballot.

When the actual vote is subsequently taken, days or weeks later, many voters may lack the level of specific knowledge now conveyed during school/town meeting debates.  Ultimately, voter apathy may replace envisioned voter participation.  Then, what happens if budgets are consistently rejected?

A great concept … but, needing a dose of reality before enactment!

Meantime, a second, predictably contentious, bill proposes to give New Hampshire’s voters an opportunity repeal laws enacted by their legislative representatives. 

This bill would empower citizens to better regulate their own lives, absent excessive governmental paternalism.  It should also foster increased levels of citizen involvement state politics.

The proposed repeal process is cumbersome enough to dissuade frivolous efforts of a small group of disgruntled individuals.   Yet, it is not so onerous as to discourage repeal efforts by large numbers of voters who believe certain laws are unfair, too expensive or overly intrusive.  More specifically, it provides New Hampshire voters veto power over state capitulation(s) to federally mandate programs which they deem as meddlesome or costly but unfunded.

Predictable, lawmakers have rallied in opposition.  Their arguments center primarily on the size of the state’s legislature, the third largest in the known universe.  These statists believe, with each legislator representing only some 2,700 constituents, there is no need for any new checks on their power.  They also contend with so many representatives, many of which are  elected at large in smaller towns, it’s easy to “get to one of them”.

Still, while convenient and accessible, state reps/senators can, and occasionally do, act contrary to the will and best interests of the people.

The minority leader has also suggested the proposed constitutional amendment is unnecessary as citizens can hold their representatives accountable at the ballot box.  While true, by the time an election rolls around, much permanent legislative mischief may have been done.

In the final analysis, each of the arguments begs a central issue … why are our legislators so afraid of giving the people they are sworn to serve a veto power over their public actions?

Each of them ought to reflect on Lincoln’s query, “Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people?