Bad actors sadly exist everywhere, even in institutions we want to think are exempt. Government is not one of those institutions, but we’d like to think that there’s a higher standard for Team Red in all government bodies, and we’re repeatedly disappointed. Let’s focus on our state legislature and note that the Senate is much redder than the House. As Mr Sylvia says, it’s a place where good House bills go to die. It’s also a place where bad House bills get rubber-stamped and sometimes expedited, either by way of special ordering or the Consent Calendar. More on Consent in a moment. And let’s not forget all that horse-trading activity in which dead Senate bills get shoved into good non-germane House bills and often accepted by voice vote, discussion in the chamber be damned.
I feel like a broken record when saying “this/that (rep or senator) needs to be primaried.” A non-constituent of any bad actor in the legislature can’t vote that person out, and, depending on proximity to the constituency, ties to the area, and access to resources, there’s not much that can be done. For example, and short of racking up miles on my odometer to canvass District 23, the most I could do to lift up Emily Phillips in battle against Senator Gannon was from the keyboard and the wallet. But what if YOUR legislator is a bad actor on Team Red?
Complaining in person or in cyberspace doesn’t do much to make their removal happen. You must recruit someone to primary them, and if nobody volunteers, you can only wait so long until the filing deadline arrives before considering your own candidacy. Though not a primary, I was in a similar situation in September 2023 on the night before the city election filing deadline. NRCC Chair Pete Silva was hosting a “petition signature party” for members and like-minded locals because ballot access requires 50 qualified and witnessed signatures for citywide offices and 15 for ward aldermen. Pete had thoughtfully printed up the documents and laid out the clipboards for Wards 1-9, and I saw the one for Ward 2 about to collect dust. The only other attendees in Ward 2 were Chris Buda and Kevin Avard. I said, “Gentlemen, we must not let Alderman Dowd get reelected (to a 7th term) without an opponent.”
Seeing that both of them had name recognition and a superior political wheelhouse, I was hoping they would settle it by drawing lots, but both of them turned to me with a “tag, you’re it,” which was NOT part of my plan. It was either me or nobody at all. Not only that, but I needed 15 qualified Ward 2 signatures if I agreed, and two of them were available right there! Also, several people present had family members qualified to sign for me. A ward of a city is much smaller, both in population and geographic area, than a senate district, but sand slipping through the hourglass doesn’t care about that. I wanted someone to primary Howard Pearl, preferably someone viable and formidable, but the 11th hour doesn’t care about what you or I or anyone else wants.
Enough about me; let’s talk about Howard and what makes him a bad actor. It would be easy to lose focus and get into his personal and local baggage, but I want to talk about his senatorial record because records are still records, no matter how much anyone wants to avoid discussing them. I’m not going to bore all readers with an exhaustive rap sheet right now, but that information is available to anyone willing to do their own homework. I’ve selected a few things over the past few years in which his incorrect vote was an assault on Live Free or Die values. District 17 deserves better, so let’s look at a few of Howard’s votes, both in committee and in the Senate chamber.
5/2/24 Voice voted to adopt a Consent Calendar containing HB1002, aka the RTK tax, obstructing access to public records
3/18/25 Voted OTP in Finance for a telecommunications surcharge(SB255).
3/20/25 Voted in roll call to usurp local control(SB84).
5/15/25 Voted in roll call to re-refer HB649(ending the sticker tax) back to Commerce to languish and die later.
6/2025 Refused to discuss the budget bill(HB2) and his role in the negotiations*
1/7/26 Voted in roll call for a paint tax(HB451).
2/18/26 Voted ITL in Finance on Defend the Guard(HB104-FN) and NH troops are now deployed to the Middle East.
3/5/26 Voted OTP in Finance on the expansion of SNAP(SB603) as though your own groceries are not expensive enough!
3/12/26 Voted OTP in Finance on the expansion of welfare school lunch(SB517).
3/26/26 Voted OTP in Finance on HB498(hidden tax for children’s “wraparound” services).
5/7/26 Voted OTP in Finance on more welfare school lunch(HB1574).
Which party would the above partial record be indicative of? It’s a rhetorical question, but District 17 is a red district, and Howard Pearl falls miserably short compared to his predecessor, Senator Reagan. You might have heard the words “clean house,” and I’m not talking about a home that’s spotless. Here’s what a quick internet inquiry turned up:
In slang, “clean house” means getting rid of undesirable elements—such as firing incompetent employees in a workplace or eliminating corrupt officials in government. It can also mean winning overwhelmingly in a competition, like a team sweeping all the awards at an event or a gambler winning big.
Now say it with me, but instead say “clean SENATE,” because Howard Pearl is one of those undesirable elements. The swamp must be drained, and Howard has been part of the swamp since his time in the House.
*While meeting in secrecy does not count as a voting record, I can’t ignore last year’s budget standoff. You might remember Sharon Carson taking to the airwaves, mentioning a senatorial lunch with the governor at Bridges House that was by invitation only. She said “some senators” and let it be known that she wasn’t on the invite list. Because Howard Pearl is on the Finance committee, it was not unreasonable for a constituent to want to know IF HE WAS INVITED. My text dialogue with him upon asking did NOT go well. He was rude and evasive, and I have the receipts. Lawyers often say “never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to,” but there’s a related maxim saying that NOT answering a question is often an answer. The dialogue went something like this:
JS: “Howard, were you one of the senators invited to lunch at Bridges House yesterday?” (a yes-no question)
HP: “I was busy working on the farm all day.”
JS: “I appreciate knowing you weren’t there, but I asked if you were invited.”
HP: “My schedule is not up for discussion.” (hostile and inappropriate, especially considering the original question)
JS: “I didn’t request a view of your schedule; I asked if you were invited.”
A lawyer would also say that the dialogue is inadmissible in a court of law, but I’m almost certain I got my answer. If the answer was NO, he would recognize that he was off the hook for follow-up questions and could have politely said so, making for a pleasant wrap-up. I would have thanked him for answering and been done with it. A YES answer could have been accompanied by his “busy at the farm” excuse, thus also making for a pleasant ending. You get the picture.
As Laurie Ortolano says, lack of transparency is a symptom of dishonesty. In case anyone has already forgotten, those 3 full days of Committee of Conference budget bill negotiations were about 99% behind closed doors as to avoid being on live or recorded video. Landrigan even commented on that in a tweet. In a May 27 Bronwyn Sims piece called The Quiet Sellout, she said, “The House acted in ways that reflected Granite Staters’ priorities. But the Republican-controlled Senate often operated like an insulated caucus: delaying votes, rewriting bills with surprising amendments, and responding to constituent feedback as if it were “bullying.” That posture has real consequences.” Howard Pearl is part of that ongoing problem, and I am volunteering to be part of the solution. If elected, I wouldn’t necessarily become a member of Senate Finance, but it stands to reason that Howard Pearl will stay on that committee, pending the outcome of other Senate races and the Senate president’s final word. Let’s talk about Senate Finance for a moment and what I just said about transparency.
You might be familiar with frequent Senate chamber discussions that include the words “policy committee” from both sides of the aisle and from members of Finance. Pay attention to what is being said by whom, what chamber the bill came from, and who sponsored it because details matter. No matter how significant the fiscal note on a bill is, Finance often serves as a 2nd opportunity to kill a bad bill. That’s in addition to being a 2nd hurdle for good bills to overcome.
You might occasionally see a Landrigan tweet about Senate Finance executive session votes, but it’s usually when a bill is placed on the Consent Calendar. Rarely do such announcements say who voted what way or who didn’t participate in the vote. It’s up to you, the commoner, to look at Senate Journals, which are usually not published until about a week later. Furthermore, and unlike the House, Senate committee executive sessions are often conducted unannounced and/or in secrecy. I remember Melissa Blasek and JR venting about the upper chamber’s modus operandi. This framework allows Howard Pearl’s committee voting record to be neither on full display nor readily available in a timely fashion. Getting that information is often an onerous task that many people just let it go.
While a freshman Senator can’t control the behavior of the press or Senate leadership, I can certainly commit to not hiding my committee vote. In addition to roll call voting and committee voting in a manner more akin to Senator Reagan than to Howard Pearl, I will do my part to be the opposite of the way Nashua City Hall operates.
