Contrary to what Rep. Dan McGuire writes, the proposed rule change to allow committees to table bills without a hearing is a transparent attempt to block the people’s voice. More insidiously, it can be used to shut down what leadership considers “extremist” positions within their own party.
A 75% vote in committee to “table” a bill is not a difficult threshold, given that leadership could make deals with the committee minority to get there. Reversal on the House floor would require close to a unanimous majority party vote in favor, which could be blocked by a leadership-backed minority. That would be especially true when the majority party has a slim overall advantage, such as now. Finally, once this rule is in place, the 75% committee threshold could, and likely would, be reduced over time to a simple majority.
It’s beneficial to have public hearings even for seemingly unpopular bills. Legislative services has been known to confuse a bill to the point where a sponsor may need a hearing to clarify it. A committee may believe a bill has no support or chance of passage, yet the public may show up to disprove that assumption. It often takes a number of attempts over multiple sessions refining a proposal to build support: this rule throttles such initiatives in their infancy. And, what Rep. McGuire sees as “obvious stinkers” and “duplicates or near-duplicates” can be easily grouped and scheduled on the same day.
Every bill deserves respect and a hearing. The people of New Hampshire deserve better than pocket vetoes in committee.
