In the Granite State, where the motto “Live Free or Die” embodies a spirit of resolute action and self-reliance, procrastination in matters of governance is not merely an inconvenience—it is a betrayal of the public trust.
Over the next several months, the governor will need to nominate—and the Executive Council will need to confirm—two of the five New Hampshire Supreme Court justices, representing 40 percent of the state’s highest court. Gov. Kelly Ayotte’s nominees will set the ideological direction of the court—progressive or conservative—for potentially the next decade.
Ayotte, who assumed office in January 2025, promising efficient leadership, has known for more than a year about these impending vacancies. Yet she has done nothing meaningful to nominate replacements. With Justice James P. Bassett’s retirement effective August 31, 2025, and Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi on administrative leave for over a year, it increasingly appears the governor is engaging in deliberate judicial procrastination.
Consider Bassett’s case. On April 15, 2025, the court publicly announced his retirement, effective August 31. Bassett, who has served honorably since July 19, 2012, notified Ayotte directly, giving her ample time to identify, vet, and nominate a successor. His announcement, detailed on the court’s official website, emphasized his continued participation until departure but underscored the need for a seamless transition to maintain the court’s full complement.
Meanwhile, Hantz Marconi has been sidelined since July 2024 over alleged misconduct dating back to early that year. By the state constitution, she faces mandatory retirement on Feb. 12, 2026. Even if her case were fast-tracked, she is unlikely to return. This vacancy has likewise been known for more than a year.
As the sole appellate authority in the state, the Supreme Court wields enormous power over our freedoms. New Hampshire’s constitution historically provides greater protections than the U.S. Constitution, shielding Granite Staters from less protective federal courts. Unfortunately, under the previous governor, many Republican appointees were in fact progressive picks who shifted the court leftward, weakening constitutional safeguards. We cannot afford a repeat.
For example, in Doe v. Manchester, Chief Justice Macdonald authored a shameful, California-style decision effectively holding that parental rights do not exist under the New Hampshire Constitution. In that case, Macdonald upheld the Manchester School District’s policy of lying to parents and concealing secret transitioning.
While Macdonald claimed to recognize some form of “parental rights,” he found the Manchester policy did not violate them because “the Policy does not restrict a parent’s ability to learn [about the secret transitioning] from the child.” In other words, as a Granite Stater father, I no longer have standing to assert my parental rights unless my child’s desires happen to align with mine.
We cannot afford another stealth nominee.
If Ayotte appoints even one more stealth liberal, the Supreme Court will tilt hard left for the next decade, regardless of Republican election wins. That would spell relentless defeats for parental rights, free speech, gun rights, religious liberty, the right to life, and more.
So why the delay? The only rational conclusion is that Ayotte hopes to use urgency to coerce the Executive Council into confirming a stealth nominee with minimal scrutiny. Given Ayotte’s record as a liberal Republican mentored by John McCain, who vetoed a bill to prevent biological males from being placed in women’s prisons, this tactic should alarm conservatives.
How do liberal judges like MacDonald and David Souter keep getting nominated and confirmed by Republicans? Because Republicans too often choose stealth candidates with no public record of their views. Inevitably, these judges shift left once safely on the bench.
A good rule of thumb: if a lawyer is a truly principled conservative today, he will prove it by speaking out—through legal work, articles, speeches, or otherwise. If he is silent or conformist now, he will be silent or conformist on the bench. In the state that produced Souter, “trust me, he’s conservative” should never again be accepted.
That is why we must call on the Executive Council to reject any stealth candidates. Vetting requires time. Should Ayotte delay further, the confirmation process—background checks, public hearings, council approval—will be rushed. That is unacceptable.
This delay appears calculated, perhaps for political leverage. But it comes at the cost of citizens who deserve a fully staffed court delivering timely justice. History shows rushed appointments often yield poorly vetted, ill-suited nominees chosen for expediency over merit.
Granite Staters deserve well-qualified justices dedicated to the rule of law, our state constitution, and impartial judgment. This is not the time for secrecy or opportunism.
Will Gov. Ayotte prove herself a leader committed to preserving judicial integrity, or will she operate in the shadows? She should honor her campaign promise not to “Mass up” New Hampshire. Granite Staters deserve better—from both their governor and their Supreme Court.
Hon. JR Hoell
Dunbarton, NH
Former 10-year state rep and founder of the NH House Freedom Caucus
Authors’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers.
Got Something to Say, We Want to Hear It. Comment or submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com
