After submitting my thoughts inspired by the bad behavior of Councilor Karen Liot Hill (KLH), I wanted to learn more about the nuts and bolts of an impeachment, should one for KLH be initiated (desired). A few details to keep in mind are that the office of executive councilor is a two-year term, elected at the same time as all other elected state offices, and we are presently 8 months into the term.
Unlike the legislature, which is in recess until Veto Day (more on that in a moment), the executive council meets regularly throughout the year to do its business. Not only is the body responsible for voting on whether money is spent (and received) on various things and determining the amount, but it will also oversee judge appointments, from the highest court down to Judge Temple. Timing matters, so the sooner KLH gets the boot, the better.
Readers might be thinking “not so fast” because it’s a gerrymandered blue seat expected to have a blue occupant replacing KLH, but does the People’s Business grind to a halt the moment a vacancy occurs in that body? I reached out to Daniel Richard to ask what would happen on that day, assuming it happens, and I eagerly await his answer. This hypothetical situation made me think of my friendly encounter in the state house kitchen with former Sheriff Connelly in January. I said, “Congrats on your appointment (to Chief of Staff), Sheriff. What happens next with filling the vacancy you created?” He said thanks and went on to explain how timing matters in that he was reelected sheriff at the same time that Kelly Ayotte was elected governor, making his departure almost as early as it gets in a term. His replacement is now in office and serves 1/10th of the population, assuming all counties are almost equally populated. Executive councilor is an office serving twice that, and unlike sheriffs, they regularly vote on important things, as I noted earlier. What I seek to know is if a vacancy forces a special election in 1/5 of the state, something that must be scheduled and allow for campaign time, never mind the money and its trails. Or perhaps life goes on in that chamber with a vacancy, and the governor is the tie breaker. I would like to know, and I asked about that in reaching out to Daniel Richard.
Readers might also be thinking that the leadership in both chambers won’t see impeaching KLH as a priority, even though Rep Sweeney fancies himself a member of the inner circle and happens to be the first rep stating intentions to sponsor articles of impeachment. The reason I mention both chambers is that the selection of the date for Veto Day is made jointly by Queen Sharon and the Speaker. Stay with me here.
With the legislature in recess until Veto Day and Veto Day being a variable (having happened as early as September and as late as January in the recent past), the first window of opportunity for Sweeney would be to move to suspend the rules for introducing articles of impeachment that day. Again, the sooner, the better, but I doubt it’s a priority matter for Queen Sharon and the Speaker to cooperate with any plans to move fast. Then there’s the whole process itself if Sweeney is successful in getting the ball rolling on Veto Day. I emailed both Norm Silber (a lawyer) and Daniel Richard (a constitutional scholar) to ask for the roll call vote requirements for moving articles of impeachment to the other side of the wall. Interestingly, the rules are NOT exactly the same as they are in DC, but with what both gentlemen have said, it should be easier to do in Concord than in Washington. I also learned that Judge Brock was the most recent public servant whose impeachment made it to the Senate, and he was acquitted in 2000.
While I wait to find out what happens next following an executive council vacancy, I will share some of what Norm Silber Said within the hour of me emailing him:
“A quick response without doing any case research: Articles 17 & 38 of the NH Constitution are silent as to the numbers required to adopt articles of impeachment or to convict. Articles 11, 20 & 37 do not help either. Similarly, the Rules of the House and the Rules of the Senate do not specify anything about the number of votes required to adopt articles of impeachment in the House or to convict in the Senate. Finally, Mason’s Manual, which is the ultimate authority in the event of nothing in the constitution or rules, is silent as to impeachment matters except for its general statement that a majority of votes (actual votes cast,) is required for any action unless otherwise specified in the constitution or rules. That being said, in the event of an impeachment matter, I presume that the House and/or the Senate could adopt “special” rules for impeachment only and those rules could specify a super majority being required. A reasonable argument could be made that since a super majority is required for some things like constitutional amendments, because impeachment is such an extraodridnary process a super majority should be required for impeachments as well. Just some thoughts.”
Hoping to get some case law, I then turned to Daniel Richard and he said the following:
“In New Hampshire, the Constitution does not specify a fixed vote ratio (like two-thirds or three-fifths) required in the House of Representatives to move articles of impeachment to the Senate. Instead, the NH House sets its own standard—including both the burden of proof and the number or percentage of votes needed for impeachment—to determine whether to pass the articles and send them to the Senate for trial.Wikipedia+1
Summary:
- Unlike the federal system (where the US House needs a simple majority to impeach and the US Senate requires a two-thirds vote to convict), New Hampshire’s Constitution leaves both thresholds open to determination by the respective legislative bodies.Wikipedia+1
- In practice, the NH House has used a simple majority (more than 50%) to impeach and forward articles to the Senate—as happened in the 2000 impeachment of Chief Justice David A. Brock.Wikipedia
- The NH Senate likewise determines for itself what standard to use for conviction during the trial (e.g. they used a two-thirds requirement in that same case).Wikipedia
So, to answer your question:
There’s no constitutional fixed ratio like 2/3 or 3/5 in New Hampshire. Instead, the NH House itself decides how many votes are required—and historically, that has typically been a simple majority.”
From reading the comments of 2 respected subject matter experts, it appears that how fast articles of impeachment against KLH will move and the chance of their success, assuming they’re filed in the first place, is a huge variable with many moving parts. It begs the question of whether or not the investment in removing KLH from office will produce a return that makes it worthwhile. My layperson answer is that it’s all about realistic timing in how soon her dismissal can happen AND what happens after that.
