We predicted that Gordon-Darby never stood a serious chance of winning this, and it looks like we are well on our way to being right. According to Councilor John Stephens, the effort by Gordon-Darby to force the state to renew a contract it canceled was dismissed.
The Executive Council is the sole repository of this power and exercises it at its discretion as outlined in State Law and the State Constitution.
Executive Councilor John Stephen (R-Manchester) issued the following statement after the U.S. District Court today denied Gordon-Darby’s motion to hold the State in contempt of the preliminary injunction in Gordon-Darby Holdings v. NH Department of Safety:
“Today’s ruling is a clear vindication of the Executive Council’s constitutional authority over state contracts. The court found that the Commissioners ‘cannot be faulted for the Executive Council’s decision’ to deny the extension of Gordon-Darby’s contract on February 4, and the court expressly declined to address Gordon-Darby’s argument that the State should have been forced to reinstate their contract without Council approval or bypass competitive bidding altogether. The Council’s 3-2 vote was a lawful exercise of our Part II, Article 46 authority, and this decision of the federal court has now confirmed it.”
“The State has issued a competitive RFP, the Council will review any contract that comes out of it on the merits, and the Attorney General continues to defend New Hampshire’s sovereign authority on appeal before the First Circuit. What today’s ruling makes clear is that no state agency or contractor dictates the actions of the Executive Council in New Hampshire. It is the New Hampshire Constitution that dictates such action, and that is exactly how our system is designed to work.”
“I also want to thank Attorney General John Formella personally, and the attorneys in his office, for their continued work defending the State of New Hampshire and the Executive Council throughout this litigation.”
Gordon Darby is, of course, welcome to submit its own proposal, and the EC is likely to sit on all of them until the EPA and the State discuss arrangements relative to the Clean Air Act, which I expect to go well, by which I mean we will get a waiver.
If the State of New Hampshire has some federal obligation to meet some sort of emissions testing standard, why are there at least fourteen other states that do not require any emissions testing? Because they’ve met EPA air standards that meet the entire point of vehicle emissions testing, absent those tests.
Tennessee, Minnesota, and Michigan no longer do any emissions testing, and New Hampshire’s Air quality is as good or better than theirs.
If there is no contract and inspections are not required by law, and the State’s air quality exceeds any EPA requirement for vehicle emissions testing, this can’t be about anything but Gordon-Darby getting bitchy about losing a government-mandated revenue stream that isn’t even environmentally necessary.
The larger matter is still wandering drunkenly through the court system, which, once it finds its way, will likely find the matter moot if EPA delivers the waiver before an actual court date. If not, the EC’s constitutional authority in lieu of the in-process waiver evaluation ought to stall things until the deal is done.
EPA has already made it clear that CO2 is no longer a danger. The effect on transportation emissions is likely to soften the federal standard, leaving it to states to make their citizens’ lives more expensive for little to no real-world benefit. And even then, locals who have to pay for it, whatever it is, should be the ones making that call, subject to change based on the next available election.
