Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Public Employees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate sustains governor’s veto of bill limiting public employees’ electioneering; override fails 24–0
Summary
The New Hampshire Senate declined to overturn the governor’s veto of Senate Bill 213, which proposed restrictions on electioneering by public employees and changes to absentee voting; senators cited vagueness, constitutional concerns and ongoing litigation.
The New Hampshire Senate on an unstated date sustained the governor’s veto of Senate Bill 213, refusing to enact the measure that would have restricted electioneering by public employees and revised aspects of absentee voting.
Senators sustained the veto in a roll-call vote shown in the journal entries included in the session: 24 opposed overturning the veto, none recorded in favor. The clerk read the governor’s veto message before the question was called.
Supporters of sustaining the veto said the bill’s language was overly broad and could criminalize ordinary behavior by public employees. “This bill was a solution looking for a problem,” said Senator Perkins Quoca, who urged colleagues to respect public employees and avoid imposing vague criminal penalties. “If we put such vague, unsophisticated language into law, the only way our public employees will be able to protect themselves is to keep quiet.”
Other senators pointed to legal and practical concerns about absentee-voter safeguards in the bill. Senator Long told colleagues the provision allowing election officials to reject absentee ballots when signatures “do not appear to match” risked relitigation of previous federal decisions and could place an undue burden on voters who are detained, overseas, institutionalized, or in long-term care. Long cited Sociedo v. Gardner (a 2018 federal district-court decision in New Hampshire) and said the state could not afford to relitigate similar issues now. He also referenced ongoing litigation identified in the record as Robinson v. Scanlon.
Senator Gray said some of the bill’s policy topics were already being addressed in other legislation, and he noted that an amendment to House Bill 340 would be taken up that, in his view, would resolve some of the issues raised on the floor.
The question before the Senate was phrased as, “Notwithstanding the governor’s veto, shall Senate Bill 213 become law?” The clerk called a roll; the entries in the transcript show the following recorded votes: Senator Rochefort — No; Senator Lang — No; Senator McConkie — No; Senator Waters — No; Senator Prentice — No; Senator Gray — No; Senator Innes — No; Senator Ward — No; Senator Burchardy — No; Senator Fenton — No; Senator McGough — No; Senator Abarth — No; Senator Rosenwald — No; Senator Reardon — No; Senator Murphy — No; Senator Pearl — No; Senator Sullivan — No; Senator Burtzel — No; Senator Long — No; Senator Perkins Quoca — No; Senator Abbess — No; Senator Gannon — No; Senator Atschuler — No; Senator Carson — No. After the roll call the presiding officer announced, “The no’s have it. The governor’s veto on Senate Bill 213 is sustained, lacking the necessary two-thirds vote.”
No motion to override the veto carried; the bill therefore did not become law. The Senate moved on to introductions and other business after the vote.
Why it matters: senators debating the measure framed it as touching on both free-speech and election-administration concerns. Lawmakers who opposed the bill cited the possibility of criminal penalties for commonplace conduct, potential Fourteenth Amendment due-process issues, and active litigation that could affect any new statutory standards.
Votes and next steps: with the veto sustained, the Senate took no further action on Senate Bill 213 during this session. The clerk was instructed to enter the governor’s veto message into the Senate journal.
