First They Came...

First they came for the underground homeschoolers,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an underground homeschooler.

--I scrupulously complied with the law no matter how inequitable.
--I didn't mind mandatory notification.

Then they came for the special needs and learning disabled homeschoolers,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a the parent of one of those children.

--My children were superior students and performed well on standardized tests.
--I didn't mind "affirmative defenses."

Then they came for the unschoolers,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an unschooler.

--I used a religious curriculum and no one dare restrict my religious freedom.
--My participating agent will protect me from any state interference.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

--No one was left to explain my constitutional rights to the judge.
--The law now protects my child from me without regard for my constitutional rights.

Report to 15th Convention, Article 6 Voters' Guide and Ballot Question

Report to the

FIFTEENTH CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION
by the

COMMISSION TO STUDY THE STATE CONSTITUTION

Established Under Chapter 186 Laws of 1963

Introduction

During the 19^th Century, the people of the New Hampshire called three Constitutional Conventions and adopted seventeen amendments, eight of which might be classed as major changes in the Constitution. This is the eighth Convention to be called during the 20^th Century. The people have adopted twenty-two amendments submitted by the previous seven, but only four of these might be considered of major importance.

The fact that the people have continued to call Conventions suggests that they will support further changes in their Constitution. A study of the proceedings of recent Conventions reveals that the delegates have been unsure of what changes the people wanted, and how far they were expected to go in proposing amendments. For these reasons, both the 1948 and 1956 Conventions recommended that a commission be set up to prepare for any future Conventions. For the first time, the 1963 legislature followed this recommendation by creating this Commission.

The legislative mandate of this Commission is to study the constitution of the state and recommend to the Constitutional Convention such amendments as are needed We have studied the Constitution and talked to the people, both in private conversations, and in various public hearings throughout the state. Our recommendations to the Convention are unanimous decisions by the Commission. Our study convinces us that the basic structure of the New Hampshire Constitution is good. No complete revision is necessary.

The needs we find are problems of long standing. We were surprised, and gratified, to find a widespread public awareness of these needs. We believe the voters actively desire the amendments we are recommending.

In a sense the changes we are suggesting constitute a coherent modernization, though not a fundamental revision. All three major branches of New Hampshire’s government – legislative, executive, and judicial – are affected, and their problems are inter-related. Both the needs we find and the remedies we suggest can be divided into three broad categories: First, those pertaining to the structural nature of our government; second, those pertaining to fiscal affairs and efficient administrative management; third, those pertaining to certain overdue corrections in the constitution itself.

We believe that the 1964 Convention will b the most constructive one of this century, and we hope that our report will be of some assistance in achieving this goal.

…archaic but directly in conflict with federal law. Still worse are those provisions in our Bill of Rights which show partiality to “every denomination of Christians,” but especially to “Protestants” who believe in “evangelical principles.” Not only are these sectarian references needlessly offensive to other denominations, but they clearly violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

We recommend the removal of these and all other obsolete or imperative provisions from our constitution. We suggest, moreover, that these proposals be considered together and , if accepted by the convention, referred to the voters at an election when they can be considered apart form all proposals of a substantive nature. This was the policy followed in 1950 and again in 1958, and we think it was wise.

SECTARIAN REFERENCES

Still other provisions are inoperative not so much because they are obsolete – though most of them are – but because they violate the U. S. Constitution and laws. This is most obviously true of the sectarian references in Article 6 of the Bill of Rights. In order to promote “morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles,” the legislature is given power to “authorize, from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies, within this state, to make adequate provision at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality.” Finally, it is only “every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves quietly, and as good subjects of the state,” who are declared to be “equally under the protection of the law.”

It is hard to imagine a more flagrant violation of the separation of church and state which is so deeply embedded in the American constitutional tradition. Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution, neither Congress nor the states are allowed to make any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” In the New Hampshire Constitution the same principle is expressed in Article 6: “And no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another, shall ever be established by law.” It is hard to see how any one of the “several towns” can provide for the support of a “public Protestant teacher of piety, religion and morality” without showing an official preference for that faith over others, even if non=Protestants are excused from contributing to this support. The provision in Article 6 which extends equal protection of the law to “every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly” avoids the taint of sectarianism, so far as the Christian faith is concerned, but it gives needless offense to non-Christians. It also violates that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which forbids any state to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In the eyes of the United States Constitution, all persons, regardless of race, creed, or color, are under the equal protection of the laws.

We recommend, therefore, that Article 6 be amended y striking out the first sentence (including the proviso) and the last sentence and redrafting the rest so that the article, as amended, shall then read:

[Art.] 6^th. The several parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies shall at all times, have the exclusive right of electing their own teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance. But no person shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the Schools of any sect or denomination.

And every person shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established.

Nothing of religious freedom would be lost, because “rights of conscience” are already fully protected in Articles 4 and 5. Between 1850 and 1920 six successive constitutional conventions voted to eliminate some of all of the sectarian references in Article 6. On four of the six occasions –1876, 1889, 1902, and 1912 – more than one-half of the people voting on the issue approved the change but never the two-thirds majority required to put it into effect. In 1920 a proposal to strike the word “Protestant” from Article 6 was voted down by a majority of the voters, and since that time no convention has ventured to make another attempt. It is time the people of New Hampshire were given another chance to purge their constitution of the last traces of religious discrimination.

VOTERS'

GUIDE

TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
TO THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

To Appear on a Special Ballot at Election
on November 5, 1968

QUESTION NO. 3

3. Are you in favor of amending Article 6 of Part I of the Constitution so as to strike out certain specific sectarian references and further amending said Article to read as follows:

"Art. 6th. As morality and piety, rightly grounded on high principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay, in the hearts of men, the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as the knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a society, therefore, the several parishes, bodies, corporate, or religious societies shall at all times have the right of electing their own teachers, and of contracting with them for their support or maintenance or both. But no person shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the schools of any sect or denomination. And every person, denomination or sect shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect, denomination or persuasion to another shall ever be established. ever be established."?

NOW -- AT THE PRESENT TIME, Article 6 authorizes local public taxation for the support of "Protestant" clergymen only, and promises equal protection of the law solely to "every denomination of Christians". While these provisions may have had some reason in 1783 when adopted, they are now obsolete and dead provisions, also liable to be offensive to good citizens of Catholic and Jewish faiths, as well as to all disciples of freedom of conscience. These provisions are obviously contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

IF THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED, by enough Yes votes on Questions No. 3, the above-described sectarian references will be stricken from the state constitution, putting all religious denominations on a basis of equality and removing the present conflict with the U.S. Constitution. It should be emphasized that this amendment does not introduce any new substantive restrictions on the relation between Church and State; the second sentence merely paraphrases a provision which has been contained in Article 83, Part II of the state constitution since 1877, but adds nothing to it. An amendment similar to this one has several times received a popular majority but failed to get the necessary 2/3 vote. The Convention believes that now is the time to give final approval to what the 20th Century has made obvious.

---

The Special Committee ordered by the 15th Constitutional Convention to prepare and distribute this pamphlet consists of:

Richard F. Upton, Concord, President of the Convention


Click on this newspaper image for an enlarged copy.



The Portsmouth Herald on November 6, 1968 after 10 constitutional amendment questions were placed on the ballot.

Amendments -- Concord -N.H. (AP)

No. 3-- removing some obsolete sectarian references from the Constitution -- 142,112 yes, 67,697 no. Amendment adopted.

The Underground Classroom: How Oppressive Laws are Forcing Families into Hiding

http://kelly.halldorson.com/blog/?p=3113

Here is article explaining the political concerns of a New Hampshire family of unschoolers. It's one of many interesting articles on Kelly's blog, which describes her family's life on a converted school bus.

State v. Hoyt, 146 A. 170 (N.H. 1929)

The NH Supreme Court is not infallible. It failed in its Claremont decision, twisting the constitutional mandate to “cherish” literature and the sciences... to mean “fund” public education. It also failed in 1929 in its Hoyt decision. Review this case and the commentary that follows.

State v. Hoyt, 146 A. 170 (N.H. 1929)

State v. Daniels (separate case consolidated with Hoyt)

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

May 7, 1929.

Transferred from Superior Court, Belknap County; Young, Judge.

Complaints by the State against Oscar Hoyt, against Richard Daniels, against Lucius Covey, and against Truman Covey, charging in each case failure to cause child of defendant to attend public school. Case transferred on agreement of parties. Defendants fined $10 each.

Appeals from the Laconia municipal court. The charge in each case is a failure to cause a child of the defendant to attend the public school. Each defendant filed a statement of defense alleging "that on said day said child was instructed and taught by a private tutor in his own home in the studies required to be taught in the public schools to one of his years," and praying that the complaint be dismissed.

The court (Young, J.) denied the motion, and thereupon it was agreed by the parties that if the above statement is a defense as matter of law the complaints shall be dismissed, otherwise each defendant is to be fined $10 and costs; and the case was transferred.

*170 Theo. S. Jewett, of Laconia, solicitor for the State.

Henry D. Yeaton, of Rochester, for defendants.

PEASLEE, C. J.

The constitutionality of the compulsory school attendance statute (P. L. c. 118, §§ 1, 2) has not been considered to be an open question in this state. State v. Jackson, 71 N. H. 552, 53 A. 1021, 60 L. R. A. 739. "Free schooling furnished by the state is not so much a right granted to pupils as a duty imposed upon them for the public good. If they do not voluntarily attend the schools provided for them, they may be compelled to do so." Fogg v. Board of Education, 76 N. H. 296, 299, 82 A. 173, 175 (37 L. R. A. [N. S.] 1110, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 758).

Education in public schools is considered by many to furnish desirable and even essential training for citizenship, apart from that gained by the study of books. The association with those of all classes of society, at an early age and upon a common level, is *171 not unreasonably urged as a preparation for discharging the duties of a citizen. The object of our school laws is not only to protect the state from the consequences of ignorance, but also to guard against the dangers of "incompetent citizenship." Fogg v. Board of Education, supra.

This locally adopted theory of the power of the state over this subject has been somewhat limited by recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Prohibition of teaching the German language to children under 14, unless they have completed eighth grade work, was declared to be an infringement of the guaranty of liberty found in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 43 S. Ct. 625, 67 L. Ed. 1042, 29 A. L. R. 1446; Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U. S. 404, 43 S. Ct. 628, 67 L. Ed. 1047, Holmes and Sutherland, JJ., dissenting.

A statute requiring all children to attend the public school was declared invalid for a like reason. Pierce v. Society, 268 U. S. 510, 45 S. Ct. 571, 69 L. Ed. 1070, 39 A. L. R. 468. But it was also said in this case that no question was raised as to "the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare." 268 U. S. 534 (45 S. Ct. 573).

While these decisions declare the existence of important restrictions upon state power to compel education, there is nothing in them to indicate that the provisions of our statute offend against the federal guaranty of liberty. Under the interpretation of the guaranty, so far as it has been declared, it appears that attendance at some school may still be required, and that the state may supervise the school attended. The power to supervise necessarily involves the power to reject the unfit, and to make it obligatory to submit to supervision. The local statute does not go beyond these requirements.

The state being entitled to supervise education, it is not an answer to a charge of failure to furnish supervised instruction to show that equivalent unsupervised instruction is given. Unless the idea of personal liberty in the matter of educating children, recently developed in the federal decisions, is to be carried to the extreme of saying that the sole obligation that can be imposed upon the parent is to educate, a provision that approval of the parents' method must be obtained by him is not invalid. As those authorities are understood, they do not deny the power of the state to insist upon an approval of the proposed substitute for public school attendance. They do not limit that power to a mere right to inspect what is being done and to prosecute for deficiencies. Reasonable preventive measures may be taken, as well as curative ones. And in this connection a reasonable requirement for submitting the proposed substitute for approval, in advance of putting it into use, may be imposed.

The defendants' claim that the federal guaranty of liberty enables them to set at defiance any attempt of the state to prescribe the means for ascertaining the sufficiency of educational facilities furnished and to be furnished as a substitute for the public school, goes far beyond anything that has been decided to be the law. The declaration in Pierce v. Society, 268 U. S. 510, 534, 45 S. Ct. 571, 573 (69 L. Ed. 1070, 39 A. L. R. 468), that "no question is raised" as to certain matters, is understood to mean, or at least to suggest, that power relating thereto remains in the state. In any event, it must mean that lack of such power is neither declared, nor indicated.

The matters so enumerated include all that are involved in this litigation. The power "reasonably to regulate," to require attendance, good character of teachers, studies to be taught, and those to be prohibited, all look to laying down rules for future conduct. As the statute does not exceed the exercise of these powers, it is held to be constitutional.

In the adjustment of the parent's right to choose the manner of his children's education, and the impinging right of the state to insist that certain education be furnished and supervised, the rule of reasonable conduct upon the part of each towards the other is to be applied. The state must bear the burden of reasonable supervision, and the parent must offer educational facilities which do not require unreasonable supervision.

If the parent undertakes to make use of units of education so small, or facilities of such doubtful quality, that supervision thereof would impose an unreasonable burden upon the state, he offends against the reasonable provisions for schools which can be supervised without unreasonable expense. The state may require, not only that educational facilities be supplied, but also that they be so supplied that the facts in relation thereto can be ascertained, and proper direction thereof maintained, without unreasonable cost to the state. Anything less than this would take from the state all-efficient authority to regulate the education of the prospective voting population.

If any substantial supervisory power remains to the states, it is not perceived how it could well be reduced below the minimum required here. This bears no resemblance to the "affirmative direction concerning the intimate and essential details of such schools," which was held to be invalid in *172 Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U. S. 284, 47 S. Ct. 406, 71 L. Ed. 646.

Although the defendants' brief is prefaced by a declaration that the constitutional question is the only one raised by the case, much of the argument which follows is upon the construction of the statute. The claim made it that furnishing equivalent book-learning is an answer to a charge of failing to cause a child to attend school. The statute makes no such exception to the duty imposed. The only substitute for the public school is an approved private school. P. L. c. 118, § 1.

If the defendants' allegations that "said child was taught by a private tutor in his own home" could be construed to set forth attendance at a private school (see State v. Counort, 69 Wash. 361, 124 P. 910, 41 L. R. A. [N. S.] 95), there is no allegation that the enterprise has been designated as a private school "to be treated as approved within the meaning of this title." P. L. c. 116, § 11, par. XXVIII. Not having been approved as required by the statute, it is not "an approved private school." P. L. c. 118, § 1.

Decisions from other jurisdictions, which are based upon statutes making the attainment of certain proficiency by the child, or furnishing a certain amount of instruction, an excuse for nonattendance at the public school (Commonwealth v. Roberts, 159 Mass. 372, 34 N. E. 402; Bevan v. Shears [[1911] 2 K. B. 936), are not applicable here, because our statute makes no such exception. However accomplished or precocious the child may be, school attendance until he is 14 years old is required. The exception because of knowledge acquired applies only to those between 14 and 16 (P. L. c. 118, § 1); and the other excuses for nonattendance there provided are immaterial in the present case.

Varying the statement a little, the argument is advanced that the only object of the statute is to compel a certain amount of proper instruction and study, and that proof thereof is an answer to the charge in any event. This claim fails to take into account the true nature of the charge. While the ultimate object of the statute is the education of the child, means to assure the attainment of that end may be adopted by the state, and may be enforced by the imposition of penalties for violating the regulations made. As stated earlier in this opinion, the state is entitled to establish a system whereby it can be known, by reasonable means, that the required teaching is being done.

The statement of defense, in the motions to dismiss the complaints, does not allege a compliance with the statute. In accordance with the agreement of the parties as to the disposition of the cases, the order is:

Defendants fined $10 each.

All concurred.

END OF OPINION

Note: Hoyt rested upon Prussian-Platonic philosophy, declaring that "[f]ree schooling . . . is not so much a right granted to pupils as a duty imposed upon them for the public good." Compulsory education's impact upon the individual child was irrelevant, and it did not matter if the child's progress was slowed or if the child already understood the academic material presented. Compulsory education was primarily and explicitly an instrument of state indoctrination needed to maintain an "all-efficient authority to regulate the education of the prospective voting population," thereby preventing "incompetent citizenship." Hoyt's doctrine of cultural cleansing was intertwined with the eugenics movement. Compare Hoyt with Mein Kampf and In re J.P., 648 P.2d 1364 (Utah 1982).

By endorsing state-sponsored informational servitude, Hoyt implicitly assumed that 1) the state can and should define what constitutes "competent" citizenship and appropriate voter behavior; 2) citizens exist with a duty to serve the state, not vice versa; 3) "competent citizenship" is a static concept inculcated by a central authority, not an evolving concept gradually refined over the generations by independent thinkers; 4) one standardized method of mass instruction is appropriate for educating the entire population of children; and 5) a group of people with average intelligence can impose a better concept of "competent citizenship" upon a precocious child than the child can eventually develop for others through the use of self-initiated learning.

Hoyt was the seminal case used by New Englanders to maintain their control over United States education, notwithstanding an inconvenient string of four United States Supreme Court decisions during the 1920's (Meyer, Bartels, Pierce, and Farrington). Hoyt formed the bedrock precedent for subsequent adverse decisions rendered against alternative educators in state courts across the United States from 1929 to 1972. In 1972, the United States Supreme Court became troubled by the cultural genocide inflicted against the Mennonites by public educators in a number of states. The United States Supreme Court handed down Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), to reaffirm the principle of educational freedom and remind states of the Court's previous precedent from the 1920's.

Link:

Near Victory for Homeschool Freedom - HB 1580!

HB 1580 -- an act relative to home schooling

Hundreds of home schooling parents rallied at the State House today in support of their right to instruct their children at home. This marks a turning point in New Hampshire as parents finally pushed back against inequitable state regulation. Home schoolers were only 16 votes short of victory! The vote was 175 to 144.

Here's the break down. The representatives in red need to be replaced in November; the others need to be thanked. The representatives in green need to be doubly thanked for their willingness to break with leadership to support homeschooling freedom.

175 + 144 = 319 (77 Not voting and 5 unfilled seats) --> Total 400 representatives

220 Democrats - 45 Republicans didn't vote = 175 Republicans
175 Republicans - 31 Democrats didn't vote = 144 Democrats

13 Republicans voted against HB 1580... in opposition to leadership
13 Democrats voted for HB 1580.... in opposition to leadership

*Rep. Emerson’s vote was changed. She filed a Motion of Reconsideration with the House Speaker.

*Rep. Winter's vote was downgraded from green to white when he opposed the Motion of Reconsideration and lost sight of the importance of our Constitutional right to due process.

Note: Voting "YEA" was a vote to ITL the bill (ie: kill it). Voting "NAY" was a vote to support the bill.

Click here for an interactive roll call list that you can click on the representatives to find their contact information.

HB1580 Roll Call

Vote Date: 03/17/2010		Question/Motion: ITL
Yeas: 175	Nays: 144

		County		Vote
Abbott, Dennis	D	Rockingham	12	Yea
Aguiar, James	D	Grafton	06	Yea
Ahlgren, Christopher	R	Carroll	04	Nay
Allen, Mary	R	Rockingham	11	Nay
Allen, Peter	D	Cheshire	06	Not Voting
Almy, Susan	D	Grafton	11	Yea
Anderson, Eric	R	Merrimack	13	Nay
Arsenault, Beth	D	Belknap	04	Yea
Bailey, Clinton	R	Rockingham	03	Not Voting
Baldasaro, Alfred	R	Rockingham	03	Nay
Baroody, Benjamin	D	Hillsborough	13	Yea
Bartlett, Michael	D	Merrimack	11	Nay
Bates, David	R	Rockingham	04	Nay
Batula, Peter	R	Hillsborough	19	Nay
Beauchamp, Roger	D	Hillsborough	17	Yea
Beaulieu, Jane	D	Hillsborough	17	Yea
Beck, Catriona	D	Hillsborough	02	Yea
Belanger, Ronald	R	Rockingham	04	Not Voting
Belvin, William	R	Hillsborough	06	Nay
Benn, Bernard	D	Grafton	09	Yea
Bergin, Peter	R	Hillsborough	06	Nay
Berube, Roger	D	Strafford	02	Yea
Bettencourt, David	R	Rockingham	04	Nay
Bickford, David	R	Strafford	03	Yea
Bishop, Franklin	R	Rockingham	02	Nay
Blankenbeker, Lynne	R	Merrimack	11	Not Voting
Boehm, Ralph	R	Hillsborough	27	Nay
Boisvert, Ronald	D	Hillsborough	17	Not Voting
Bolster, Peter	R	Belknap	05	Nay
Borden, David	D	Rockingham	18	Yea
Bouchard, Candace	D	Merrimack	11	Yea
Boyce, Laurie	R	Belknap	05	Nay
Brennan, William	D	Strafford	01	Not Voting
Bridgham, Robert	D	Carroll	02	Yea
Bridle, Russell	R	Rockingham	15	Not Voting
Brown, C. Pennington	D	Rockingham	09	Yea
Brown, Carole	D	Merrimack	08	Yea
Brown, Jennifer	D	Strafford	05	Not Voting
Brown, Julie	R	Strafford	01	Yea
Brown, Larry	D	Strafford	03	Not Voting
Browne, Brendon	D	Strafford	04	Yea
Buco, Thomas	D	Carroll	01	Yea
Bulis, Lyle	R	Grafton	01	Nay
Burke, Rachel	D	Strafford	03	Yea
Burridge, Delmar	D	Cheshire	03	Not Voting
Butcher, Suzanne	D	Cheshire	03	Yea
Butler, Edward	D	Carroll	01	Yea
Butterworth, Timothy	D	Cheshire	04	Yea
Butynski, William	D	Cheshire	04	Yea
Cali-Pitts, Jacqueline	D	Rockingham	16	Not Voting
Campbell, David	D	Hillsborough	24	Not Voting
Carlson, Nancy	D	Cheshire	06	Not Voting
Caron, June	D	Hillsborough	25	Yea
Carr, Daniel	D	Cheshire	04	Yea
Case, Frank	R	Rockingham	01	Yea
Casey, Kimberley	D	Rockingham	11	Yea
Cebrowski, John	R	Hillsborough	18	Nay
Chandler, Gene	R	Carroll	01	Nay
Chandley, Shannon	D	Hillsborough	06	Yea
Charron, Gene	R	Rockingham	07	Nay
Chase, Claudia	D	Hillsborough	02	Yea
Chininis, Alexis	D	Hillsborough	10	Yea
Christensen, Chris	R	Hillsborough	19	Nay
Christiansen, Lars	R	Hillsborough	27	Nay
Clarke, Claire	D	Merrimack	06	Yea
Clemons, Jane	D	Hillsborough	24	Not Voting
Cloutier, John	D	Sullivan	04	Not Voting
Coffey, Jennifer	R	Merrimack	06	Nay
Comerford, Timothy	R	Rockingham	09	Nay
Cooney, Mary	D	Grafton	07	Yea
Cote, David	D	Hillsborough	23	Yea
Craig, James	D	Hillsborough	09	Yea
Crisler, Margaret	R	Rockingham	04	Nay
Cunningham, Steven	R	Sullivan	02	Nay
Cushing, Robert	D	Rockingham	15	Yea
Cyr, James	D	Strafford	03	Nay
Daniels, Gary	R	Hillsborough	06	Nay
Davis, Frank	D	Merrimack	07	Yea
Day, Judith	D	Rockingham	13	Yea
Day, Russell	R	Hillsborough	07	Nay
DeJoie, John	D	Merrimack	11	Yea
DeSimone, Debra	R	Rockingham	06	Nay
DeStefano, Stephen	D	Merrimack	13	Not Voting
Devine, James	R	Rockingham	07	Nay
DiFruscia, Anthony	R	Rockingham	04	Nay
DiPentima, Rich	D	Rockingham	16	Yea
Doherty, Shaun	R	Hillsborough	27	Nay
Dokmo, Cynthia	R	Hillsborough	06	Not Voting
Domingo, Baldwin	D	Strafford	05	Not Voting
Donovan, Thomas	D	Sullivan	04	Yea
Dowling, Patricia	R	Rockingham	05	Not Voting
Drisko, Richard	R	Hillsborough	05	Nay
Dumaine, Dudley	R	Rockingham	03	Nay
Eaton, Daniel	D	Cheshire	02	Yea
Elliott, Nancy	R	Hillsborough	19	Nay
Elliott, Robert	R	Rockingham	04	Nay
Emerson, Susan	R	Cheshire	07	(Yea) *Nay
Emerton, Larry	R	Hillsborough	07	Nay
Emiro, Frank	R	Rockingham	03	Nay
Farley, Michael	D	Hillsborough	15	Yea
Ferrante, Beverly	R	Rockingham	05	Nay
Fesh, Robert	R	Rockingham	05	Nay
Fields, Dennis	R	Belknap	02	Nay
Flanders, Donald	R	Belknap	04	Not Voting
Flanders, John	R	Rockingham	08	Nay
Fleck, Joseph	R	Carroll	05	Nay
Flurey, Joan	D	Hillsborough	16	Yea
Foose, Robert	D	Merrimack	01	Yea
Ford, Susan	D	Grafton	03	Yea
Foster, Linda	D	Hillsborough	04	Not Voting
French, Barbara	D	Merrimack	05	Yea
Friedrich, Carol	D	Grafton	06	Yea
Gagne, Larry	R	Hillsborough	13	Nay
Gagnon, Raymond	D	Sullivan	04	Nay
Gandia, Laura	R	Hillsborough	27	Not Voting
Garcia, Marilinda	R	Rockingham	04	Not Voting
Gargasz, Carolyn	R	Hillsborough	05	Yea
Garrity, James	R	Rockingham	06	Nay
Garrity, Patrick	D	Hillsborough	14	Not Voting
Gidge, Kenneth	D	Hillsborough	24	Not Voting
Gile, Mary	D	Merrimack	10	Yea
Ginsburg, Ruth	D	Hillsborough	20	Nay
Gionet, Edmond	R	Grafton	03	Nay
Gleason, John	R	Rockingham	05	Yea
Goley, Jeffrey	D	Hillsborough	08	Not Voting
Gorman, Mary	D	Hillsborough	23	Yea
Gottling, Suzanne	D	Sullivan	03	Yea
Gould, Franklin	D	Grafton	11	Yea
Gould, Kenneth	R	Rockingham	05	Yea
Graham, John	R	Hillsborough	18	Nay
Grassie, Anne	D	Strafford	01	Yea
Griffin, Mary	R	Rockingham	04	Nay
Groen, Warren	R	Strafford	01	Nay
Hackel, Paul	D	Hillsborough	21	Yea
Haefner, Robert	R	Hillsborough	27	Nay
Hagan, Joseph	R	Rockingham	07	Nay
Haley, Robert	D	Hillsborough	14	Not Voting
Hamm, Christine	D	Merrimack	04	Yea
Hammond, Jill	D	Hillsborough	03	Yea
Harding, Laurie	D	Grafton	11	Yea
Hardy, Valerie	D	Hillsborough	27	Yea
Harris, Sandra	D	Sullivan	04	Yea
Harvey, Philip	D	Hillsborough	01	Yea
Harvey, Suzanne	D	Hillsborough	21	Yea
Hatch, William	D	Coos	03	Yea
Hawkins, Ken	R	Hillsborough	18	Nay
Headd, James	R	Rockingham	03	Nay
Hebert, Roger	D	Hillsborough	12	Not Voting
Henson, John	D	Rockingham	13	Not Voting
Hess, David	R	Merrimack	09	Nay
Hikel, John	R	Hillsborough	07	Nay
Hinch, Richard	R	Hillsborough	19	Nay
Hinkle, Peyton	R	Hillsborough	19	Nay
Hodges, Kevin	D	Hillsborough	07	Yea
Hoelzel, Kathleen	R	Rockingham	02	Nay
Hofemann, Roland	D	Strafford	06	Not Voting
Hogan, Edith	R	Hillsborough	25	Nay
Holden, Frank	R	Hillsborough	04	Nay
Holden, Rip	R	Hillsborough	07	Nay
Hopper, Gary	R	Hillsborough	07	Nay
Horrigan, Timothy	D	Strafford	07	Nay
Houde-Quimby, Charlotte	D	Sullivan	01	Yea
Howard, Doreen	D	Rockingham	12	Yea
Howard, Thomas	R	Sullivan	02	Nay
Hubbard, Pamela	D	Strafford	01	Not Voting
Hunt, John	R	Cheshire	07	Nay
Hutchinson, Gina	D	Rockingham	05	Not Voting
Hutchinson, Karen	R	Rockingham	03	Not Voting
Hutz, Sarah	D	Strafford	05	Yea
Infantine, William	R	Hillsborough	13	Not Voting
Ingbretson, Paul	R	Grafton	05	Nay
Ingersoll, Paul	D	Coos	04	Not Voting
Ingram, Russell	R	Rockingham	04	Not Voting
Introne, Robert	R	Rockingham	03	Nay
Itse, Daniel	R	Rockingham	09	Nay
Jasper, Shawn	R	Hillsborough	27	Yea
Jeudy, Jean	D	Hillsborough	10	Nay
Johnson, Jane	R	Cheshire	06	Nay
Johnson, William	D	Belknap	05	Not Voting
Kaen, Naida	D	Strafford	07	Yea
Kappler, L. Mike	R	Rockingham	02	Nay
Katsakiores, Phyllis	R	Rockingham	05	Not Voting
Katsiantonis, George	D	Hillsborough	17	Not Voting
Katsiantonis, Thomas	D	Hillsborough	15	Not Voting
Keans, Sandra	D	Strafford	01	Yea
Kelley, John	D	Hillsborough	26	Yea
Kelly, Sally	D	Merrimack	07	Yea
Kepner, Susan	D	Rockingham	15	Yea
Kidder, David	R	Merrimack	01	Yea
Knowles, John	D	Hillsborough	27	Yea
Knowles, Mary Ann	D	Hillsborough	27	Yea
Knox, J. David	R	Carroll	04	Yea
Kolodziej, Walter	R	Rockingham	04	Not Voting
Komi, Richard	D	Hillsborough	12	Yea
Kopka, Angeline	D	Hillsborough	26	Yea
Kotowski, Frank	R	Merrimack	09	Not Voting
Kurk, Neal	R	Hillsborough	07	Nay
L'Heureux, Robert	R	Hillsborough	19	Nay
Ladd, Rick	R	Grafton	05	Nay
Laliberte, Suzanne	D	Grafton	10	Yea
LaPlante, Roland	D	Hillsborough	26	Yea
Laurent, John	R	Cheshire	01	Nay
Lauterborn, Elaine	D	Strafford	01	Nay
Leishman, Peter	D	Hillsborough	03	Yea
Lerandeau, Alfred	D	Cheshire	06	Yea
Levasseur, Nickolas	D	Hillsborough	11	Yea
Levesque, Melanie	D	Hillsborough	05	Yea
Lewis, Robert	D	Strafford	06	Not Voting
Lindsey, Steven	D	Cheshire	03	Nay
Lisle, Carolyn	D	Hillsborough	26	Not Voting
Lockwood, Priscilla	R	Merrimack	06	Nay
Long, Patrick	D	Hillsborough	10	Nay
Lyons, Melissa	D	Rockingham	08	Yea
Mack, Ron	D	Hillsborough	01	Yea
Major, Norman	R	Rockingham	08	Not Voting
Mann, Maureen	D	Rockingham	01	Yea
Marshall, Seth	D	Hillsborough	23	Yea
Matarazzo, Anthony	D	Hillsborough	20	Yea
Matheson, Robert	D	Grafton	04	Yea
Maybeck, Margie	R	Grafton	08	Nay
McCarthy, Barbara	D	Rockingham	05	Yea
McCarthy, Michael	R	Hillsborough	21	Nay
McClammer, Jim	D	Sullivan	05	Yea
McConkey, Mark	R	Carroll	03	Not Voting
McEachern, Paul	D	Rockingham	16	Yea
McGuire, Carol	R	Merrimack	08	Nay
McKinney, Betsy	R	Rockingham	03	Nay
McMahon, Charles	R	Rockingham	04	Nay
McMahon, Patricia	D	Merrimack	03	Yea
Mead, Robert	R	Hillsborough	04	Nay
Meader, David	D	Cheshire	03	Yea
Mears, Lucy	D	Coos	04	Yea
Merrick, Evalyn	D	Coos	02	Not Voting
Merry, Liz	D	Belknap	02	Yea
Messier, Irene	R	Hillsborough	17	Nay
Miller, Kate	D	Belknap	03	Yea
Millham, Alida	R	Belknap	05	Yea
Mitchell, Bonnie	D	Cheshire	07	Not Voting
Moody, Marcia	D	Rockingham	12	Yea
Moran, Edward	R	Hillsborough	18	Nay
Movsesian, Lori	D	Hillsborough	22	Yea
Mulholland, Catherine	D	Grafton	10	Yea
Nedeau, Stephen	R	Belknap	03	Nay
Nevins, Chris	R	Rockingham	15	Nay
Nixon, David	D	Hillsborough	17	Yea
Nord, Susi	D	Rockingham	01	Yea
Nordgren, Sharon	D	Grafton	09	Yea
Norelli, Terie	D	Rockingham	16	Not Voting
O'Brien, Michael	D	Hillsborough	26	Not Voting
O'Brien, William	R	Hillsborough	04	Nay
O'Neil, James	D	Hillsborough	19	Yea
Ober, Lynne	R	Hillsborough	27	Nay
Ober, Russell	R	Hillsborough	27	Nay
Osborne, Jessie	D	Merrimack	12	Not Voting
Osgood, Joe	R	Sullivan	04	Nay
Owen, Derek	D	Merrimack	04	Nay
Packard, Sherman	R	Rockingham	03	Nay
Palfrey, David	R	Merrimack	02	Nay
Palmer, Stephen	R	Hillsborough	06	Nay
Pantelakos, Laura	D	Rockingham	16	Yea
Parkhurst, Henry	D	Cheshire	04	Yea
Pastor, Beatriz	D	Grafton	09	Yea
Patten, Betsey	R	Carroll	04	Nay
Pellegrino, Tony	R	Hillsborough	19	Nay
Pepino, Leo	R	Hillsborough	11	Nay
Perkins, Amy	R	Rockingham	14	Nay
Perkins, Lawrence	R	Rockingham	14	Nay
Perry, Robert	D	Strafford	03	Yea
Peterson, Andrew	R	Hillsborough	03	Yea
Petterson, Don	D	Rockingham	10	Yea
Pierce, David	D	Grafton	09	Yea
Pilliod, James	R	Belknap	05	Nay
Pilotte, Maurice	D	Hillsborough	16	Yea
Porter, Margaret	D	Merrimack	08	Yea
Potter, Frances	D	Merrimack	10	Yea
Poznanski, Brian	D	Hillsborough	26	Yea
Pratt, Calvin	R	Hillsborough	07	Nay
Preston, Mark	D	Rockingham	14	Not Voting
Preston, Philip	D	Grafton	08	Yea
Price, Pamela	R	Hillsborough	26	Nay
Price, Susan	D	Strafford	03	Yea
Priestley, Anne	R	Rockingham	04	Not Voting
Quandt, Matt	R	Rockingham	13	Nay
Ramsey, Peter	D	Hillsborough	08	Not Voting
Rappaport, Laurence	R	Coos	01	Nay
Rausch, James	R	Rockingham	05	Not Voting
Read, Robin	D	Rockingham	16	Yea
Reagan, John	R	Rockingham	01	Nay
Reed, Dennis	R	Merrimack	02	Not Voting
Reever, Judith	D	Belknap	04	Yea
Remick, William	R	Coos	02	Nay
Renzullo, Andrew	R	Hillsborough	27	Nay
Rhodes, Brian	D	Hillsborough	22	Yea
Rice, Chip	D	Merrimack	12	Not Voting
Richardson, Barbara	D	Cheshire	05	Yea
Richardson, Gary	D	Merrimack	04	Yea
Richardson, Herbert	R	Coos	02	Nay
Roberts, John	R	Carroll	03	Nay
Roberts, Kris	D	Cheshire	03	Yea
Robertson, Timothy	D	Cheshire	03	Yea
Rodd, Beth	D	Merrimack	05	Yea
Rodeschin, Beverly	R	Sullivan	02	Nay
Rogers, Rose Marie	D	Strafford	01	Yea
Rokas, Theodoros	D	Hillsborough	12	Yea
Rollo, Deanna	D	Strafford	02	Yea
Rosenwald, Cindy	D	Hillsborough	22	Yea
Rous, Emma	D	Strafford	07	Yea
Rowe, Robert	R	Hillsborough	06	Nay
Russell, David	R	Belknap	06	Nay
Russell, Joseph	D	Rockingham	13	Not Voting
Russell, Trinka	D	Rockingham	13	Yea
Ryder, Donald	R	Hillsborough	05	Nay
Ryder, Mark	D	Strafford	06	Yea
Sad, Tara	D	Cheshire	02	Yea
Sanders, Elisabeth	R	Rockingham	07	Not Voting
Sapareto, Frank	R	Rockingham	05	Not Voting
Scala, Dino	R	Carroll	05	Not Voting
Scamman, Stella	R	Rockingham	13	Not Voting
Scamman, W. Douglas	R	Rockingham	13	Not Voting
Schlachman, Donna	D	Rockingham	13	Yea
Schmidt, Peter	D	Strafford	04	Yea
Schuett, Dianne	D	Merrimack	07	Yea
Schulze, Joan	D	Hillsborough	26	Yea
Sedensky, John	R	Rockingham	08	Nay
Seidel, Carl	R	Hillsborough	20	Nay
Shattuck, Gilman	D	Hillsborough	01	Yea
Shaw, Barbara	D	Hillsborough	16	Not Voting
Shaw, Kimberly	D	Hillsborough	26	Yea
Shurtleff, Stephen	D	Merrimack	10	Yea
Silva, Peter	R	Hillsborough	26	Nay
Skinder, Carla	D	Sullivan	01	Nay
Smith, Marjorie	D	Strafford	07	Yea
Smith, Suzanne	D	Grafton	07	Yea
Smith, Todd	R	Merrimack	09	Nay
Smith, William	R	Rockingham	18	Nay
Soucy, Connie	R	Hillsborough	17	Nay
Soucy, Timothy	D	Hillsborough	25	Not Voting
Spang, Judith	D	Strafford	07	Yea
Spaulding, Jayne	R	Hillsborough	18	Nay
Splaine, James	D	Rockingham	16	Yea
Sprague, Dale	D	Strafford	02	Yea
St. Cyr, Jeffrey	R	Belknap	05	Nay
Sterling, Franklin	R	Cheshire	07	Nay
Stetson, William	D	Merrimack	10	Yea
Stevens, Stanley	R	Carroll	04	Nay
Stiles, Nancy	R	Rockingham	15	Not Voting
Stohl, Eric	R	Coos	01	Not Voting
Stuart, Richard	D	Belknap	04	Yea
Sullivan, Daniel	D	Hillsborough	08	Yea
Sullivan, James	R	Rockingham	01	Nay
Sweeney, Cynthia	D	Sullivan	05	Yea
Swinford, Elaine	R	Belknap	05	Nay
Tahir, Saghir	R	Hillsborough	09	Not Voting
Taylor, Kathleen	D	Grafton	02	Yea
Theberge, Robert	D	Coos	04	Yea
Thomas, Yvonne	D	Coos	04	Yea
Thompson, Robert	D	Hillsborough	09	Yea
Tilton, Joy	D	Merrimack	06	Yea
Townsend, Charles	D	Grafton	10	Yea
Tucker, Pamela	R	Rockingham	17	Nay
Tupper, Frank	D	Merrimack	06	Nay
Twombly, James	R	Strafford	01	Not Voting
Ulery, Jordan	R	Hillsborough	27	Nay
Umberger, Karen	R	Carroll	01	Nay
Vachon, Dennis	D	Strafford	03	Yea
Vaillancourt, Steve	R	Hillsborough	15	Nay
Veazey, John	R	Belknap	04	Not Voting
Villeneuve, Moe	R	Hillsborough	18	Nay
Vita, Carol	R	Strafford	03	Nay
Wall, Janet	D	Strafford	07	Yea
Wallner, Mary Jane	D	Merrimack	12	Yea
Walsh, Robert	D	Hillsborough	11	Yea
Walz, Mary Beth	D	Merrimack	13	Yea
Ward, Brien	R	Grafton	01	Nay
Ward, Kenneth	D	Strafford	02	Yea
Watrous, Rick	D	Merrimack	12	Yea
Watters, David	D	Strafford	04	Yea
Weare, Everett	R	Rockingham	14	Nay
Webb, Leigh	D	Merrimack	02	Yea
Webber, Carolyn	D	Rockingham	04	Yea
Weber, Lucy	D	Cheshire	02	Yea
Weed, Charles	D	Cheshire	03	Not Voting
Welch, David	R	Rockingham	08	Nay
Wells, Roger	R	Rockingham	08	Not Voting
Wendelboe, Fran	R	Belknap	01	Nay
Weyler, Kenneth	R	Rockingham	08	Nay
Wheeler, Deborah	D	Merrimack	06	Not Voting
White, Andrew	D	Grafton	11	Not Voting
Wiley, Susan	D	Carroll	03	Yea
Willette, Robert	R	Hillsborough	06	Nay
Williams, Burton	R	Grafton	08	Yea
Williams, Carol	D	Hillsborough	14	Not Voting
Williams, Robert	D	Merrimack	11	Not Voting
Joel Winters	D	Hillsborough	17	Nay
Yeaton, Charles	D	Merrimack	08	Yea