Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Hause1138 OP t1_iu1p0n7 wrote

Not trying to sway anyone one way or another, was looking over the sample ballot and saw the questions and found them confusing.

I felt this article did a good job explaining what their purpose was (and why the wording is what it is).

Hollis Brookline League of Women Voters NH

Stay safe and go vote!

21

one_way_ticketz t1_iu1rmhz wrote

Really wish they would have just worded the ballot question in terms of the amendment (rather than what it would read as) like they did in the linked article. It's far clearer that way.

7

HPenguinB t1_iu4uixq wrote

Usually, that's the point. It's hard to vote against something when you have no fucking idea what they are writing.

2

EricInAmerica t1_iu2aggj wrote

That one confused me too, and I appreciate the info. Thanks.

3

nefariouslylupine t1_iu6m13t wrote

This NHPR article gives some info on both. https://www.nhpr.org/politics/2022-10-13/nh-voters-will-see-2-constitutional-questions-nov-8-ballot.

Or seacoast online: https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/state/2022/10/20/nh-2022-election-ballot-questions-constitutional-convention-register-probate/10533965002/

The first question was introduced by State Legislation to amend the state constitution to remove references to the office of register of probate. For the amendment you can see that bills progression here https://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/legacy/bs2016/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=2093&sy=2022&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2022&txtbillnumber=CACR21

The second question is asked every 10 years in NH. It asks if the people think the NH constitution needs to be rewritten at a constitutional convention. Last time it reached the majority necessary was in 1984.

2

randycannon t1_iu1uzbz wrote

What are they looking to change at this constitutional convention? It says they can rewrite the state constitution every 10 years and need the voters to ratify it, but are there any groups looking to change specific parts of the constitution?

7

Hause1138 OP t1_iu236lt wrote

If I understand correctly (big if) it's not that anyone is trying to rewrite it. It's just that if the legislature hasn't had a vote to update it in 10 years it goes onto the ballot.

8

Consistent-Winter-67 t1_iu2g7g1 wrote

At this point I wouldn't risk putting it up for a vote while we have so many free staters in our government. Maybe in another 10 years it might be better aligned.

3

Tullyswimmer t1_iu463ak wrote

You do know how the constitution is changed in our state, right?

2

MajorElevator4407 t1_iu5fdk8 wrote

I believe that the process is the free staters fight to come up with the craziest ideas. Then they write a new constitution using the blood of their defeated enemies.

4

Tullyswimmer t1_iu5j2yw wrote

Yes, that is correct.

Jokes aside, there was a link elsewhere that described the process. There's a convention, and there are elected delegates sent there (can't recall if it's elected by the legislature or the people), to review the constitution and amend it, but any amendments have to pass with a 3/5 majority and then get ratified by popular vote.

And honestly, the last time we amended our constitution (with at least one free stater amendment, to boot...) both amendments were ratified with an 80%+ popular vote.

2

Savage-Sauce t1_iu26r4d wrote

For the first question a vote for yes is to eliminate the registrar of deeds which is a powerless position in the state. Some may argue that they can give it more power in future but sounds to me like a job i would want but do not know the right people to live off the teet of the tax payer dole. I am voting yes.

−1

Bubba-Bee t1_iu28127 wrote

That’s not what I read at all. How did you get eliminating the registrar from that? Not being snide, just curious.

Edit: It’s actually to eliminate references to the Registrar of Probate, which is basically a clerical position since 2011. I should have read the article from League of Women Voters first, now it makes a lot more sense.

8

59000beans t1_iu2fy3b wrote

https://ballotpedia.org/New_Hampshire_Abolish_Office_of_Register_of_Probate_Amendment_(2022)

A "yes" vote supports eliminating the register of probate offices and references to it within the New Hampshire Constitution. The ballot measure was sponsored by Rep. Norman Silber (R-2) and Rep. Aidan K. Ankarberg (R-10).

The Register of Probate is an elected office in some states. The office had previously handled wills, the administration of estates, trusts, guardianships, adoptions, and name changes.

After changes were made to New Hampshire's court system in 2011, certain duties were removed from the register of probate.

In the consolidation of July 2011, the number of probate courts was reduced from 117 to 54.

Argument to Vote No: “Feedback from many NH residents after encountering very limited assistance at the courthouse is that they have been advised to seek an attorney if they are unable to properly submit the necessary information. If we still had functioning registers of probate to help, most residents would not have to deal with attorneys and their associated legal fees."

Argument to Vote No: "In 2013, former Hillsborough County register of probate Joseph Kelly Levasseur filed a writ of prohibition with the state Supreme Court, saying that the transfer of duties from the register of probate was unconstitutional, due to the duties being transferred to an unelected position."

4

Zealousideal_Walk515 t1_iu22sid wrote

Don’t vote if you are uninformed or on welfare please

−40

Consistent-Winter-67 t1_iu2fvij wrote

I can get being uninformed but adding welfare is just ridiculous. Poverty doesn't take away sometimes right to vote.

19