What are the arguments for and against the two “ 2022 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT QUESTIONS?” Bonus: link to your ward’s sample ballot.

Submitted by pondgrass t3_yifntj in newhampshire

Sample ballots: https://www.sos.nh.gov/elections/sample-ballots

> "Are you in favor of amending articles 71 and 81 of the second part of the constitution to read as follows: [Art.] 71. [County Treasurers, County Attorneys, Sheriffs, and Registers of Deeds Elected.] The county treasurers, county attorneys, sheriffs and registers of deeds, shall be elected by the inhabitants of the several towns, in the several counties in the State, according to the method now practiced, and the laws of the state, provided nevertheless the legislature shall have authority to alter the manner of certifying the votes, and the mode of electing those officers; but not so as to deprive the people of the right they now have of electing them. [Art.] 81. [Judges Not to Act as Counsel.] No judge shall be of counsel, act as advocate, or receive any fees as advocate or counsel, in any probate business which is pending, or may be brought into any court of probate in the county of which he or she is judge." (Passed by the N.H. House 294 Yes 43 No; Passed by Senate 21 Yes 3 CACR 21

——

> Question Proposed pursuant to Part II, Article 100 of the New Hampshire Constitution "Shall there be a convention to amend or revise the constitution?"

4

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

warren_stupidity t1_iuigy5c wrote

The odd jumble of stuff in Q1 - mixing conflict of interest prohibitions (good) with peculiar undefined election processes (dubious) makes this question a mess that should be rejected out of hand.

Q2 - I'm mixed on this, we really need a ballot initiative process and election redistricting reform to end gerrymandering, but a CC is open ended and who knows what would come out of it.

6

mmirate t1_iuinmoc wrote

Replying to warren_stupidity (#388,754)

Q1 is just removing all references in those two sections about a county office that has had all of its duties legislatively removed to other places, so that the office may be dissolved. It looks confusing because the ballot doesn't include the removed parts in stricken-through type.

Whatever happens as a result of Q2 passing, has to be approved by 60% of the voters at the next statewide ballot.

6

valleyman02 t1_iuisb2k wrote

Replying to warren_stupidity (#388,754)

So to my way of thinking legislators made it very confusing on purpose. Seems like they're trying to trick people to me. So there is something sketchy about both of these questions in my mind. I'm voting no on both of these.

1

MiggySmalls6767 t1_iuivkp3 wrote

Just No on both. Anytime politicians, particularly the knuckle draggers we have currently running the show in NH, try to sneak some weird language onto a ballot. Best to vote no.

6

a1234321 t1_iuj5en8 wrote

Gonna be a no for me. Wording is convoluted as hell. AKA, they're trying to pull something over on us.

7

sonarblips t1_iujgwzj wrote

This phrase alone means a NO for me on questions 1: "the legislature shall have authority to alter the manner of certifying the votes, and the mode of electing those officers;"

Another NO for questions 2: "have a convention to amend or revise the constitution"

5

TJsName t1_iujj0qk wrote

I assumed they made the questions so difficult to understand that they wanted me to vote NO, which is why I voted YES. Can't fool me!

/S

3

mmirate t1_iujj2o5 wrote

Replying to sonarblips (#400,768)

Q1 is just removing all references in those two sections about a county office that has had all of its duties legislatively removed to other places, so that the office may be dissolved. It looks confusing because the ballot doesn't include the removed parts in stricken-through type.

Whatever happens as a result of Q2 passing, has to be approved by 60% of the voters at the next statewide ballot.

1