What are state lawmakers doing that actually affects your daily life? Lots! Find out with Front Door Politics: jargon-free, non-advocacy state house news at www.frontdoorpolitics.com.

casinos back on the table: A scaled-down bipartisan proposal to revive gambling had its first public hearing on Feb. 22. It came a year after a bill to allow expanded gaming in New Hampshire passed the Senate but died in the House. 

House Bill 593, sponsored by Rep. Edmond Gionet (R-Lincoln) would establish two casinos—“at least 100 miles apart”—offering video poker, slots and table games. The House Ways and Means Committee will consider how the bill proposes permitting the casinos, plus how it would distribute the state’s proceeds to offset the state education property tax and contribute to the highway fund.

According to language in the bill, cities and towns would have to approve a gaming location. A $10 million one-time fee would be assessed to any table game licensee, and as much as $363 million annually would be used to offset the education property tax. That money would come from the state receiving 49 percent of the net machine income. The highway fund would also receive 8 percent of all table game revenues. As of Feb. 21, no fiscal analysis of the bill had been provided by the legislative budget assistant.

Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester) is an HB 593 co-sponsor and a long-time advocate for expanded gaming in New Hampshire. In 2010, D’Allensandro led the successful bid to gain Senate approval for the bipartisan bill he sponsored, Senate Bill 489, which supporters said could have raised as much as $150 million in licensing fees alone from six casinos. But gaming foes said the estimated revenues and potential numbers of high-paying jobs were overstated and that out-of-state casino operators would benefit the most. The House defeated the measure by a 212-158 vote.

Last May, Gov. John Lynch’s Gaming Study Commission released a detailed, long-awaited report on the benefits, costs and consequences of expanding gaming in the state.

“Expanded gaming would generate additional revenues and economic activity, but it would also generate additional societal and economic costs,” the report’s executive summary said. “A fully informed decision about expansion requires a business model analysis that accounts for both benefits and costs. Such an analysis should center on the state’s long-term interests, not just short-term financial or other needs.” —Michael McCord

changing voter registration: Substantial changes to New Hampshire election laws are on the table with two bills sponsored by Rep. Gregory Sorg (R-Easton). Their first public hearings were held in the spacious Representatives Hall on Feb. 24, drawing large protests from college students outside. 

House Bill 223 would repeal the election-day voter registration law that’s been in place since 1994, while House Bill 176 would prevent most college students from voting in the town where they reside. Sorg is the sole sponsor for both bills.

HB 176 would replace a 1979 provision that defines who can vote in the state. Included in the changes would be prohibiting students attending “institutions of higher learning” from acquiring domicile for voting purposes in their college community unless they lived there prior to matriculating. It would also disallow military personnel and their families, as well as federal employees temporarily posted to New Hampshire from voting in the state.

The bill has been sharply criticized by students at colleges and universities throughout the state as discriminatory and unconstitutional. A coalition of student Republicans and Democrats at Dartmouth College have come out against the proposal.

In a January story about HB 176 in the student newspaper The Dartmouth, Rep. Joe Osgood (R-Claremont) said he supports the bill because of his concerns that college students who live in small towns for a limited amount of time could use elections to make “drastic” and “detrimental” changes to the town. He also supports the measure because it would prevent voter fraud, though he could not cite any particular cases of fraudulent voting in the state. Osgood was also quoted in the story saying that college “tends to breed liberalism” among young people, which undermines the nation’s political system and is “destroying the country.”

According to the non-partisan Fair Elections Legal Network, even if the law were to pass, it would likely be ruled unconstitutional in the courts. Citing federal court decisions in 1972 and 1979, FELN President Robert Brandon said the law is clear and “it is unconstitutional to deny someone the right to vote based solely on his or her status as a student.”

Closer to home, one court decision stemmed from a 1972 case involving a Dartmouth College student who challenged New Hampshire’s former restrictive statute on student voting eligibility. The federal court ruled for the student and struck down that state law as unconstitutional. —Michael McCord