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.

fighting over right-to-work: Expect an override fight over the so-called “Right to Work” bill. 

House Bill 474 would prevent New Hampshire’s public sector unions from collecting fees from non-union employees who are nonetheless covered under the union’s collective bargaining agreements. The bill, sponsored by Rep. William Smith (R-New Castle), passed the House and Senate but was vetoed by Gov. John Lynch. The question now is whether the legislature has the numbers to override his veto.

The Senate’s 16-8 vote to pass an amended version of the bill on April 20 hit the veto-proof mark with no room to spare. The House voted on May 4 to pass the Senate’s amended version, but missed the veto-proof mark, with a vote of 255-140. It appears the House has lost some steam for the measure since its February vote of 221-131.

But House Speaker William O’Brien (R-Mont Vernon) wasted no time in calling for Lynch to sign the bill into law. “Right to Work is the single greatest opportunity to create jobs in New Hampshire that the legislature will pass this year,” O’Brien said in a press release. “This means more manufacturing jobs, more service jobs and more companies coming to the Granite State to grow. If Governor Lynch is committed to growing our economy and creating jobs, he will sign this legislation at the first opportunity.”

The State Employees Association of New Hampshire, on the other hand, has taken to calling HB 474 “Right to Work for Less.” The union says the bill overturns decades of Republican and Democratic leadership respect for collective bargaining rights and essentially tells employers how to run their businesses. SEA President Diana Lacey called on Lynch to veto the bill and applauded the 140 lawmakers who voted against it.

A two-thirds majority vote will be required in both the House and Senate to override Lynch’s veto. Expect a bruising rhetorical battle. —Michael McCord

return to sender: The N.H. House reached a veto-proof majority when it voted 261-104 to approve its own version of a Senate proposal to fight federal health care reform. But will the Senate concur?

The House version of Senate Bill 148, sponsored by Sen. Tom DeBlois (R-Manchester) requires the attorney general to join a multi-state lawsuit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and requires New Hampshire to reject some $600,000 in federal grant money to help the state set up a health care exchange as provided for in last year’s law.

“This bill sends the Obamacare money back to Washington with specific instructions to use it to reduce our massive federal deficit,” O’Brien said in a press release. “Obamacare has been found unconstitutional by two federal courts and we are awaiting the final decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Spending that sort of money to comply with a mandate that is three years away and stands on very shaky ground makes no sense.”

The reform act’s unconstitutionality is far from a foregone conclusion; the law has been upheld by two different federal district courts. Also, if the state does not use the federal money to set up a health care exchange network, the federal government will set up an exchange of its own. And, though New Hampshire can make suggestions, Granite State legislators have no legal authority over what the federal government does with money the state returns.

Senate Bill 148 now returns to the Senate, which may or may not take a dim view of the House amendments—especially since the Senate had merely suggested (not required) that N.H. Attorney General Michael Delaney join the lawsuit.

Lynch will have a couple of weeks before he has to make a decision either way on SB 148. But whether he simply lets the bill become law or risks an override, this one could ultimately be decided in state court. —Michael McCord