A look back at an exceptionally turbulent year in state politics through the lens of the 13 bills the governor vetoed.

Some degree of squabbling between Republicans and Democrats is to be expected in state government. But 2011 was marked by intense partisan acrimony in New Hampshire, as Republican super-majorities in the House and Senate sparred with Democrats and concerned citizens on a wide range of issues.

Gov. John Lynch allowed the Republicans’ biennial budget plan to become law without his signature. But he voiced strong concerns about the budget, which cut $110 from public colleges and universities, $300 million from state hospitals, $20 million from health and human service programs, and $36 million for local road projects.

Many of the other bills that passed through the Legislature this year reflected nation-wide GOP initiatives that spilled into the Granite State. Bills aimed at reducing the power of unions, expanding gun rights and tightening voting laws popped up around the country in 2011, and New Hampshire was no exception. And, like in other states, some of these controversial bills provoked large public rallies and demonstrations.

Republicans say they are simply following through on the promises they made to voters in 2010, pushing for fiscal conservatism and economic growth. But Democrats accuse their counterparts of promoting a reckless agenda based around extreme ideologies rather than pragmatic solutions. 

For a sampling of the year’s most contentious and divisive pieces of legislation, one need only look at the 13 bills Lynch vetoed in 2011. Many of those vetoes faced heated override votes (in order to override a veto from the governor, both chambers of the Legislature must achieve a two-thirds majority vote), as leaders of both parties flung accusations back and forth in a massive political food fight.

HB 474—the so-called Right to Work Act    
No single piece of legislation generated more controversy in 2011 than the so-called Right to Work bill, which would have dramatically reduced the bargaining powers of public and private labor unions. Republicans said the bill would increase employee freedom and lure new businesses to the state, thereby creating jobs. But Lynch vetoed the bill, arguing it would destroy unions and result in lower wages. Many economists contest the notion that right-to-work legislation would attract businesses, and most states that have this legislation in place have higher unemployment and lower wages than New Hampshire. House Speaker William O’Brien (R-Mont Vernon) repeatedly delayed an override vote on HB 474, but when the vote finally arrived in November, the governor’s veto was sustained.

SB 88—expanding the use of deadly force    
Historically, New Hampshire citizens have been allowed to use deadly force in self-defense, but only if they cannot safely retreat from the situation. The “Stand Your Ground” bill removes the requirement to attempt a retreat before opening fire. Law enforcers and prosecutors across the state—both Republican and Democrat—opposed the law, warning it could lead to an escalation of violence and give criminals a new line of defense in court. But Republicans insisted the bill reaffirmed the Constitutional right to self-defense. They overrode Lynch’s veto in a vote that Speaker O’Brien unexpectedly called with no advance notice to the public or the minority party.

SB 129—requiring voter identification    
This bill would have required voters to present valid photo identification at the polls. Supporters said the bill was aimed at eliminating voter fraud, but opponents questioned that motive, noting that voter fraud has never been a problem in New Hampshire. Some skeptics believe the real motive behind the bill was to reduce voter participation among people not likely to support the Republican agenda. In any case, Lynch vetoed the bill, saying it would make voting difficult for many seniors, students and disabled citizens who don’t drive. His veto was sustained.

HB 329—parental notification for all abortions          
House Bill 329 prohibits abortion providers from performing abortions on minors without first notifying their parents or guardians, except in cases of certain medical emergencies. Lynch said he supports a parental notification law for minors, but only if it includes allowances for victims of rape, incest and abuse. HB 329 does not include such allowances, and its health provisions are unclear and too narrow, Lynch argued in his veto message. He also worries the legislation does not provide sufficient guidance for medical professionals, who could be imprisoned or sued for violating the law. But his gripes fell on deaf ears, as the veto was overridden.

SB 154—withdrawal from RGGI    
Senate Bill 154 would have repealed New Hampshire’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade program aimed at reducing carbon emissions throughout the Northeast. Supporters said withdrawing from RGGI would have cut electricity costs and created jobs. But opponents argued the exact opposite. In his veto message, Lynch cited a UNH study indicating the initiative had generated $16 million in allowance revenue, which has been used to help families and businesses become more energy efficient. Withdrawing from the program, he said, would have jeopardized the state’s long-term economic competitiveness. He noted that RGGI was created with bipartisan support. His veto was sustained.

HB 133—repealing NH’s minimum wage  
New Hampshire’s current minimum wage is set at the federal level of $7.25 per hour. But, until the Legislature passed House Bill 133, New Hampshire had the option of increasing its minimum wage above the national standard. HB 133 permanently attaches the state’s minimum wage to the federal minimum. Lynch vetoed the bill, arguing the state Legislature should have the authority to establish its own minimum standard for compensation. But Republicans disagreed. O’Brien called the state minimum wage a “job-killing regulation” and said getting rid of it would make it easier for businesses to grow and add jobs. Lynch’s veto was overridden.

HB 542—“objectionable material” in schools   
House Bill 452 would have required school districts to adopt a policy allowing an exception to any course material deemed “objectionable” by a parent or guardian. As Lynch pointed out in his veto message, parents would have been allowed to object to lessons on anything from the history of France to the civil or women’s rights movement. The school district then would have been required to provide alternative course work. Lynch argued the law would have been disruptive to classrooms and difficult for schools to administer. Enough legislators of both parties agreed with him to sustain the veto.

SB 91 & HB 109—prohibiting sprinkler requirements   
Senate Bill 91 prohibits local governing bodies from requiring sprinkler systems in new one- and two-family residences. House Bill 109 prohibits planning boards from doing the same as a condition for a local permit, while also prohibiting municipalities from enforcing their existing sprinkler ordinances. Lynch vetoed both bills, saying the decision to require sprinkler systems should remain a local one. Although the state fire marshal and several local fire departments supported the vetoes, Republicans argued sprinkler mandates are costly and weaken the housing industry. They overrode both vetoes, saying the bills were aimed at protecting homeowners from “ill-considered regulations.”

SB 57—interest rates on title loans           
This bill increases the maximum percentage of interest that can be charged on title loans (short-term loans in which the borrower’s car is used as collateral) to 25 percent per month. The current maximum rate is 36 percent per year, the same maximum set by Congress on title loans to military members. Lynch called the 25-percent-per-month rate excessive and said it would be detrimental to families, communities and the economy. The Senate voted to override Lynch’s veto, but the House hasn’t gotten around to calling an override vote on SB 57. It is expected to do so in early January.

HB 218—modifying the rail transit authority      
House Bill 218 would dramatically reduce the powers of the New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority, essentially turning it into a study committee. Lynch said he was urged to veto the bill by numerous groups, including the Manchester and Nashua chambers of commerce and the town councils of Merrimack and Bedford, all of whom said creating a passenger rail service would help their businesses grow, create jobs and attract new companies to the area. The House is expected to call an override vote on HB 218 in early January. If it is successful, a vote in the Senate will follow.

HB 380—Commission on the Status of Men     
House Bill 380 would keep the Commission on the Status of Men in existence through 2013. The commission was established in 2002 to examine cultural biases and stereotypes affecting men. Lynch signed a bill this year to phase out several state boards and commissions, including both the Commission on the Status of Men and the Commission on the Status of Women, which now operates as a private, non-profit organization. Republicans allowed the women’s commission to expire but, at the same time, voted to extend the men’s commission, which Lynch sees as unfair. The House is expected to vote on an override in early January.

SB 3—changing the retirement system    
Senate Bill 3 proposed comprehensive changes to the state’s pension system. Lynch vetoed the bill in June, saying he would instead assess substantive changes to the pension system included in the House’s budget bill, which he ultimately allowed to become law without his signature. The Senate voted to override the veto of SB 3 in September, but there was little point in doing so since the same provisions were included in the budget that took effect in July. The House therefore tabled its override vote on SB 3.