CONCORD, N.H.—The Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire is sponsoring a forum Wednesday evening at Thomas More College to educate voters on the importance of passing questions one and two on the Nov. 6 ballot. These two constitutional amendments would permanently ban a New Hampshire income tax and properly balance the power of the courts by providing legislative oversight of the court’s rule-making process.
Details: 6 p.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 24, Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, 6 Manchester Street, Merrimack, N.H.
State Reps. Paul Mirski, Paul Ingbretson, Dan Itse and Gregory Sorg will present information on the two constitutional questions, and then they will answer questions from the audience. Rep. Mirski is the prime sponsor of both amendments, and the three other representatives are well versed in the rationale behind these changes. All four of them will be a great resource for anyone who doesn’t understand why these changes are necessary.
Question 1 on the ballot would add a constitutional ban on a personal income tax in New Hampshire using the language passed by the Legislature as CACR 13.
“With the passage of question one, the people will be helping to guarantee future generations a limited, affordable government that does only what is essential to keep order and leaves the rest to a free people, just as our founders intended,” said Carolyn McKinney, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire. “By passing this constitutional amendment, the People will be agreeing with the Legislature that its budget cuts this past session were just the start of a new era in New Hampshire of responsible governing. The people will be ensuring stability in budgeting and taxation, and consequently, a more stable economic environment for job growth, entrepreneurship and prosperity.”
Question 2 would restore some oversight over New Hampshire’s Judicial Branch by the people through their Legislature. Due to an amendment in 1978, there is currently no oversight over New Hampshire’s court system, a very dangerous situation that this amendment would fix. The Legislature passed this language on to the people for consideration via CACR 26.
“This constitutional amendment will put the court back in its place as an interpreter of law for individual cases and not as the policy maker that explains how the law must be applied in all situations—that is a power reserved for the people’s Legislature alone,” McKinney said. “When the powers of government are balanced and held in check by one another, there is a greater chance that no branch of government will grow too strong or powerful, and that the people will remain free. Restoring this balance of power is the purpose of question two.”