Home » Blog

Category: Blog

What is Local Control?

Time and time again when legislation comes up we hear the “local control” argument. More often than not, it’s when the state or federal government propose legislation that infringes on freedom and limits opportunity. Sometimes, it happens when the state or federal government proposes legislation that increases liberty and freedom, and expands opportunity.

In case number one, local control is better than the alternative. You have more freedom under this scenario. You have opportunity, you have liberty.

Under case number two local control is not better. Local control, in these cases, limits your freedom. It limits your opportunity.

In particular, we’ve heard this argument on the Learn Everywhere program. The Learn Everywhere program, put simply, forces school boards and school districts to accept for credit some programs approved by the Department of Education.

Opponents of this program say that local control is more important, that your local school board should have the choice to accept these credits or not. They’re wrong.

Local control when it inhibits your liberties is a net negative.

Students should have the opportunity to learn where they please and have that experience count towards their mandated government education credit tally. The mandated credit tally, in and of itself, is silly, but that’s where we are right now.

In this case, the Department of Education is absolutely right to force local school boards to accept these credits, and give the control to whom it belongs – students and parents.

Reprinted with permission from author. The original post can be found on Granite Grok.

Let’s Make New Hampshire’s Automotive Tint Laws Less Draconian

New Hampshire RSA 265:95 forbids any aftermarket tint on the driver or passenger side windows. The law is primarily enforced during the yearly inspection and will cause a vehicle to fail the safety inspection.

States have progressively been moving to allow aftermarket tint on windows. In 1993, sixteen states did not allow any tint on these front-side windows. Now, only four states have this restriction. New Hampshire is one of the holdouts. The other states are Vermont, Michigan, and New Jersey. In NH, only the rear windows are allowed to be tinted, with the restriction that at least 35% of light must enter the vehicle. The front-side windows are not allowed to be tinted at all, other than what’s supplied by the vehicle manufacturer. In the 32 other states, tinting to 35% or darker is allowed on these front-side windows.

I proposed HB317 so New Hampshire can join 32 other states in allowing 35% tinting on the front-side windows. Legislators have introduced bills like this for years in NH, and they always seem to get voted down, but why?

The State Police usually present three reasons which give legislators pause. First, is that not being able to see into the vehicle presents a danger to the traffic officer. Second, the aftermarket tint film makes the window harder to break in the case of an emergency. The film on the outside of the glass holds the pieces together while the factory tint is located in the center of the glass, is thinner, and breaks easier. Finally, they say that it is dangerous because window tint might hinder nonverbal communication between drivers and other people on the road.

The biggest hurdle to overcome may be the claim that window tint puts the lives of officers in danger, and legislators do not want to take that chance. However, this claim seems to be based on anecdotal evidence and not hard data.

I tried to quantify the danger to officers from not being able to see into a vehicle to determine whether or not the claim could be substantiated with hard facts. I acquired information about every officer death from 1993-2017 and limited the data to traffic stops. What jumped out at me was that during traffic stops, the danger from the passing vehicles was, by far, the most significant threat to the officer.

After breaking the deaths down by state and cross-referencing when the 12 states began allowing tint, I found no correlation of officer deaths. In fact, I found 12 other states that had not had a single officer death during a traffic stop, once I removed any danger from outside the vehicle from the numbers. It could be that dark tink increases stress on an officer, which could turn into a dangerous situation for the vehicle occupants involved in a traffic stop. But, the numbers I found did not indicate a decrease in officer safety due to threats coming from inside the vehicle. Besides, cars from states that allow the front-side windows to be tinted can still visit New Hampshire, so officers need to be able to handle that situation whether our state allows front-side tinted windows or not.

If it’s true that aftermarket window tinting slows down the removal of vehicle occupants in an emergency, then that’s a risk the owner should be able to take. Life is full of risks. Outlawing the acceptance of that risk is government overreach.

Finally, with regards to non-verbal communication at stop signs, the committee tried to address that concern with an amendment that increased the required light transmittance for the front-side windows to 70%. This is a very light tinting in which a person is still quite visible. Tinting to 35% would only make a person’s outline visible, depending on the light. Since hand waving is the most common nonverbal communication, I believe this concern could be addressed with either tinting option, which is better than none at all.

My hope is that, with passage of HB317, NH can finally increase window tinting options for consumers, as seems to be the trend in the rest of the country. While the bill doesn’t allow as many options as I would like, I think it has the best chance to make it legal for residents to install less expensive, aftermarket tinting. Why should we have to buy very expensive, factory-made tinted glass in order to have a much cooler ride?

Tax The Ski Lift Tickets, Too!

A bill filed by five House Democrats could affect one of New Hampshire’s primary tourist attractions: The skiing industry. The current 9% tourist sales tax already applies to all prepared food, hotels, and rental cars. In an effort to increase sales tax revenue for the State and help fund education for underprivileged children and prison inmates, Democrats are hoping to extend that 9% tax to include skiers and snowboarders visiting New Hampshire’s ski resorts.

House Bill 1652 requires all ski resorts to obtain a license, display the license, and begin to collect a 9% tax on ski lift tickets, which must be given to the state government. Understanding how skiers would react to this new 9% tax, the sponsors of the bill mention that the revenue from the new tax would fund ‘education’ for ‘the poorest children in New Hampshire.’

If this Democrat bill passes the Democrat-controlled House and Senate and is signed into law by Governor Sununu, we can all expect an immediate 9% increase in the cost of our lift tickets.

People alter their behavior when incentives or disincentives change. A 9% increase is a significant change.

New Hampshire ski resorts earn millions of dollars from tourists who ski and snowboard in our state. Once out-of-state residents learn that their lift tickets will be at least 9% more expensive than they were last year, some could decide to not return, thus diminishing the important revenue that ski resorts make. This could force New Hampshire’s fifteen (15) ski resorts to increase their prices in order to make up for lost revenue, a considerable unintended consequence.

If you have an opinion on this bill, make sure to contact the sponsors, the House Ways & Means Committee, and your own legislators.

November 2019 Board Election Results

The results of the November 2019 Board of Directors election are in! Congratulations to the newest Board members, Michael Costable, incoming Political Director, and Séamas Oscalaidhe, incoming Treasurer! The candidates won their elections by 92% and 84% of the vote, respectively. We thank each of you for volunteering and look forward to the upcoming term.

The election was conducted with approval voting. Of 93 respondents:

  1. Political Director:
    1. Michael Costable — 82 votes
    2. None of the Above — 4 votes
    3. Write-In — 5 votes
      • Darryl W Perry
      • Vermin Supreme
      • Dan McGuire
      • Derrick J Freeman
      • I do not know the candidate – abstain
  1. Treasurer:
    1. Séamas Oscalaidhe — 77 votes
    2. Matthew Santonastaso — 20 votes
    3. None of the Above — 2 votes
    4. Write-In — 1 vote
      • I do not know the candidate – abstain

Thank you to all candidates who ran! We are very grateful for your interest and enthusiasm, and we hope we can count on your continued involvement.

We extend our deepest appreciation to outgoing Political Director, Dan McGuire, and Treasurer, Stephen Villee. You have both served New Hampshire and the NHLA with dedication, and we are better for it. We look forward to continuing to work together toward a freer New Hampshire!

Bylaw Changes 2019-12-28

The NHLA board voted at the December 2019 board meeting to amend the bylaws. Please see below for details. Deletions are struck through and changes/additions are in italics.


Draft Bylaw Changes 12/08/2019


  1. Change Membership Levels
  2. Change Membership Terms
  3. Increase Membership Fees
  4. Increase board voting requirement to remove a member
  5. Add ability to adjust effective date of new board members after election
  6. Add section for the number of votes required for write-in candidates


Article Two – Members

[2.1 Any person may submit their name, email address, and mailing address to the board of the NHLA for the express purpose of being counted as a Basic member, signifying that he or she supports the goals and purposes of the organization.]

2.1 The NHLA may have several levels of membership to serve the purposes and goals of the organization and to accommodate the members levels of support.


2.1.1 Membership information shall be held in the strictest confidentiality. Only the Board of Directors, and technical staff directly authorized by the Board of Directors, shall have access to membership information. The NHLA shall not knowingly sell or distribute specific member data. Aggregate membership information, such as the total number of members, may be distributed at the discretion of the Board of Directors.


2.1.2 Memberships shall be for the term of [two] one year[s]. At the end of each member’s term, he or she shall be contacted and asked to renew his or her membership. The Board of Directors may establish a specific time period for members to renew membership.


2.1.3 There will be an annual meeting of the NHLA membership. This meeting shall be open to all levels of membership.


2.1.4 A member may be removed from the NHLA if at least [2/3] 4/5 of the Board of Directors vote to remove that member.


2.1.5 Membership fees may be paid in US Dollars or an equivalent thereof if the Board of Directors has established a list of one or more such equivalents to be acceptable.


2.2 Basic membership in the NHLA [shall always be free] is a free membership for the express purpose of allowing an individual to signify support for the goals and purposes of the NHLA.


2.2.1 Basic membership shall entitle an individual to receive electronic newsletters and bulletins from the NHLA.


2.2.2 The NHLA shall cease issuing Basic membership after June 2020 and cease renewing Basic membership after May 2021.

2.3 Activist membership in the NHLA shall have no membership fee but such member shall provide some volunteer service to the organization. Activist membership is a non-voting member.


2.3.1 The Board of Directors shall maintain a list of activities that the member may choose from to fulfill their volunteer activities.


2.3.2 Activist membership shall entitle an individual to receive electronic newsletters and bulletins from the NHLA.


2.4 [2.3] Full membership in the NHLA shall be the normal level of paid [an additional paid level of] membership.


2.4.1 [2.3.1] Full membership shall be offered for a fee of not less than $25 [$40] per [2] one-year term.


2.4.2 [2.3.2] Full membership in the NHLA shall entitle an individual to vote in NHLA elections.


2.4.3 Full membership status, but without a membership fee, shall apply to Legislators currently endorsed by the NHLA.


2.5 [2.4] Lifetime membership in the NHLA shall be an additional level of paid membership.


2.5.1 [2.4.1] Lifetime membership shall be offered for a fee of not less than $500 [$200].


2.5.2 [2.4.2] Lifetime membership shall entitle an individual to vote in NHLA elections and exempts the member from the [biennial] membership renewal requirement.


2.6 [2.5] Additional levels of membership may be created at the discretion of the Board of Directors.

[3.5.1 Starting in December 2017, the term of office for each board position shall expire as follows: Odd years: April 30th: chairman, secretary; November 30th: political action, treasurer. Even years: April 30th: membership, IT; November 30th: research.]


Article Three – Board of Directors


3.5.1. Starting in April 2020, elections for Board members shall be held in April or November as follows: Odd years in April: chairman, secretary; in November: political action, treasurer. Even years in April: membership, IT; in November: research. The terms of office expire at the end of the following month’s Board of Directors meeting or the 15th of the month, May or December, whichever occurs first.


3.6 Any member eligible to vote may become a Director, and may nominate any member eligible to vote to fill a vacant Directorship. Directors will be elected by approval voting but must receive at least ten votes to be elected. All members eligible to vote shall have the option of submitting ballots via mail or electronically. Board vacancies must be filled within a reasonable period. The exact terms of the election may be decided by Board resolution, in accordance with these Bylaws.


3.6.1 Where ballots allow for write-in candidates, the ballot or the election notification email must have a notice that write-in candidates must also meet the ten vote minimum.


3.6.2 In case of a tie vote, or if no candidate receives the minimum of ten votes, the Board may, by simple majority, resolve the tie, elect a candidate with less than ten votes, or to call for a new election.


3.6.3 [3.6.1] If only one (1) candidate for election to a vacant or expiring [board] Board position can be found, the [board] Board may, by unanimous motion, elect the candidate to the [board] Board, foregoing an election by the membership.


Article Four – Officers


4.7 The duties of the Director of Information Technology (IT) shall include, but not be limited to: website oversight; mailing list oversight; renewing domains; email account oversight; protecting the confidentiality of membership data as specified in article [2.8] 2.1.1.


Article Five – Committees


5.1 The Board may, by amending this article, create standing committees to assist the Board in fulfilling the goals of the organization. Standing committees may also be dissolved by the same process. In addition, temporary committees, dedicated to a short-term objective and intended to exist for less than six months, may be created by Board resolution. The motion creating each committee shall designate [at] a committee chairman, who may be, but is not necessarily, a Director. Minutes of all committee meetings shall be kept. Committees may submit motions to the Board for consideration.

Selfless Self-Ownership: Reconciling Liberty-Minded Living with a Sense of Community

Libertarian types are as selfish as they come.  All they want is to be left alone. They don’t believe anyone should do anything for anyone else.  They just don’t care…

Heard that before?  Me too; it seems to be a fairly common assumption.  As a liberty lover in what could be called a “statist” job, my work friends seem to default to that notion every time I open my mouth.  But why? Where does it come from? And how true is it?

A lot of it starts with self-ownership.  It is one of the founding tenets of libertarianism, and it gets a very bad rap.  Briefly, it is the idea that individuals have exclusive rights over their persons and their labor, and that no other individual has any rights to another’s person or labor without permission.  Intuitively, this makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. Who should be allowed to tell you how you should spend your efforts or use your body?

The conclusions that arise from this foundational belief are the basic principles of liberty-minded living.  Minimal government, market forces allowed to work unfettered, people free to do, act, buy, and sell as they please.  What is not included in this philosophy is a concept of community goals or duties. If I own my own person and my own labor, how can anyone, the government included, all of a sudden take the fruits of that labor without my consent to use on causes to which I do not subscribe?  Morally, the government cannot force me to involuntarily pay to support, say, the NEA, just as you cannot force me to hand money to you at gunpoint. Under the concept of self-ownership, both are violations of my rights.

For many, this seems as incongruous as self-ownership at first seemed reasonable.  Surely, we owe our fellow man something. Surely we are to love our neighbors, look out for each other, and make this world a better place, right?

It is true that there are no collective duties imposed on individuals by the principle of self-ownership.  Our only moral imperative is to respect the rights of all other individuals. But that does not preclude the liberty-minded individual (or anyone else) from doing something beneficial to those around her.  We do not see each other merely as silos of inviolate individual rights. We are free to to make positive impacts on our communities according to our own means, values, and understanding.

After all, isn’t the essence of those activities that we consider morally “good” the fact that we are not required to do them?  There is nothing “good” about respecting the rights of others. No one gets keys to the city for not killing someone, not stealing cars, not defrauding the elderly.  Doing “good” is doing for others when no one is making you.

Republican or Democrat, left or right, red or blue, I can almost guarantee that there is some cause over which the government has taken ownership that you are angry about supporting with your own taxes.  Be it the military-industrial complex, social services, or the Wall, everyone has a bone to pick. Some overreach is surely stuck in your craw. And so, from either side, you already have a visceral sense of the violation that the government has levied upon you by taking up these causes without your consent.

Take it a little further.  Everyone who can admit that there is a facet of life where the government should not be meddling has the right idea.  The problem is that, once you admit that, you have to face the possibility that many of the things you are happy the government is doing represent violations for someone else.

The conclusion some jump to from this point is that if we stop those violations, and remove all those artificial duties from the government, nothing will get done.  Well, if the government formed the Department of Household Suction tomorrow, would you conclude that no one but the government could ever make or sell a vacuum? Of course you wouldn’t.  Let’s move on.

The liberty-minded person is not always a self-absorbed loner in a fortified bunker.  I mean, she can be, if that is her thing. But she can also be passionate about education, concerned for the environment, or sensitive to the needs of the less fortunate.  We are public school teachers, charitable donors, and community volunteers. Some of us believe employees should be better compensated, and pay our employees more or provide more comprehensive benefits.  Some of us believe the environment is valuable and should be protected, and patronize businesses with sustainable practices. We don’t need to wait for laws to force us to make these choices. Believe in the things you value, but acknowledge that you cannot force others to value the same things.  Rather, choose to celebrate each person’s freedom to impact the world in her own way. Your power to effect positive change, in concert with those in your community that share your values, is a wonderful thing that should be treasured. And it will always be greater than a distant group of uninvested bureaucrats with no incentive to succeed.

It is the wish of every liberty-loving citizen to be free.  Not only free to preserve what is hers, but free to shape her community in a positive way according to her own values.  We must stop mistaking moral goods for moral imperatives, and stop imposing those false imperatives on our neighbors. We are using the government to force people to value the same causes that we value, and the result is ineffective, expensive, and a violation of our most basic rights.  Let us instead have the courage and compassion to choose liberty, not only for ourselves but for our fellow man, so that we can all be free to do the good in our hearts.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the view of the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance.

Lobbying, Finger Pointing, and Public Safety

A recent letter to the editor in a local paper sparked my interest.  It concerned HB664, which would have mandated that “No insurance company, agent, or adjuster shall knowingly fail to pay a claim to the claimant or repairer (my emphasis) to the extent the claimant’s vehicle is repaired in conformance with applicable manufacturer’s procedures.”  The writer of the letter complained bitterly about the governor’s veto of this particular bill because it undercut support for “your local auto body shop.”  In other words, it is the job of government to “help” businesses and make sure they “survive.”

No, not really.  The last time I checked the federal and state constitutions, there was nothing in there about helping businesses and guaranteeing their survival.  I don’t always agree with the governor’s decisions, but in this case, he was right in butting out of this issue.  Forcing insurance companies to pay for steps in the repairing process that they deem unnecessary is an intrusion and would only increase insurance costs to consumers.  So, who cares if consumers pay more for car insurance?

Certainly not the hordes of repair shop owners and employees and related repair shop associations that made it a point to lobby in Concord earlier this year in support of the bill. In hours of testimony before legislators, they complained in earnest that they were unfairly getting stuck paying for repairs that were necessary for safety that the insurance companies wouldn’t pay. In other words, greedy BIG INSURANCE was squeezing out little repair shops and not reimbursing them for important repair-related steps that manufacturers deemed necessary for safety. Thus, this David vs. Goliath battle waged at the State House all centers on consumer safety.

Or does it? Let’s look at the big legal case cited the most as the basis for the necessity of HB664. It is Seebachan v. John Eagle Collision Center and came out of Texas. In this tragic car crash, a couple was trapped in their 2010 Honda Fit after being hit by another car, and they suffered severe injuries because the roof collapsed. The roof had been repaired earlier from damage due to hail, and the manufacturer’s procedures spelled out that the roof was supposed to be welded back together, but John Eagle Collision Center used adhesive bonding instead. In sworn testimony in court, a John Eagle Collision Center manager implied that it was due to pressure from the insurance company that corners were cut.  In other words, finger pointing.

A good ambulance-chasing lawyer will never waste a good opportunity to go after BIG _______ (fill in the blank: BUSINESS, CORPORATIONS, TECH, OIL, TOBACCO, PHARMA, INSURANCE, SODA, etc.), so after the Seebachan’s won their $31.5 million lawsuit against John Eagle Collision Center, their lawyer wasted no time in filing suit against State Farm on behalf of the plaintiffs. Had there been any merit to John Eagle Collision Center’s allegations against such big pockets, you would have heard about it. As it turned out though, the lawsuit was withdrawn, and both sides agreed to pay their own legal costs. So, in fact the big case cited as “proof” that “There ought to be a law” was an instance where a repair shop that had been I-CAR certified in proper repairs failed miserably in its obligation to its customer (the Seebachan’s). Ironically, it was these same businesses (repair shops) lobbying against BIG INSURANCE that were nevertheless lobbying now for BIG GOVERNMENT. But I guess it’s different when the government will help your business.

The first question that comes to mind is why any insurance company would take a chance on being responsible for sending unsafe cars back on the road when it could be held liable for any damages, deaths, or injuries that might occur. Of course, as the narrative goes, BIG INSURANCE is only out for BIG PROFITS, but where would the profits be if your company has to pay out millions in claims? This doesn’t make sound business sense. In fact, cost cutting to the point of sacrificing safety would make poor economic sense precisely because it would lead to BIG EXPENSES, not profits.

But let’s suppose for argument’s sake that an insurance company behaves foolishly and refuses to pay for repairs the manufacturer recommends that are safety-related. What can and should be done? The bill’s proponents have one simple solution: mandate the repair and make the insurance company pay for it, whether it likes it or not. A better solution of how the free market would (and does) correct the situation actually came from one of the comments I read from a repair shop employee who was very critical of insurance companies. She remarked that when her repair shop informed the car’s owner that their insurance company refused to pay for repairs the shop felt were necessary, the consumer took issue with their insurance company and sometimes changed insurance companies after the incident. Thus, unscrupulous and non-profit minded insurance companies would lose business, and if they do this often enough to their customers, they’d soon run out of customers and go out of business.

This clarifies the proper relationship between the three parties. The consumer pays a premium to his/her insurance company to restore their car back to its former state after an accident, and the insurance company fulfills its obligations by paying for repairs following an accident. The contract is between the consumer and his/her insurance company. The only proper role for the repair shop is to follow generally accepted repair standards and repair the car—not to race to the State House to rally for more laws on the books, which by the way would absolutely guarantee more revenue for repair shops. If the insurance company is unwilling to pay for repairs the shop deems necessary for safety, it should simply refuse to do the job—or at the very least inform the consumer what repairs it recommends and then let the consumer decide how to proceed. As the lady from the repair shop who complained bitterly about the insurance companies noted, consumers when informed are not shy about taking matters in their own hands and don’t need BIG GOVERNMENT to protect them like children.

By the way, a footnote to the vetoed bill says, “The (Insurance) Department is unable to predict the volume of additional queries and complaints, but believes it could be large enough to require an additional staff position.” So, between the vagueness of some of the language in the bill and the eagerness of repair shops to secure as many repairs as possible, that’s a virtual guarantee of yet another useless government bureaucrat with which taxpayers would be forever burdened.

I also checked how Milton’s reps voted on this bill. Sadly, Senator Bradley was a co-sponsor of the bill, but fortunately Abigail Rooney and Peter Hayward voted against it. The next legislative session is just around the corner, and you can be sure we haven’t heard the last of this bill. Pressuring politicians to pass a mandate and guarantee more business in the name of “public safety” never goes of style.


Court Listener. (2018, October 3). In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Sherman Division: Seebachan v. State Farm. Retrieved from https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.178606/gov.uscourts.txed.178606.16.0.pdf

Legiscan. (2019, September 18). NH HB 664. Retrieved from  legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB664/2019

Manchester Union Leader. (2019, August 30). Your Turn, NH – John Elias:  Hijacking consumer protection. Retrieved from https://www.unionleader.com/opinion/columnists/your-turn-nh—john-elias-hijacking-consumer-protection/article_e8580f94-fb5e-5039-8e63-b3f43ead0393.html

NH Governor. (2019, August 15). Governor’s Veto Message Regarding House Bill 664. Retrieved from https://www.governor.nh.gov/news-media/press-2019/documents/hb-664-veto-message.pdf

Repairer Driven News. (2017, August 23). Update:  Couple in $1M Texas body shop lawsuit drop case against State Farm – but only temporarily. Retrieved from https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2017/08/23/seebachans-drop-case-against-state-farm/

Repairer Driven News. (2019, September 5). AASP, ASA, SCRS respond to N.H. insurance commissioner’s op-ed. Retrieved from https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2019/09/05/aasp-asa-scrs-respond-to-n-h-insurance-commissioners-op-ed/

Repairer Driven News. (2019, September 19). N.H. Legislature fails to override Sununu veto of OEM auto repair procedures bill. Retrieved from https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2019/09/19/n-h-legislature-fails-to-override-sununu-veto-of-oem-repair-procedures-bill/

Repairer Driven News. (2019, September 20). Insurers skip required test to help consumers, and other arguments made against N.H. OEM procedures bill. Retrieved from https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2019/09/20/n-h-veto-supporter-insurers-skip-required-oem-tests-to-save-cars-from-totaling/

Get your tickets now for the 2019 Liberty Dinner

The NHLA Liberty Dinner will be held on Saturday, July 13, 2019 at Grappone Conference Center, 70 Constitution Ave, Concord, NH 03301. This year’s theme is “Taxation is Theft”!
Attend this event to be among the first to see the 2019 Liberty Rating!

At the cocktail reception beginning at 6pm, you can schmooze with the NHLA board, our esteemed legislators, and other NHLA members. There will be a cash bar at your service and hors d’oeuvres will be provided.

Join us for a plated dinner beginning at 7pm (with choice of beef, fish or vegetarian entree), dessert, and a cash bar. Legislators and Full or Lifetime members receive reduced pricing.
We will also award the Activist of the Year and the Legislator of the Year!

Our featured speaker, Dan Mitchell, will give the keynote address “Taxes: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”. Dan Mitchell is Chairman of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a pro-market public policy organization he founded in 2000. His major research interests include tax reform, international tax competition, the economic burden of government spending, and other fiscal policy issues.

Stay with us after dinner as we unveil our 2019 Liberty Ratings and announce our silent auction and raffle winners!

Tickets can be purchased here.

New Hampshire State House Bicentennial

The next time you visit the New Hampshire State House it will be 200 years old. The current State House opened its doors on June 2, 1819. There will be commemorative events all week, including opening ceremonies and tours this Sunday afternoon. On Thursday, there is a joint session and picnic honoring all legislators, current and former. If you plan on attending Thursday and you are not a current representative, please consider parking at the Everett Arena and take a shuttle bus to the State House. Also, there are some very interesting original documents on display such as an 1789 copy of the bill of rights (with all 12 of the articles!).

For more details, see the full schedule at the link below.

April 2019 Board Election Results

The results of the April 2019 Board of Directors election are in!  The newest member of the Board is incoming Chair, Holly Beene Seal, who handily won her seat with 90% of the vote. Holly has been a prolific member of the Bill Review team and has been an active participant at Board meetings. We are excited for what her future involvement will bring!

Congratulations are also in order for Jaime Prout, who is returning for her second term as Secretary after receiving 97% of the vote. One of Jaime’s duties is to make sure we all stay informed about the up-to-date happenings at NHLA, and we are pleased to have her continue in that role.

The election was conducted with approval voting. Of 69 respondents:

  1. Chair:
    1. Holly Beene Seal — 60 votes
    2. None of the Above —  6 votes
    3. Paul Best (write-in) — 1 vote
    4. Skipped — 2
  2. Secretary:
    1. Jaime Prout — 65 votes
    2. None of the Above — 2 votes
    3. Skipped — 2

The Board would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to Keith Ammon, outgoing Chair, for all he has brought to the organization. To say that Keith has been a dedicated member of the Board is a vast understatement, and his many contributions as a leader and activist have been instrumental in keeping the NHLA at the forefront of the fight for liberty in New Hampshire. We look forward to his continued participation.