It’s never too early to prepare for midterms!

The midterms are here. Soon, we may be able to answer our phones and take them off silent mode without being bombarded by campaigns asking for money.

Although I’m optimistic about the midterms, both nationally and in New Hampshire, I can’t shake a nagging sense of anxiety. Too much is riding on this election.

One big question is whether anger at President Trump and the corruption of his administration will spill over into New Hampshire’s legislative races. I believe it will. The question is, how much?

My Republican colleagues have been confidently predicting that they’ll maintain control of the House, Senate, and Governor’s office. But I suspect that confidence masks some very real doubts.

The stakes could not be higher. Republicans have controlled the New Hampshire House of Representatives for the past six years, allowing Majority Leader Jason Osborne, a longtime Free State Project member, to wield outsized influence over the legislative agenda. He has used that power to advance the Free State philosophy of limited government while systematically chipping away at local control, particularly in our communities and public schools.

Much could change if Democrats take control of the House.

The next Speaker would almost certainly be a Democrat, and the Speaker is arguably the most powerful person in the Legislature. Republicans would no longer chair House committees or control which bills reach the House floor for a vote.

With such a win, I believe that the next Speaker will be someone who understands that the gavel isn’t a weapon to silence those who disagree with you. It’s a responsibility to ensure that every representative has a voice, regardless of party affiliation.

If Republicans lose their current 44-seat majority, Democrats will have a much greater say in shaping the state budget, with priorities that include public education, affordable housing and health care, property tax relief, and making life more affordable for Granite State families.

This midterm is much more than a referendum on Donald Trump or the Free State Movement. It is an opportunity for Granite Staters to reverse the shifting of wealth from working people to the top 1%, the siphoning of funds from our public schools, the attempt to strip communities of local control, and the escalating costs of housing, healthcare, groceries, and fuel. It is an opportunity to swing the pendulum back towards the middle and away from political ideology so that the challenges of the Granite Stater can be front and center and we can go back to serving the interests of those who entrust us with their vote.

This is an important midterm election, and I hope there will be many reasons to celebrate.

Please don’t miss the opportunity to have a voice in this election on November 3^rd. The future of New Hampshire is riding on it.

Dr. No (AKA Majority Leader Jason Osborne)

Many parallels exist between the MAGA movement in Washington and the Free State Project, and those aligned with its principles here in New Hampshire.

In Washington, elected leaders kowtowed to Donald Trump and pledged their undying fealty. In New Hampshire, House members stand and salute Majority Leader Jason Osborne on a regular basis.

Here at home, elected officials must decide whether their integrity matters more than staying in Majority Leader Osborne’s good graces or protecting their chances of getting reelected.

The Majority Party constantly reminds us that New Hampshire is the land of low taxes and limited government. Yet the latest state budget included 58 new or increased fees, fines, and other charges Source. Apparently, if you call a tax something else, nobody is supposed to notice.

And then there’s the brouhaha about Republicans keeping property taxes low. This isn’t resonating with homeowners who see their tax bill go up every year and may be figuring out how to stay in their homes.

We’ve eliminated the Interest and Dividends Tax, which primarily benefited high-wealth individuals, and reduced business taxes, leaving the state with less revenue to pay for the services people depend on Source

Countless numbers of people in New Hampshire are trying to figure out how to make ends meet. Many Granite Staters are frustrated that families at any income level, including the wealthy, can now get more than $4,000 a year in state money to send a child to a private or religious school Source

I recently came across a quote from University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers that struck a chord with me. He described a government that cuts benefits for people who need them, cuts taxes for people who don’t, and borrows the difference from people who aren’t old enough to vote. Wolfers was describing Washington, but those who study the New Hampshire budget will see the parallels.

I’ve spent eight years in the New Hampshire House, and one thing that continues to frustrate me is seeing ideology get in the way of common sense. We spend an extraordinary amount of time debating bills that do little to improve people’s lives, while the problems that really matter to Granite Staters remain unresolved.

The Free State movement says it wants government out of people’s lives. Yet we spend our time on bills that put it squarely in school libraries and public restrooms. We’ve debated bills that would regulate who can use which restroom or locker room. I say put in a unisex stall with a lock and call it a day. We’ve also heard testimony on a series of bills that would make it easier for parents to demand books be removed from school libraries. Governor Ayotte vetoed the two that reached her desk. I’m sure the proponents will bring them back over the next two years, and we’ll lose more time on them. Source

People are struggling to pay their property taxes. Young families are leaving the state because they can’t find affordable housing. And too many older residents are wondering whether they can afford to stay in the communities they’ve called home for decades.

These problems deserve more than slogans and ideological crusades. And here’s something every elected official should remember: Those seats in the House of Representatives don’t belong to us. They belong to the people who sent us there. Every two years, every state rep’s contract is up for renewal. On November 3, you’re the arbiter, and you get to decide who stays.

Polling is never as reliable in down-ballot races, but enough writing on the wall suggests many of my Republican colleagues may be packing their bags and taking Exit 14 off I-93 out of Concord.

I have a feeling that after November 3, many representatives who have spent their time toeing the Free State line may find themselves spending much more time at Starbucks.

At least there, they can debate the Free State philosophy of limited government without making the rest of us pay for it.

Over the course of this election season, I have been called a liar, a libtard, a coward, a socialist, a communist, and a vampire. I have a very thick skin, and this name-calling rolls off my back.

Along with the name-calling, there are what are called deepfakes being mailed and displayed on social media. These convincing fake videos and mailers of candidates can be sent to thousands of voters without them knowing the information is fabricated.

The Granite Post News reported that Leonard Bell, a black candidate running for the NH State Senate, was portrayed in a mailer buried in cash and gold chains. Bell said he wears only his wedding band, a ring his dad gave him when he graduated from high school, and a small cross around his neck. This is stereotyping on steroids. A 20-year Navy veteran deserves better than this.

Other State Senate candidates Rebecca Harned, Carry Roy, and Bobbi Boudman were also featured in deepfake mailers. All of them were surrounded by cash in the AI photos.

If you see a video or mailer that is over the top, please consider that both the image and the text may be fabricated garbage.

I believe that voters are tired of this kind of behavior.

I think NH voters want real conversations about the issues facing the Granite State. They are turned off by the name-calling and the spread of disinformation.

As an eight-year veteran of the NH House and County Delegation, I can tell you we need more adults in the room, not people who engage in adolescent behavior and name-calling.

At this point, I’m seriously considering a medically induced coma until November 4th. Wake me when the midterms are over. The political nonsense is getting exhausting.

If you listen to the marketing from New Hampshire House Republicans, you might think HB 1300 will cut your property taxes.

Will it cut your property tax bill? Not necessarily, and certainly not as the advertising suggests.

It will be on the ballot in November. HB 1300 has been cleverly branded the “Taxpayer Protection Act.” Republican leaders are promoting it as a major property-tax relief measure. Putting this on the ballot in an election year was a brilliant way to convince voters that the NH Republican Party will provide a break for property taxpayers.

Majority Leader Jason Osborne has said the measure will provide “property tax relief for every Granite Stater” and help Granite Staters avoid being “taxed out of their homes.” Rep. Ross Berry has similarly promoted it as giving voters the ability to cap their property taxes at the inflation rate. Source

Somewhere, a New Hampshire fact-checker just spit out their coffee. Because that is not quite what the bill does.

On November 3, New Hampshire voters will be asked:

“Shall the [town or city] limit property tax growth for [school district] under RSA 32:5-i?”

This does not cap your entire property-tax bill. It applies to the local property taxes raised for your school district.

If voters approve the measure, the amount of local property taxes raised for the school district generally cannot increase faster than inflation, adjusted for growth in taxable property from new construction.

The law also limits central office/administrative spending to 6% of total school district appropriations.

HB 1300 doesn’t cap the actual cost of educating students. It limits how quickly the local school property-tax bill can grow. This is an important distinction.

Health insurance for teachers and other employees can still go up. Special-education costs can still go up. Transportation, heating, electricity, and other expenses can still go up. HB 1300 cannot do anything to reduce any of those bills.

If those costs rise faster than the amount a district is permitted to raise locally, how will districts cover them?

HB 1300 does not increase the state’s contribution to public education, nor does it send additional state funds to your town to cover those cost increases. It also absolutely does not guarantee that your individual property-tax bill will go down.

The bottom line is that it does not address the fundamental problem that New Hampshire relies heavily on local property taxpayers to pay for public education.

Calling this ‘property-tax relief for every Granite Stater’ is stretching the truth so far we’ve left Earth and are heading for another galaxy.

And HB 1300 comes with administrative requirements that my friends across the aisle haven’t exactly highlighted in their marketing.

The state’s fiscal analysis identified approximately $100,000 in General Fund costs for the Department of Revenue Administration to modify the systems used to report and set tax rates. The bill did not include an appropriation to cover that cost.

We don’t know what, if any, additional administrative costs individual school districts or municipalities will incur. The state’s fiscal analysis doesn’t quantify them.

For years, New Hampshire Republican lawmakers have championed local control. Yet this law creates a state-designed formula that limits how much your community can raise through local school property taxes, regardless of the circumstances facing an individual school district.

And if voters want to restrain school spending, they already have a way to do this: they can vote on their local school budgets and make those decisions for themselves.

Voters deserve an honest explanation of what a bill does, not a clever marketing campaign that makes it sound like something it isn’t.

Political salesmanship has taken a rather spectacular detour from the truth.

New Hampshire politics heading into the midterms has taken a disturbing turn. Instead of arguing about taxes, education, housing, and health care, some of our political discourse has descended into calling Democrats communists and socialists, and, in one extraordinary case, advocating political assassination.

On Tuesday, the X account of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire posted that it supported the assassination of “basically every elected Democrat in New Hampshire.” The post was subsequently taken down. You can view the post and get more details: InDepthNH

This isn’t the first time the account has attracted attention for rhetoric involving political violence. Earlier this year, NHPR reported on posts targeting former Executive Councilor Andru Volinsky after he proposed an income tax as part of a property-tax plan.

Whatever your political beliefs, threats of political violence should have no place in New Hampshire politics.

The Majority Party has also intimated that NH Dems are communists, taking the lead from our President. Recently on X, Majority Party leader Jason Osborne stated: November ballot is a referendum on Common Sense vs Communism. Osborne is running for NH Speaker of the House.

Osborne recently posted that Assistant Majority Leader Joe Sweeney would someday become Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Sweeney is closely aligned with the Free State Project and affiliated Libertarians.

I responded with some admittedly salty language expressing my skepticism.

Sweeney’s response? He told me he was going to get my account removed from X.

Apparently, he and Elon aren’t quite as close as he thought. My account is still standing.

It’s not so amusing if you know this could actually happen.

Know Who You’re Voting For

I hope this information leads you to research who you are voting for in the midterms.

Granite Staters shouldn’t assume that a party label tells them everything they need to know about a candidate.

Two Republicans can have very different views about the role of government. So can two Democrats. Candidates may identify with, or share positions with, libertarian, Free State, progressive, conservative, or other political movements.

So before you fill in those little circles in November, spend a few minutes finding out who the candidates actually are.

Start with the candidate’s own words. Look at campaign websites and public social-media accounts, including Facebook, X, and Truth Social. Don’t rely solely on what opponents say about a candidate. See what the candidate has said.

Search their public record. Google and AI tools such as ChatGPT and Claude can help locate interviews, news stories, speeches, and public statements. Then check the original sources. New Hampshire publications and media outlets worth searching include the Union Leader, Concord Monitor, NHPR, New Hampshire Bulletin, WMUR, InDepthNH and your local newspapers.

I learned firsthand how useful this can be. I recently listened to a Democratic House candidate describe his record in a way that didn't match the public record; I noted it on social media. Other people were paying attention too. He ultimately lost his race.

There are many resources that can help you understand candidates and legislators:

New Hampshire Liberty Alliance

For candidates who already serve in the Legislature, the NH Liberty Alliance publishes a legislative scorecard based on votes it considers important to individual liberty and limited government. Legislators at the opposite end of its scoring system can receive its “Constitutional Threat” designation. I’ve received that designation myself, which I wear as a badge of honor.

Those with a high rating have values consistent with the Freestaters and affiliated Libertarians.

Citizens Count

Citizens Count provides candidate profiles, issue positions, voting records, and other information. For candidates who haven’t served in office, it can be particularly helpful because candidates can answer questions explaining where they stand on major issues.

If your candidate hasn’t completed the Citizens Count survey, ask them to do it.

NH Deserves Better

This site compiles information from several sources and identifies legislators it considers “Free State Aligned.”

Granite State Matters

Granite State Matters provides information about the Free State movement and publishes a downloadable voter guide.

Party Labels Aren’t Enough

You don’t have to become a political junkie. You don’t have to read hundreds of roll-call votes.

But before Election Day, take ten minutes and investigate the people whose names are on your ballot.

Read what they’ve written. Look at how incumbents have voted. Find out which organizations have endorsed or rated them. And most importantly, listen to what the candidates themselves say they believe.

Don’t let a circle of a D or an R decide for you. Look beyond the party label. Know who you’re voting for, what they stand for, and what they’ll do once they take office in Concord. The choices we make in November will shape New Hampshire’s future.

I developed a quick guide to researching your candidates. Please forward to your friends and share on social media.

Voters Guide To Researching Candidates

325KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Stefany Shaheen is my voice for Congress in the NH-01 Congressional Race

Several months ago, I decided to endorse Maura Sullivan in her congressional race (NH-01). I made that choice because I was impressed by her military background as a Marine Corps officer, including her deployments. I also thought her roles at the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Pentagon were relevant. I took this endorsement seriously because I know many of my constituents look to me for help making choices in the upcoming election.

I first learned about discrepancies in Sullivan’s resume from a Substack post by Mindi Messmer, a former New Hampshire state legislator who ran against Sullivan in this same primary before Chris Pappas ultimately won. *

Messmer has her own history with Sullivan, so I want to be clear about where the substance of this actually comes from: her post pointed to original reporting by Josh Rogers of NHPR, and it’s Rogers’ independent fact-checking, not Messmer’s account of it, that changed my mind.

NHPR is not New Hampshire’s version of The Enquirer. It’s a well regarded news organization, and Josh Rogers is a seasoned political reporter.

Here’s what he reported, from most to least serious:

Sullivan asserts that she spent six years in the Obama administration. Rogers reported that the real number is closer to two, with four of those years spent on unpaid board service while she was working full-time at PepsiCo.

Her campaign has said Sullivan was part of the Obama administration when the Affordable Care Act passed. In fact, she was at PepsiCo then. When Rogers asked about the gap, the campaign shifted its claim, saying she was part of the administration when it “implemented” the ACA. But her only government post at that time was an unpaid seat on the American Battle Monuments Commission, which had nothing to do with implementing the law.

She has claimed that she “sat across the table from Netanyahu,” alongside other world leaders, language that suggests she was a key player in a high-level meeting. It was revealed that she was one of eight Americans in the room at that time.

Sullivan’s supporters will say that all politicians embellish their resumes. Overstating your role in one meeting might fall into that category. But claiming six years in an administration you spent four of those years outside of, for a full-time job at a private company, isn’t an exaggeration; it’s a misrepresentation.

Unlike George Santos, she didn’t invent people or jobs, but stretching two years into six by counting an unpaid board seat while working full-time elsewhere doesn’t tell the whole story.

At this point, I decided I wasn’t willing to risk my reputation by endorsing a candidate who had so clearly padded her resume. I told the Sullivan campaign that I was retracting my endorsement, and that I would be supporting Stefany Shaheen instead.

Shaheen is a healthcare entrepreneur who co-founded and led a company that supports people with chronic conditions. She is currently the chief strategy officer for a company that is working to help build Manchester into a bio-manufacturing hub. She has experience as a former Portsmouth City Council Member and understands the issues that New Hampshire cities and towns contend with.

I am voting for Stefany Shaheen, who I believe will shoot straight with Granite Staters and be a force for standing up to our current administration.

*Messmer served in the New Hampshire Legislature from 2016 to 2018.

NH Majority Leader Jason Osborne and Donald Trump have much in common. Both thrive on conflict with the minority party, are overly self-confident, have little patience for dissent, and seem unfazed by the controversy they create. Both keep their Republican minions in a vise-like grip, punishing those who step out of line by withholding political and financial support when election season rolls around.

Nothing Jason Osborne says should surprise me anymore. But a small post on X today had my jaw drop a few inches. Osborne stated that “primary candidates should really only participate in debates controlled by their own party, not opposition media or activists.” The message seems clear: Republican candidates should avoid debates where they don’t get to control the questions or the setting.”

This says to me that incumbent Republicans and new candidates aren’t confident enough in their own records and platforms to defend them unless they control the setting and the messaging. Candidates should show up, answer the questions, and give voters the information they need to decide whom to support in the primary and the midterms.

Osborne is now off to the races in his quest to become the next Speaker of the NH House. He says 120 Republicans now support his candidacy.

The Speaker of the New Hampshire House wields enormous power. The Speaker decides where members sit, who chairs committees, where bills are assigned, and who has a seat at the table when final deals are made. In the Legislature, that is an extraordinary amount of authority.

I will make a prediction. If Osborne becomes Speaker and he reads this Substack, I will be assigned to the Fish and Game Committee rather than to Commerce and Consumer Affairs, where I am the Ranking Democrat. I will be on a committee that determines if ferrets can be used for hunting (HB 1167), or if there should be a prohibition on collecting seaweed between sunset and sunrise (HB 1094). I am prepared to make this sacrifice for the state of New Hampshire if Jason Osborne believes this is the best fit for my service. I will be assigned a seat in the newly refurbished bathroom. Thankfully, there is a loudspeaker in the restroom, so I can hear the debates, but not vote.

Thankfully, the vote for Speaker of the House is by anonymous ballot. This means that members of both parties need not fear retribution if they fail to back Osborne.

New Hampshire voters deserve candidates who will show up, defend their records, and answer questions they may not particularly want to answer. And House members should be able to disagree with their leaders without wondering how they will be punished for it.

There is one piece of good news in all of this: the vote for Speaker is conducted by secret ballot. For that one vote, at least, no leader can control the room or the people casting it.

We may soon find out what Republicans really think when they’re free to vote as they please.

The Free State movement has taught New Hampshire an important lesson: their goal of dismantling as much state government as they can has had serious consequences.

Let’s start with our public schools. New Hampshire has an obligation to educate our children. Yet Free Staters seem determined to weaken our public schools as much as they can. They’ve helped do that by sending your tax dollars to families who send their children to private and religious schools, including wealthy families who were already paying that tuition themselves, at a cost of almost $5,000 per child.

Meanwhile, local property taxpayers are still expected to pick up the tab for public education.

Free Staters also reduced corporate taxes every biennium and eliminated the Interest and Dividends Tax, a change that primarily benefits wealthier individuals. We can reinstate that tax with a carveout for people who genuinely rely on that income.

Free Staters have been working to reshape New Hampshire for more than 20 years. They elected their first member to the House in 2006. But in recent years, their influence within the Republican caucus has grown enormously, and we’ve all had a front-row seat to the results.

The first thing to examine is the state budget. New Hampshire’s current budget ordered $51 million in additional cuts over two years at the Department of Health and Human Services, the largest such reduction in at least 30 years.

That $51 million shows up as cuts to mental health services, homeless services, food assistance, family supports, and public health programs. It shows up as a parent who can’t get their kid into counseling. A shelter bed that isn’t there anymore for a young adult on a freezing cold night. A food pantry that can’t meet the demand. Meanwhile, the state added new requirements and costs for some low-income residents who depend on Medicaid.

The needs don’t disappear just because the budget line does. They just go unmet.

Not all Republicans in New Hampshire are Free Staters. I know and work with Republicans who don’t share this ideology. But Free Staters have had an outsized influence on the Republican caucus, particularly under House Majority Leader Jason Osborne. And that influence has had real consequences for New Hampshire.

So, when you vote in the primary or the midterm election, find out whether your candidate is a Free Stater. Look at what they’ve voted for and what their political beliefs are.

I hope you will not vote for someone simply because there’s an R or a D next to their name. Many people on the ballot have been working diligently to dismantle state government rather than to make it better.

Before you vote, do a little homework. Search your legislator on the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance’s website and look at their Liberty Rating.

The Liberty Alliance isn’t the same thing as the Free State Project, although there’s considerable overlap in their political philosophy. The Alliance tells legislators which votes it considers “pro-liberty” and then grades us on how we vote. This year, 104 legislators received an A or A+.

Look at what they’ve voted for and find out what they stand for.

I received the coveted “Constitutional Threat” rating from the Liberty Alliance, the lowest possible rating they give. I know my mother would have been very proud of me for achieving this milestone.

To become a “constitutional threat” means supporting free school meals, state education funding, local retirement contributions, and consumer protections for crypto ATMs. I am in good company, as 126 state representatives received this rating.

Here are some resources for you to find out more about your state representatives:

https://nhliberty.org/rating/ You can look up your legislator to see their rating here

Granite State Matters: you can find a spreadsheet of NH legislators and their Liberty Alliance rankings. This will give you an idea of whether your legislator aligns with the Free State Project.

Here is the Free State Project Website

It doesn’t take much effort to learn more about the people representing you in Concord. Before you vote this fall, spend ten minutes learning more about them.

Don’t just look at the letter next to their name. Look at what they stand for and decide whether their values align with yours.

The Swift River, White Mountain National Forest

One of the many actions of this administration that saddened me was the demolition of the East Wing of the White House…a piece of our nation’s history that can never be replaced. Now the Trump administration is moving ahead with another destructive act: rescinding the Roadless Rule, which could open protected areas of the White Mountain National Forest to logging and other industrial development.

Emergency lights are flashing as just this week the Trump administration moved to roll back the Roadless Rule, which has blocked road construction and most logging and mining on tens of millions of acres of national forest land.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins apparently took a hard look at our nation’s pristine forests and thought, “You know what these undisturbed forests need? Roads, mining, and more opportunities for well-connected businesses to make some serious bucks.”

Consider what recently happened at Big Bend National Park in Texas. Contractors bulldozed through sensitive areas of the park for new patrol roads and vehicle barriers before the work was temporarily suspended amid bipartisan outrage from environmentalists, local businesses, elected officials, and others. Lawsuits have been filed seeking to stop the project.

If that can happen at Big Bend, the possibility of rolling back the Roadless Rule should scare the daylights out of every New Hampshire resident who loves this state.

If the Roadless Rule is rescinded, roughly 235,000 acres of roadless land in the White Mountain National Forest could lose protections that have helped keep these areas wild and largely free from roads and industrial development.

Many of us came to New Hampshire for its extraordinary natural beauty and outdoor recreation. I moved here nearly 35 years ago, reluctantly, to marry a man who deeply loved the White Mountains.

Jonathan and I hiked all 48 of New Hampshire’s 4,000-footers together; our dogs Bear and Cody got their certificate for hiking them all as well. Somewhere along the way, I fell in love with the mountains and with New Hampshire. Today, I can’t imagine living anywhere else.

Protecting the White Mountain National Forest isn’t just about protecting something beautiful. It matters enormously to New Hampshire’s economy. About 6 million people visit the forest every year. They hike, camp, fish, ski, and they spend money. They stay in our hotels, eat in our restaurants, and shop in our stores. Outdoor recreation brings about $4 billion a year into New Hampshire’s economy and supports some 30,000 jobs.

I see that economic impact every day where I live. Bartlett, North Conway, Conway, Lincoln, Gorham and other communities depend on the people who come here to enjoy the mountains. They aren't just spending money inside the national forest. They're eating in our restaurants, staying in our hotels and shopping in our stores.

For 25 years, the Roadless Rule has protected nearly 60 million acres of national forest land from road building and most logging. Undoing it could do real damage. Roads cut through wildlife habitat, disrupt migration routes and create opportunities for invasive species to take hold. Once that damage is done, it isn’t easily undone.

There are environmental consequences as well. These forests store carbon and protect the watersheds that provide us with clean water. Start cutting roads through them, and you increase erosion, fragment wildlife habitat, and put the streams and rivers flowing from these forests at risk.

President Trump, the White Mountain National Forest is not your personal property to carve up for the benefit of your business cronies. It belongs to the American people,and to the people of New Hampshire, who treasure it as part of what makes our state such an extraordinary place to live.

Public comment on this proposed change is open through September 21, 2026. Please don’t sit this one out. Submit a comment and contact Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan and Representatives Maggie Goodlander and Chris Pappas. Let them know that New Hampshire expects them to strongly oppose any effort to strip these protections from our national forests.

Contact Maggie Goodlander

Contact Chris Pappas

Contact Maggie Hassan

Contact Jeanne Shaheen

Veto Day is one of the most consequential days of the legislative year. It is the Legislature’s final opportunity to override bills vetoed by the Governor. Because an override requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, every vote matters.

Many legislators were stunned to learn that this year’s Veto Day was scheduled for August 19, with only two weeks’ notice.

The timing is unprecedented in modern legislative history. For decades, Veto Day has traditionally been held in September, with a handful of sessions meeting in October or, under extraordinary circumstances, January or December. Based on available legislative records, this is the first August Veto Day in at least 40 years.

This year’s scheduling imposes real burdens on legislators. New Hampshire legislators earn just $100 per year, and the state does not reimburse mileage during July and August. For many representatives, those reimbursements help offset the cost of traveling to Concord.

Even more striking, the official House Calendar, the document legislators rely on to plan vacations and other commitments, states that there will be no legislative activity in July or August “except under special circumstances.” No explanation has been offered for what those special circumstances are.

So why August?

When the outcome of a vote depends on who shows up, changing the date changes the playing field. Scheduling one of the most important voting days of the year during peak vacation season, with only two weeks’ notice, predictably makes attendance more difficult. Whether by design or not, the effect is the same: fewer legislators are able to participate in decisions that affect every New Hampshire resident.

When I wrote about this situation on social media, I was met with derision from members of the majority party, including influential State Rep. Ross Berry, who responded to my concern with the response of “OMG, the Horror!”

This represents the manipulation of an important legislative session that should have been scheduled to ensure that the maximum number of people could attend.

Veto Day should be about the merits of legislation, not about who is out of state, unable to rearrange family plans, or unable to absorb the cost of an unexpected trip to Concord. The people of New Hampshire deserve a full Legislature, not one shaped by the calendar or by political gamesmanship.

The real purpose of this exercise in “non-attendance” is simple: to ensure that the majority party controls the outcome of Veto Day by controlling who is in the room, rather than allowing the constitutional veto override process to function as intended.

And that is precisely the point.

See which bills will be voted on April 19th in the General Calendar

Jason Osborne, the NH Republican majority leader, and friends are on a road show with the message that Democrats support a state income tax.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

One sitting NH Legislator joined a group on the steps of the state house to support a proposal intended to spark debate over New Hampshire's school funding system. That was it. One legislator.

The proposal was designed to reduce property taxes for many lower- and middle-income residents.

It never became a bill, and it was never endorsed by the House Democratic Caucus or Democratic leadership.

Republicans also put forth a bill, CACR 12, to ensure that New Hampshire would never have an income tax.

If approved by 60% of both the House and Senate and then by two-thirds of voters at the November 2026 election, it would have permanently prohibited the Legislature from enacting a state personal income tax without first amending the Constitution.

Many legislators, including myself, voted against the measure for several reasons.

First, we have no crystal ball to tell us what will happen in the future. And I do not believe there are many members in the legislature who are proficient at tarot card reading. If New Hampshire were to face a natural disaster, significant loss of federal funding, or a severe recession, our state might need to make some hard decisions regarding taxation.

I don't think tax policy belongs in our Constitution. Future generations should be able to make those decisions for themselves.

Please don’t take my word for it that

Do the research for yourself. The claim that New Hampshire Democrats support a state income tax is pure baloney.

Note from Anita:

Many of you have told me how much you appreciate this Substack. If you feel this is a worthwhile publication, I ask that you consider becoming a paid subscriber.

This will enable me to continue producing content that is critical to the upcoming midterm elections. This includes creating videos such as the one presented here now. One of my videos on the Holocaust deniers in the state house reached over 50,000 people.

Every dollar earned from this Substack has been put into an account that is being used solely to help moderates get elected in November. Please consider joining our paid tier of subscribers today.

Representative Bobbi Boudman Celebrating Her NH House Win in a Special Election that Received National Recognition

Last week, the Carroll County Republican Committee promoted a town hall in Ossipee on one of the issues voters care most about: property taxes.

House Majority Leader Jason Osborne arrived ready to speak…until State Representative Bobbi Boudman (D–Wolfeboro) walked through the door.

Bobbi has earned a reputation for not being afraid to challenge anyone, regardless of position or party. She also came prepared with data.

A videographer had already set up, and the camera was rolling.

They also had their projectors and video screens set up.

Then, unexpectedly, the camera was turned off and Osborne announced that the planned presentation was canceled.

He did agree to take a few questions from those who had come to hear him speak.

Representative Boudman stood and presented state education funding data showing that adequacy aid to Ossipee’s education had declined by roughly $1 million over the past year. Osborne then asked one of his Republican colleagues for the “real numbers.”

Boudman calmly offered him the documents she was using and replied, “I have the real numbers right here.”

At one point, Osborne can be heard on the recording saying that Boudman was “too busy with her own goddamn presentation” to be paying attention to anything else.

Another notable moment occurred when one of the Republican candidates for State Representative from Sandwich, Jennifer LaPla, asked the audience member recording the exchange to stop; the member declined, explaining that this was a public event.

I wasn’t there, so I can’t say with certainty why Osborne canceled his prepared presentation. He did not answer Boudman when she posed that question.

But the timing is difficult to ignore. The event was called off immediately after Boudman arrived prepared to challenge the Republican narrative with documented facts.

For months, Republican leaders have traveled the state claiming Democrats are responsible for soaring local property taxes.

That argument simply doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

Republicans have controlled the New Hampshire House for the past four years. They have written the budgets, set education funding levels, and determined state priorities. Whether voters agree with those choices or not, they deserve an honest conversation about who has been making them.

Running away from that conversation doesn’t make the facts disappear.

It simply raises more questions about why the conversation was canceled in the first place.

You can see the exchange with Bobbi Boudman speaking at the event in Ossipee

Majority Leader Jason Osborne has been traveling across New Hampshire and writing editorials claiming that Democrats are responsible for your rising property taxes.

The issue is more complicated than that.

I created this short video to explain what’s really driving property taxes in New Hampshire, what decisions are made in Concord, and why homeowners are paying more.

Whether you agree with me or not, I hope you’ll take a few minutes to watch and decide for yourself. Let me know what you think in the comments section.

a

Voters across the country, including here in New Hampshire, have made their feelings clear. They are tired of the status quo and of politicians with the structural integrity of Jell-O. We’ve watched elected leaders in Congress acquiesce to the Trump regime. Here in New Hampshire, I’ve watched House members bow to Majority Leader Jason Osborne out of fear of losing their seats. Several of my Republican colleagues have told me exactly that: they go along because they’re afraid of being primaried and trampled in the next election, or of losing the leadership role.

I understand voters’ frustration. I have a ringside seat in Concord, and many of my younger colleagues see it too. I look around the House chamber and see a lot of gray hair. Democrats have more young representatives, but the average age of a New Hampshire House member is still 61. That makes me ten years older than the average representative. And if I stopped coloring my hair, I’d blend right in.

But age isn’t the problem. Staying too long, becoming too comfortable, and losing touch with the people you represent are the problems.

That frustration is helping fuel a new generation of candidates on the left. Some identify as Democratic Socialists. They aren’t simply arguing for a bigger social safety net. They believe economic power itself is too concentrated in the hands of corporations and the wealthy and should shift toward workers and the public.

Two New Hampshire state representatives who identify with democratic socialism are now running for Congress, encouraged by the momentum generated by Zohran Mamdani and other left-leaning candidates who have won Democratic primaries across the country. They are Heath Howard and Paige Beauchemins.

Others call themselves progressives. They don’t want to replace capitalism. They want to reform it…by taxing the wealthy more, strengthening labor and consumer protections, and expanding public programs. The truth is, I agree with progressives on a lot.

I was appalled by a Republican-crafted state budget that continued years of corporate tax cuts and completed the repeal of the Interest and Dividends Tax, a change that disproportionately benefits wealthier Granite Staters. At the same time, my Republican colleagues created a universal education voucher program that provides $5,000 of taxpayer dollars per child for private and religious education, regardless of family income.

Those choices came as New Hampshire struggled to adequately fund housing, health care, mental health services, programs for at-risk youth, and higher education. I believe those needs take precedence over improving the financial well-being of people who are already doing quite well.

So why don’t I call myself a progressive? Because I consider myself a pragmatist.

When you’re in the minority, you can give the most passionate speech in the room. You can write the perfect press release. You can post something online that gets hundreds of likes. And you can still accomplish absolutely nothing. The only way to move legislation forward is to find people who don’t agree with you on everything, but agree with you on enough.

I’ve often talked about my experience on the Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee. We handle an enormous volume of legislation and have been remarkably successful at getting bills across the finish line.

But it wasn’t always that way.

My first two years in Commerce were a disaster. At times, the committee operated more like the Roman Colosseum than a legislative body. There was animosity, personal attacks, and plenty of anger. And almost none of it helped us pass better legislation.

The following term, we switched gears.

We changed the seating arrangement, alternating Democrats and Republicans so we actually sat next to and talked to one another. A funny thing happened. We discovered we had more in common than we thought.

And, perhaps even more shocking, many of us genuinely liked one another.

On the days we eat in the State House cafeteria, virtually the entire committee crowds around one big table. Democrats. Republicans. Conservatives. Progressives. All eating lunch together.

That would be almost unthinkable on some House committees.

This year, we passed bipartisan legislation limiting transactions at cryptocurrency kiosks, machines increasingly used by scammers to drain the savings of older Granite Staters. We argued over the details. We amended the bill. And ultimately, we put real consumer protections into law.

That’s how you get things done.

Not by abandoning your values. Not by keeping quiet. And certainly not by developing the structural integrity of Jell-O.

Jason Osborne Announcing His Bid for NH House Speaker

Jason Osborne has announced his candidacy to become the next Speaker of the New Hampshire House.

The Speaker is the most powerful member of the House. The office has broad authority to appoint committee chairs and committee members, refer legislation to committees, and remove members from committees. Those powers give the Speaker enormous influence over which ideas receive a hearing and who helps shape New Hampshire law.

As Majority Leader, Osborne has earned a reputation for enforcing party discipline, and legislators who repeatedly broke with Republican leadership on key votes have, at times, been removed from committee assignments.

If Republicans retain control of the House after the 2026 election and Osborne is elected Speaker by House members, his decisions would help shape the direction of the Legislature for the next two years.

Before that happens, Granite Staters deserve to take a close look at his public record.

Rep. Alicia Gregg, Guest Columnist

Today’s substack was written by guest author Rep. Alicia Gregg (D-Nashua). I thought it was an important article worth sharing with my readers.

New Hampshire’s newest candidate for Speaker of the House, Majority Leader Jason Osborne, has launched his campaign with a familiar promise: that Republican majorities have kept the state free, kept taxes low, and stood between Granite State families and a Massachusetts-style future. It’s a good speech. It just leaves out the part where the bill arrives in your mailbox.

Here is what “we cut taxes, and then we cut them again” means. The state cut its own taxes and shifted the cost onto your property tax bill. New Hampshire now has some of the highest property taxes in the country, with a typical homeowner paying more than $6,000 a year. That is not a footnote. For most working families and retirees on fixed incomes, the property tax is the income tax. It just doesn’t come with the honesty of being called one.

Take the tax they’re proudest of killing: the interest and dividends tax. It was a tax on investment income, and repealing it delivered the largest savings to the households with the most interest and dividends to begin with. Meanwhile, the family in a modest home in Nashua, or Berlin, or Claremont got nothing, except a property tax bill that keeps climbing to cover what the state won’t fund.

Which brings us to the education claim, where the speech really comes apart. They call it “the largest investment in education in history.” Two courts disagree. In 2025, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled in the ConVal case that the state’s school funding is so low that it is unconstitutional. Weeks later, a superior court judge ruled again, in the Rand case, that the state underfunds our schools and that the wildly unequal property tax rates towns are forced to use to make up the difference also violate our constitution. New Hampshire covers the smallest share of public education costs of any state in the nation, last place, fifty out of fifty. “Largest investment in history” is a hard thing to brag about when the courts keep ruling it isn’t enough, and your neighbors keep paying the difference.

And where is the new money going? Into a school voucher program available to every family, regardless of income, including families whose children were already in private school and had never set foot in a public classroom. Its cost has blown past every early estimate, climbing into the tens of millions and projected by some analysts to top $100 million, drawn from an education trust fund already sliding toward deficit.

There is almost no public accountability for how those dollars are spent. When state auditors asked for basic data, they were turned away. So, the real education story isn’t a record investment. It’s public money flowing out of underfunded neighborhood schools and into private accounts, while property taxpayers cover the very gap the courts have called unconstitutional. (Note from Anita…this program has enabled wealthy parents to collect $5,000 per year for each child going to private school with your taxpayer dollars)

As for turning New Hampshire into Massachusetts, it’s a clever line, and it’s designed to make you stop asking questions. So ask one: what is squeezing Granite State families right now? It isn’t an income tax that doesn’t exist. It’s the property tax bill that keeps rising. It’s the cost of housing, which the majority have had years to address and haven’t. It’s the energy costs they promised to bring down and haven’t. The threat to the “New Hampshire Advantage” isn’t some imagined future. It’s the affordability crisis happening on their watch, right now.

“The results speak for themselves,” says Jason Osborne.

On that much, we agree. The results are two court rulings finding our public schools unconstitutionally underfunded. The results are property tax bills among the highest in America. The results are a voucher program with no income limit and no real oversight, paid for from a fund that is running dry.

That is the record, and Granite Staters deserve a House that fixes it, not one that runs a victory lap while the bill comes due.

New Hampshire families don’t need protection from a tax that isn’t on the table. They need leaders honest enough to talk about the one they’re already paying

You can read Jason Osborne’s pitch for becoming the next speaker of the NH House of Representatives here.

Bill Murray in the Infamous Groundhog Day

There is apparently a new sequel to Groundhog Day, now starring the New Hampshire Legislature and its endless parade of so-called “bathroom bills.”

Since 2024, lawmakers have repeatedly introduced legislation aimed at separating people based on biological sex in bathrooms, locker rooms, sports, prisons, and other settings. Different versions have come and gone, but the basic debate remains the same. Advocacy groups have collectively labeled these proposals the “bathroom bills.”

Last week, the Union Leader featured Rep. Erica Layon (R-Derry) holding a press conference outside a women’s restroom at the State House. The message was familiar: women and girls are supposedly unsafe sharing bathrooms with transgender women.

Rep. Layon has argued on the House floor that little girls should not be forced to see a man’s penis in a women’s restroom.

That left me genuinely puzzled.

I am 71 years old. In all my years of using women’s restrooms, I have never seen a penis in one. For that matter, I have never seen another woman’s genitalia either. Most of us use private stalls with doors.

One of my legislative colleagues, after hearing Rep. Layon’s remarks, joked, “I can’t even manage to see my own vagina in the State House bathrooms.” Anyone familiar with those cramped facilities understands the point.

The question I keep coming back to is simple: How often is this actually happening in New Hampshire?

During debates on these bills, I heard plenty of alarming hypothetical scenarios. What I did not hear was evidence that little girls across New Hampshire are regularly encountering exposed male genitalia in public restrooms.

In eight years as a state representative, constituents have contacted me about soaring property taxes, housing costs, childcare, healthcare, public education, and the difficulty employers face finding workers. Not one has ever contacted me because they saw a penis in a ladies’ room.

Yet year after year, the Legislature returns to this issue. Like Bill Murray waking up every morning to Sonny and Cher, we seem destined to relive the same debate over and over again.

One of the most memorable responses came from Rep. Alice Wade, a transgender legislator and one of the most thoughtful speakers in the House. During debate she posed a simple question: Why are lawmakers so concerned about where she goes to the bathroom?

It’s a fair question.

We can disagree about policies involving transgender people. Reasonable people do. But good public policy should be driven by evidence rather than fear, and by actual problems rather than imagined ones.

Meanwhile, New Hampshire faces no shortage of real challenges. Property taxes are straining family budgets. Young families struggle to find housing they can afford. Public schools face mounting pressures. Healthcare costs continue to rise.

There is also a practical solution that avoids much of this controversy. Across the United States and Europe, many public buildings are moving toward fully enclosed, floor-to-ceiling private restroom stalls. These designs provide privacy for everyone, regardless of gender identity, while eliminating many of the concerns that fuel these debates.

Maybe it’s time for the Legislature to stop replaying the same scene and start focusing on the issues that are actually keeping Granite Staters awake at night.

Anita Filing for a Fifth Term with Secretary Dave Scanlan

Why would I run for state representative again after a brutal legislative session?

The last two years nearly convinced me to quit. But I realized that walking away would mean one less voice fighting for lower property taxes, strong public schools, affordable housing, and working people. If those of us who believe in those priorities stop showing up, New Hampshire will be worse off for it.

I have served in the New Hampshire House for eight years. For four of those years, Republicans held a substantial majority. During the past two years, the majority exceeded 40 seats, making it nearly impossible for Democrats to pass legislation without support from the other side of the aisle.

These have been the most difficult two years of my legislative career. I have watched as legislation benefiting working families, public education, healthcare, and vulnerable citizens was often pushed aside. I have seen a political culture that too often values party loyalty over independent thinking and dismisses viewpoints that challenge the majority. And I saw anti-Semitism, racism, and a lack of compassion towards the LGBTQ+ community

After Donald Trump won re-election in 2024 and Republicans expanded their control of both the House and Senate, I seriously considered not running again. The election felt like a gut punch. I knew the next two years would be challenging, and I wondered whether I still had the energy for the fight.

But I decided I could not walk away.

I returned to the Commerce Committee, one of the few places in the State House where genuine bipartisan cooperation still exists. Republicans and Democrats frequently disagree, but we listen to one another, respect one another, and often find common ground. That experience reminded me why public service can be worthwhile.

The hardest days were legislative session days. We would spend eight or more hours debating bill after bill, often watching priorities that Democrats strongly supported fail on nearly party-line votes. By the end of those days, I was exhausted. Like many of my colleagues, I would return home physically drained and emotionally spent.

As the end of the term approached, I again asked myself whether I should seek a fifth term.

I thought about what I would gain by stepping away. No more four-hour round trips to Concord. No more overnight stays to avoid burnout. More time to travel, spend time outdoors, enjoy my family, and devote myself to animal rescue work. Maybe even time to sit by a pool and read on vacation during the winter months.

But when push came to shove, I was unable to walk away. I went to the Secretary of State’s office and signed up to run again.

I am optimistic that the makeup of the NH House will change substantially following the midterms. The national tea leaves are predicting that Dems will do very well in Congress next term. And I believe that the disapproval ratings of the president and the Congress that is enabling this president will have a trickle-down effect at the state level.

But even if I’m wrong, I don’t regret signing up for another campaign.

Over the last eight years, I have learned that being in the minority still matters. Sometimes you stop a bad bill. Sometimes you convince a colleague to vote differently. Sometimes you ask a question that exposes a problem no one else noticed. And sometimes your job is simply to bear witness and tell people back home what is really happening in Concord.

A handful of seats can determine committee leadership, which plays a critical role in the outcome of legislation.

A handful of seats can decide whether a bill lives or dies. And a handful of seats can determine whether a governor’s veto is sustained or overridden.

So here I am, signing up for another two years of four-hour drives, late nights, long legislative sessions, and more frustration than any sane person should willingly endure.

Maybe I need my head examined. Or maybe New Hampshire is worth fighting for.

I think it’s the latter.

This week, I am answering questions from readers on my Substack. Here we go:

Question from Jon B:

(Ok, this one was posed by my husband, but it’s a good one.)

Question from Jon B:

What do you think the outcome will be in the midterms for the NH House and Senate?

I believe that growing dissatisfaction with Donald Trump and the Republicans who continue to enable him will affect races across New Hampshire in 2026.

Public awareness of the Free Staters, who are effectively running the show in Concord, is also growing. Over the past several years, they have expanded Education Freedom Accounts (school vouchers), enabling families to receive taxpayer-funded subsidies for private school tuition regardless of income. They have also sought to weaken local control, shifting more decision-making from towns and school districts to the state. The result has been pressure on local budgets and reduced support for programs that serve vulnerable residents.

At the same time, Republicans have devoted considerable energy to targeting transgender people and immigrants, including those legally present in New Hampshire. While these issues energize parts of their base, they are often far removed from the everyday concerns most Granite Staters face, such as housing costs, healthcare, childcare, and property taxes.

Currently, the New Hampshire Senate consists of 16 Republicans and 8 Democrats. I believe that Democrats have a realistic opportunity to gain 3-4 seats, particularly in districts where voters are increasingly uncomfortable with the direction of the Republican Party.

One race to watch is the seat vacated by Senator Cindy Rosenwald. State Representative Laura Telerski of Nashua has entered the race and, in my view, is a strong contender. In Merrimack, Senator Tim McGough left the Senate under a cloud after being barred from interacting with Senate staff and removed from his committee by Senate President Sharon Carson. Reports cited allegations of harassment and inappropriate treatment of staff and noted that he had previously lost staff support and some commission assignments before being removed from the Commerce and Executive Departments & Administration committees. Despite that history, he appears determined to return to Concord. I predict this will be a losing battle.

As for the House, I believe Democrats have a genuine opportunity to regain the majority in 2026. If Republicans retain control, I expect it will be by a very narrow margin, as in 2024. A closely divided House would once again require both parties to work together to pass legislation, with outcomes often determined by attendance, absences, and a handful of independent-minded members willing to break with leadership. Whichever party wins will get to choose the committee chairs, a major advantage for the majority party with far-reaching consequences.

My prediction? The 2026 election will be highly competitive, and control of both chambers may hinge on a relatively small number of races. Voters are paying closer attention than they did two years ago, which tends to make elections far less predictable.

Stephen C

I have 2 questions for you:

1. How do you determine whether a bill has genuine community support versus support from a small but organized interest group?

2. How do artists, cultural organizations, and community nonprofits influence legislation, and where are they most underused in that process?

Hi Stephen,

More good questions.

Legislators sometimes draft a bill because they have seen, from their own perspective, a need that should be addressed. They may also be asked to write a bill by an organized interest group, such as an animal rights group, an arts organization, or another not-for-profit entity.

Before drafting a bill, it’s important to determine whether a need truly exists. We need to research NH’s existing legislation and identify what needs to be tweaked. If it has failed before, we need to understand why. Have any other states implemented such legislation, and what has been the result?

I would reach out to the stakeholders on both sides of the issue. Is this an important concern or a solution in search of a problem? Why do others oppose it? Do cities and towns think this is a good bill, or one that will impede local control? Why do community organizations support or not support a bill?

Once you talk to people on both sides of an issue, you can decide whether to move forward in drafting a bill. Unfortunately, many legislators don’t do this basic research, and as a result, a lot of time is wasted exploring bills that will implode.

If you know a bill is unlikely to pass, I will hesitate to invest much effort in it. Much will depend on whether the bill is a partisan issue and who is in power.

2. What roles do artists, cultural organizations, and community-based nonprofits play in shaping legislation, and where do you think they are underutilized in the process?

Oftentimes, community-based nonprofits and cultural and artistic organizations reach out to their state representatives to ask about sponsoring legislation. If the legislation will impact the rep’s own community or many people, there is a greater likelihood of sparking interest.

In recent years, the Majority party has been reluctant to fund the arts, with a few exceptions. I would encourage any group that wants to explore the possibility of a new bill to contact their state representative or senator to gauge their interest and to determine the feasibility of such legislation.

Maggie JK asks:

Are all the state reps self-employed, married to someone with a good income, or from generational wealth?

I can’t understand how someone with a regular job could be a state rep. Nobody has that much part-time off, and even when I was a server/bartender with a flexible schedule, I would never have been able to get enough time off to be at the state house as often as you folks have to be.

My question is, how do you survive while serving??

You are correct. Not a wide swath of people can afford to serve in the legislature. We have a salary of $100 per year plus mileage. When my (bonus) daughter asked me how much money I made and I told her, she said, “That’s not bad.” Alas, she thought I meant $100,000, not $100!

This makes it difficult, if not impossible, for many working-age people with full-time jobs, childcare responsibilities, or limited financial resources to serve.

The average age in the House is 61, which officially makes me an antique.

Nearly half of House members have historically been retirees. Our chamber has retired professionals, business owners, attorneys, physicians, and people with pensions or independent wealth. Fun fact… a long-serving legislator lives in a castle!

Not surprisingly, the legislature underrepresents younger working people, hourly workers, and low-income residents because of the essentially unpaid time commitment. However, I am increasingly seeing more young people serving who have flexible job hours (such as in real estate, hospitality, or healthcare) or a partner who is able and willing to help pay the bills.

Some representatives choose to serve on less active committees, such as Fish and Game, to spend less time in Concord. This was the home of the bill exploring whether hunters could bring their ferrets (I’m serious).

I see the $100-a-year payment as a flaw in New Hampshire’s legislative structure. Individuals who know what it means to struggle to pay a mortgage, put food on the table, or secure affordable housing would play a valuable role in the House.

We should not be working on a $100 salary that was first implemented in 1889.

Maggie’s other question.

I wanted to ask how Jason Osborne is allowed to slander Ellen Read as he did, but that’s probably more than you want to tackle here.

Actually, this is an easy one. Jason Osborne is the House Majority Leader, and Republicans hold a 40-person majority. His members toe the line and are very unlikely to challenge him, especially on a personnel matter. It is widely speculated that House Speaker Packard goes along with Osborne on pretty much everything.

Finally, Osborne is from a very red district and unlikely to lose an election. So there really isn’t anyone to challenge him except for the Dems and New Hampshire political reporters.

You can ask questions about how legislation gets passed (or doesn’t), what it’s like to serve as a state representative, how committees operate, why votes unfold the way they do, or what really happens behind the scenes at the State House.

You can also ask about the quirks of legislative life. How much does a legislator get paid? How much time does the job take? Do representatives read every bill? What’s the longest day I’ve spent in Concord?

And yes, you can even ask me how the food is in the cafeteria. (Not bad, actually. The soup is usually a safe bet.) Or, what were some of the more bizarre bills that came before the NH House?

I can’t promise I’ll have all the answers, but I can promise honest ones. If I don’t know something, I’ll tell you. And if a question deserves a deeper dive, it may become the subject of a future post.

So what have you always wanted to know about Concord? Ask away.

Please leave your questions in the comments section.