If that headline comes as a surprise to you, then you’re not alone.  Yes, that’s an exact quote from NH Superior Court judge John Kissinger.

Most people aren’t aware that the Superior Court issued an opinion last year in which Judge Kissinger asserted that “the Governor may suspend or limit constitutional rights during a state of emergency.”  This is a case in which emergency powers are being broadly interpreted, opening the door to abuse of power.  House Bill 440 (HB440), the Civil Liberties Defense Act, would fix this problem by simply clarifying that during a state of emergency “civil liberties shall on no account be suspended, nor shall the United States Constitution or the New Hampshire bill of rights be suspended, set aside, or otherwise infringed.”

WE NEED YOU TO TAKE ACTION TODAY:  Please contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (or click here if that link doesn’t work for you) and urge them to vote for an “Ought to Pass” motion on HB440, the Civil Liberties Defense Act. 

Imagine that two years ago, someone had told you OSHA’s broadly defined powers would soon be applied in an attempt to force Americans into accepting a novel medical treatment they don’t want, and which many believe they don’t need. Most people would have written that off as a highly unlikely scenario, probably not worthy of much attention. Nevertheless, that very situation is currently in play. Thankfully, federal courts have stepped in to put a temporary halt to OSHA’s planned orders, but the threat still looms for millions of businesses, and for the workers they employ.

Here in New Hampshire, we face a similar situation with respect to civil liberties, broadly speaking. It has the potential to negatively impact freedom of speech, religious liberty, 2^nd Amendment rights, and more. Unless we take affirmative steps to clarify state law, a future governor could conceivably invoke our state’s Emergency Powers statute to suspend or limit constitutional rights. This might sound a bit crazy; but the New Hampshire Superior Court has expressed that very position in the 2020 Binford case.

On page 16 of the Court’s decision, Judge John Kissinger asserted that “the Governor may suspend or limit constitutional rights during a state of emergency.” That potentially includes freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, the right of habeas corpus, religious liberty, and the right to keep and bear arms.

When viewed in the broader context of New Hampshire’s Emergency Powers statutes, this constitutes a ticking time-bomb that leaves the citizens of our state vulnerable to abuses of power.

Imagine the following scenario: a New Hampshire governor announces that gun violence is an imminent public health crisis, worthy of an emergency declaration. In fact, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky recently hinted at CDC action with respect to gun violence, calling it a “serious public health threat.” “Something has to be done about this,” she continued. “Now is the time – it’s pedal to the metal time.”

Under our state’s emergency powers act, a governor could conceivably declare a state of emergency with respect to gun violence, and unless that position is overturned by a majority of both houses of our legislature, that state of emergency would have the operative force of law. Given the Superior Court’s decision in the Binford case, a governor could conceivably order the closure of gun stores, prohibit the sale of ammunition, or even seize privately-held firearms. In other words, a governor with the support of a simple majority in either the Senate or the House could trump the rights guaranteed under the US and New Hampshire constitutions.

Fortunately, there’s an easy fix for this problem. HB440, the Civil Liberties Defense Act, would add a remarkably simple clarification to state statute, asserting that “civil liberties shall on no account be suspended, nor shall the United States Constitution or the New Hampshire bill of rights be suspended, set aside, or otherwise infringed.”

This should not be controversial. The framers of the US and NH Constitutions recognized the importance of enshrining certain liberties as unalienable human rights.

Unfortunately, the Senate Judiciary Committee retained HB440 earlier this year, judging that it required further review and discussion. On Tuesday, December 14^th, that committee is expected to act upon the bill, making an up-or-down recommendation to the rest of the Senate. If you share my view that fundamental liberties must be safeguarded against government overreach, – regardless of which party is at the helm, – I urge you to contact members of the NH Senate Judiciary Committee and ask them to support an “ought to pass” motion on House Bill 440.

For more information and resources about this bill, check out the following links:

• Text of the bill.
• TV interview with primary sponsor Jim Kofalt on Kevin Avard’s TV show
• Floor speech by Rep. Matt Simon explaining why our current emergency powers laws are dangerous.
• Rep. Michael Sylvia’s remarks on HB 440 from the House floor.
• Ian Huyett’s legal analysis of the bill and the legal issues at play.
• All the information in one place: https://www.nhcornerstone.org/blog/what-is-the-civil-liberties-defense-act-hb-440/

You may have seen some recent news about endorsements by 603 Alliance board members in the 2022 race for New Hampshire’s 1^st Congressional District.  We’d like to clarify our organization’s position with respect to endorsements, as we suspect that our conflicting endorsements in this particular race may invite some unwarranted speculation.

The 603 Alliance is guided by our mission of restoring Constitutional principles at all levels of government.  We share a common philosophy about what it means to participate in the process and how we can support each other in being effective in fulfilling that mission.

Having said that, we don’t necessarily share a monolithic worldview.  In the past, the we have on occasion issued endorsements as an organization. When we do so, our Board takes a formal vote, which is generally preceded by careful deliberation and discussion. In those cases, we are very clear that such endorsements come from the 603 Alliance.

For other races, however, we prefer to remain neutral as an organization. In that event, we generally opt to release board members to make their own personal endorsements.  This has been the case for the 2022 CD1 race.

As a result, board members Diane Bitter and Fran Wendelboe have chosen to endorse Matt Mowers; whereas Jim Kofalt has opted to endorse Karoline Leavitt.  Additional endorsements may be forthcoming from other board members.  Although our affiliation with 603 Alliance may be cited when an endorsement is announced, the endorsements we’re making in the CD1 race are personal opinions and should not be interpreted as an endorsement by the 603 Alliance as an organization.

If you have questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us at info@603alliance.org.

If you’re concerned about the decline in academic standards, the harm done by shutdowns and mandatory masking, and the politicization of our public schools, please consider running for School Board in your district.  We need to take back control of our schools and renew their focus to academic achievement.

The 603 Alliance is here to help, offering free campaign training and guidance to qualified candidates.  NOW IS THE TIME TO GET STARTED.  Our first training session will take place on Saturday, December 18th.  Please e-mail info@603alliance.org to let us know you’re interested.

If you want to know more about the role of a School Board member, what’s involved, and how you can get started, please check out our recorded webinar from last month.