Latest news with #NewHampshireConstitution
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rules SWEPT tax constitutional, settling one school funding issue
Supreme Court Justices Patrick Donovan, Gordon MacDonald, and Melissa Countway hear oral arguments in Rand v. State of New Hampshire, on Nov. 13, 2024. (Photo by Ethan DeWitt/New Hampshire Bulletin) New Hampshire's Statewide Education Property Tax is equal and uniform and does not violate the New Hampshire Constitution, the state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, in a blow to state taxpayers who had sued the state and alleged unfairness. In a 3-1 decision, the court held that the tax, known as the SWEPT, is administered fairly and evenly by the Department of Revenue Administration, even though wealthier towns might collect more than they need for their schools and keep the excess. 'Accordingly, regarding the 'excess SWEPT' issue, we hold that the SWEPT scheme is constitutional under Part II, Article 5 because it is 'administered in a manner that is equal in valuation and uniform in rate throughout the State,'' wrote Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald in the majority opinion. The SWEPT is a mandatory process in which towns collect property taxes to pay for their schools. Under law, the state sets a goal each year for New Hampshire cities and towns to collect a combined $363 million, and each year the Department of Revenue Administration sets a tax rate per $1,000 of property value that towns must collect. But that statewide tax rate typically results in towns with higher property values collecting far more from the SWEPT than towns with lower property values, and sometimes more than is needed to fund their schools. When the tax was enacted in 1999, those wealthier towns were required to relinquish any excess SWEPT revenues to the state to be redistributed to needier towns through the state's adequacy formula. But in 2011, then-Gov. John Lynch signed a law to allow those towns to keep the excess, after pushback by some communities that considered themselves 'donor towns.' Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Rand v. State, had argued that because the current system allows wealthy towns to collect more in property taxes than they need, and because those towns can use the excess to lower the overall percentage of property taxes paid, the tax is neither equal nor uniform in practice. Residents of towns with lower property values pay much higher local property tax rates as a percentage than those in wealthier towns, plaintiffs said. Lawyers for the plaintiffs — who included Natalie LaFlamme as well as John Tobin and Andru Volinsky, two attorneys on the winning side of the landmark Claremont school funding decisions in the 1990s — had brought a motion for 'declaratory judgment' to the Supreme Court. That motion was intended to allow the Supreme Court to rule quickly on the constitutionality of the SWEPT tax before the rest of the case receives a hearing in superior court, in order to lay questions about the SWEPT tax to rest. The court did put the question to rest Tuesday, but not in the plaintiffs' favor. MacDonald held that the SWEPT is administered evenly because the Department of Revenue Administration applies the same flat tax rate each year to all cities and towns, wealthy or poor. Whether those towns keep the excess revenue or not, and whether some towns raise enough to pay for schools or not, does not affect whether the underlying tax is unequal and does not make it unconstitutional, MacDonald wrote. In doing so, MacDonald dismissed evidence from an expert indicating the difference in effective property taxes between towns. 'The plaintiffs do not dispute that under the SWEPT, as administered, taxpayers are actually assessed at a uniform rate. That concludes the constitutional inquiry,' MacDonald wrote. 'The 'effective rates' in the expert's data reflect, at most, an indirect effect of municipalities retaining excess SWEPT revenue, as the statutory scheme permits. Theoretical indirect effects of the scheme on municipalities are not relevant to the analysis under Part II, Article 5.' Associate Justices Melissa Countway and Patrick Donovan concurred with MacDonald. But Senior Associate Justice James Bassett dissented on the question of the constitutionality of SWEPT. Responding to MacDonald, Bassett argued that under SWEPT, taxpayers in poorer towns do face disparities in taxation compared to those in wealthier towns. 'The impact of the SWEPT scheme on taxpayers in excess SWEPT communities is anything but 'theoretical' or 'indirect': the effective SWEPT rate reduction those taxpayers enjoy is real and direct,' Bassett wrote. 'The impact of the SWEPT scheme on taxpayers in other communities that do not generate excess SWEPT is also real and direct: those taxpayers enjoy no comparable reduction in their effective SWEPT rate.' The fifth associate justice, Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, has been on administrative leave from the court since July 2024, pending a criminal case against her for allegedly interfering with the criminal investigation of her husband. The decision overrules parts of an earlier decision by Rockingham Superior Court Judge David Ruoff, who ruled in 2023 that the SWEPT was illegal. The ruling does not end the Rand case; it merely answers plaintiffs' attempts to receive a declaratory judgment on SWEPT. The rest of the Rand case alleges that New Hampshire's adequacy formula, which currently gives a minimum of $4,182 per student to public schools that need aid, is far too low to pay for an adequate education and is unconstitutional. The court did not rule on that question Tuesday. But it is currently considering a different school funding case, Contoocook Valley School District v. New Hampshire, in which a number of school districts have also alleged that the adequacy formula is too low to provide an adequate education. Oral arguments in that case, known as the ConVal case, took place at the Supreme Court in December. Ruoff has also ruled that the state's formula is unconstitutionally low. The Supreme Court's expected ruling in the ConVal decision could affect how the rest of the Rand lawsuit plays out in superior court, now that the constitutionality of SWEPT has been affirmed by the high court. In an order sent in October, the court indicated that it is unlikely to overturn the Claremont decisions, in which the Supreme Court established the constitutional requirement that the state of New Hampshire ensure an adequate education. Tuesday's ruling did include a partial victory for plaintiffs. The court held that use of 'negative tax rates,' in which the Department of Revenue Administration allows unincorporated towns that don't have school districts to offset their SWEPT tax with negative rates to effectively raise no SWEPT revenue, is unconstitutional. But the court did not direct the state to stop setting negative tax rates. Instead, it said the process for doing so, and fixing the unconstitutional law, is in the hands of the legislative and executive branches. 'Resolving the constitutional infirmity in the State's practice of setting negative local tax rates is the responsibility of the other co-equal branches of government,' MacDonald wrote.
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Justice David Souter and state constitutional law
Among scholars who study state courts and state constitutions, Justice David Souter was notable for the experience at the state level that he brought with him to the Supreme Court. (Photo by) Following retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter's passing last month, commentators memorialized the justice with appreciations of his analytical acumen and commitment to the role of neutral arbiter. Steven Vladeck, for instance, praised Souter for 'just how seriously he took his job as a justice — and a judge.' At the same time, however, as longtime Supreme Court observer Linda Greenhouse noted in The New York Times, Souter's 'name was on so few significant opinions and his profile at the court was so low that after his first few years, legal academia essentially stopped paying attention to him.' Not all of legal academia. Among scholars who study state courts and state constitutions, Souter was notable for the experience at the state level that he brought with him to the Supreme Court. During his tenure as a member of New Hampshire's highest court, that court contributed to the development of state constitutional law in significant ways. The Granite State stood at the forefront of the jurisprudential phenomenon known as the 'new judicial federalism' — the practice of state courts interpreting the individual rights provisions of their own constitutions independently of the Supreme Court's rulings on the parallel protections contained in the federal Bill of Rights. The new judicial federalism was inspired, in large part, by an essay published in the Harvard Law Review in 1977. Alarmed by the extent to which the Supreme Court was retreating from the robust protection of individual rights under the federal constitution, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan reminded readers that 'State constitutions, too, are a font of individual liberties, their protections often extending beyond those required by the Supreme Court's interpretation of federal law.' In other words, individuals and advocates should consider, in appropriate cases, the depth and reach of state constitutional individual rights provisions. The New Hampshire Supreme Court heard Brennan's call. In its 1983 decision in State v. Ball, the high court held that, when state constitutional issues are properly raised, the state courts have 'a responsibility to make an independent determination of the protections afforded in the New Hampshire Constitution.' To ignore this obligation, the court continued, would be to fail in the duty to defend the state constitution, which in turn would undermine 'the federalism that must be so carefully safeguarded by our people.' A commitment to the independent interpretation of the state constitution necessarily entails the development of approaches and modes of analysis suited to that particular constitutional context, which Justice Souter recognized in a 1986 case, State v. Bradberry. Souter had been appointed to the high court when the court issued its opinion in Ball, but he did not participate in the decision. Bradberry thus presented an opportunity for him to explain the stakes for state constitutional law in individual rights cases: 'If we place too much reliance on federal precedent,' he wrote, 'we will render the State rules a mere row of shadows; if we place too little, we will render State practice incoherent. If we are going to steer between these extremes, we will have to insist on developed advocacy from those who bring the cases before us.' Justice Souter's plea for support from the bar in state constitutional cases continues to resonate. In our treatise on state constitutional law, 'The Law of American State Constitutions,' my co-author Bob Williams and I referred to Souter's opinion in Bradberry as a definitive statement on the matter. In the book, we echoed the perspective articulated in his opinion: State courts that rely wholly on federal law in interpreting their state constitutional rights protections risk diminishing those protections, while too little respect for federal precedent risks isolating a state's law from the larger, national discourse about the meaning of common individual rights provisions. His experience with state constitutional law and the new judicial federalism distinguished Justice Souter's career from that of most of his fellow U.S. Supreme Court justices, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court's commitment to fostering independent state constitutional interpretation in State v. Ball has distinguished it from other state courts. In Bradberry, Justice Souter maintained that the commitment represents but an initial step toward reckoning with state constitutional text. In ascertaining the meaning of the state's charter, Souter advised, the state's courts should expect to rely on counsel representing each side of a case to illuminate the text. Such advocacy allows judges to consider the full range of interpretive possibilities that may lie in particular provisions of the New Hampshire Constitution — and creates an alternative to relying exclusively on the views of nine judges in Washington, D.C., who are tasked with construing a similar but fundamentally different constitution
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NH Supreme Court rejects Dover and Rochester's 2020 redistricting complaint
Dover, Rochester, and 10 residents filed a lawsuit against the State of New Hampshire and Secretary of State David Scanlan alleging that the state's maps violated the New Hampshire Constitution. (Photo by Dave Cummings/New Hampshire Bulletin) The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the House district maps created by the Republican-controlled state Legislature in 2020 are not illegal, despite allegations made by the cities of Dover and Rochester and a number of residents from throughout New Hampshire. In 2022, Dover, Rochester, and 10 residents filed a lawsuit against the State of New Hampshire and Secretary of State David Scanlan alleging that the state's maps violated the New Hampshire Constitution. They argued that the constitution requires Dover Ward 4, Rochester Ward 5, New Ipswich, Wilton, Hooksett, Lee, Barrington, and several other towns to have their own state House districts because their populations are large enough to warrant them. The maps currently in use do not give those wards and towns their own districts. They also alleged the map's population configuration deviates more than 10%, which is a violation of the 14th Amendment's one-person-one-vote requirement. They ask the court to forbid the state from using the maps and to ostensibly fix them. They provided a map they deemed to be more legal. In 2024, a trial court in Strafford County ruled against Dover and Rochester, agreeing with the state and Scanlan that creating maps where every city, town, or ward with the necessary population had their own districts would be impossible to accomplish. It also ruled previous case law determined that presumptive violations of the one-person-one-vote requirement may be justified by efforts to make districts compact, respect municipal boundaries, preserve the cores of prior districts, and avoid contests between incumbent representatives. Citing a previous court decision, the court declared that 'a legislatively enacted redistricting plan 'is not unconstitutional simply because some 'resourceful mind' has come up with a better one.'' Dover, Rochester, and the rest of the plaintiffs promptly appealed the ruling and the state Supreme Court considered the case. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that because they did not sufficiently show that the Legislature had 'no rational or legitimate basis' to enact the map, they denied the appeal. 'We are pleased that the New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state's redistricting plan for the State House of Representatives,' Attorney General John Formella, who represented the state, said in a statement Wednesday. 'Today's decision reaffirms the Court's prior precedent recognizing the Legislature's broad discretion in the area of redistricting and recognizes that the Legislature must balance complex constitutional requirements when determining the most appropriate map. We are delighted that the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's finding that the Legislature acted within its constitutional authority, and I thank our litigation and appeals teams for their excellent work in achieving this important outcome.' Jennifer Perez, Dover's deputy city attorney wrote in an email to the Bulletin, 'We are disappointed in the result but respect the Court's determination.' Officials from Rochester did not immediately respond to the Bulletin's requests for comment.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NH Supreme Court backs victims mental health records in landmark decision
For the first time, the state's highest court applied the right of privacy to a criminal case to restrict the defendant's access to the alleged victim's confidential counseling and mental health records. The opinion by the New Hampshire Supreme Court stems from a rape case in Belknap County involving a minor. Even with protections in place previously, criminal defendants have used such records to 'intimidate and embarrass victims — and to deter them from disclosing abuse, reporting crimes and seeking justice,' according to the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. An individual's 'right to live free from governmental intrusion in private or personal information is natural, essential, and inherent,' was added to the New Hampshire Constitution in 2018. The Supreme Court's opinion, issued Thursday, is being called groundbreaking by the coalition and members of the legal community. Now, an alleged victim must be given notice and an opportunity to object when the defense requests access to confidential records. The opinion is part the case against Gene Zarella of Tilton, who was indicted on four counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault of a minor. A Superior Court judge denied a request by the alleged victim to quash the defense's access to her counseling and mental health records. According to the indictments, two of the assaults happened between March 2006 and July 2007 when the girl was under 13 and the other two occurred between March 2014 and July 2014 when she was between ages 13 and 16. The alleged victim was not given notice or an opportunity to object to the defense's request for her records, according to the coalition. Zarella's attorney, William Christie, did not return an email from the Union Leader seeking comment. The justices used the 2018 constitutional amendment to overturn its prior case law, according to the coalition. 'Now, courts are required to engage in a specific process that involves the victim/patient before making any decision about reviewing or disclosing those records,' the coalition said. David Vicinanzo, attorney for the victim and partner at Nixon Peabody law firm, called it a landmark decision which removed a 'major obstacle to justice' for victims. He said mental health records will now be treated as first-class privileges, much like attorney-client privileges. The decision Thursday eliminates case law dating back 33 years when views on mental health were much different, he said. 'I think it brings us toward eliminating the stigma associated with mental health,' Vicinanzo said in an interview. Vicinanzo said his client is glad her privileges won't be violated as part of the prosecution. 'Criminal defendants will no longer have easy access to rummage through the privileged medical and mental health records of their victims, almost all of whom were women or children in sexual or domestic crimes,' he said in a statement. Coalition Executive Director Lyn Schollett said assault victims can now slowly rebuild their lives with the privacy they deserve. 'The outrageous practice of accessing victims' irrelevant, personal information ends today,' she said in a statement. 'Granite Staters who have experienced violent crimes and heinous losses can walk into the office of a crisis center or a therapist without fear that their conversations will become public.' jphelps@
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
House passes bill allowing New Hampshire voters to request their ballot be hand-counted
Voters fill in their ballots at the Warner Town Hall on Nov. 5, 2024. (Photo by Will Steinfeld/New Hampshire Bulletin) The New Hampshire House passed a bill Wednesday allowing voters to request that their ballot be hand-counted by cities and towns, even if their polling place uses machine counting. House Bill 154 would allow any voter to make that request to a poll worker; if they did so, town election officials would be required to deposit the ballot in an 'auxiliary compartment' of the ballot-counting machine to be hand-counted after the polls closed. The legislation comes amid a conservative movement against the use of voting tabulators in recent years. It also comes months after the state Supreme Court ruled that New Hampshire voters do not have a right to have their ballots counted by hand in towns that use machines. The plaintiff in that case, Daniel Richard, had argued that towns did not have the authority to require voting machines under the New Hampshire Constitution and that it created an unequal voting process when compared to towns that hand count. The court ruled that the state constitution does not require hand-counting, but remanded the case down to Rockingham County Superior Court. HB 154 passed on the House floor in a contested voice vote with no discussion. But during a vote in the House Election Law Committee, Republicans said the vote was meant to give voters the ability to cast their ballots the way they wanted to. Some opponents, who included Democrats, said the bill could slow down the voting process on election day. 'More people are going to ask for it, it's going to delay the counting of votes, and hand-counting has been shown to be less accurate than machine counting,' said Rep. Connie Lane, a Concord Democrat, during the committee's executive session. Others, including House Election Law Committee Chairman Ross Berry, a Weare Republican, said they supported giving voters the choice but advised voters to consider whether they wanted their ballots hand-counted in the first place. 'I will issue a word of caution: When you do this, when you exercise this … you're saying, I want somebody who's been up for 16 hours straight to pull out my ballot and read it amongst other ballots that are either put in that bin or had errors,' Berry said. 'My experience in the recounts shows that the machines are far more accurate than the people.' Berry added that he hoped the bill, if it became law, would discourage a recent trend in which anti-voting machine advocates force towns to count their ballots by hand by intentionally overvoting — filling in too many bubbles for a specific race — so that the machine rejects the ballot and it must be hand-counted anyway. The House also killed a number of election-related bills proposed by Democrats Thursday. One, House Bill 600, would have enabled cities to choose to hold elections using ranked-choice voting, a process in which voters list candidates in order of preference, and second and third choices are factored in if a candidate does not receive at least 50 percent of the vote. Advocates for that system say it eliminates the potential for politicians to be elected with a plurality of votes and encourages candidates to court their opponent's voters, discouraging partisanship. But Republicans said the system is confusing, can be time consuming for election officials, and is not needed. The House rejected a constitutional amendment, CACR 2, which would have barred the Legislature from drawing districts every 10 years in a way 'that favors or disfavors any political party or candidate.' Republicans said the addition would just allow the redistricting process to fall into the hands of courts, and that the current process is inherently political. And the House voted down House Bill 175, a proposed campaign finance law that would have barred candidates from coordinating their campaign's expenditures with the expenditures of political action committees. That practice is prohibited in federal elections by federal law, but is possible in state law. Rep. Travis Toner, a Belmont Republican, said the law could unfairly punish political action committees that simply share the same messaging goals as candidates, and noted it would not prevent coordination with unions. And he defended the increasing prominence of political action committees in state elections, including the gubernatorial race. 'The majority of the committee believes that political action committees (PACs) who collect money from everyday citizens of New Hampshire along with large and small businesses enable the voices of the state to be heard on a larger scale,' Toner wrote in an explanation in the House calendar ahead of the vote.
