RE: NH CACR 26 Must Pass

An E-mail I received:

Below came from my Aunt Lois (A Smart Lady)

One way NH amends its Constitution is through Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolutions which have been approved by both houses of the legislature for presentation to the voters in a general election. That's where CACR 26 came from. You'll find it on your ballot in November. Former Governor Merrill wrote a piece about it in a recent "Union Leader" in which he referred to Part 1, Article 37 of the NH Constitution, but he cited only the separation of powers section. The second section is a much stronger statement for checks and balances. The former gov also neglected to note that from 1784 to 1978 NH got along fine with the checks the legislature had on the judiciary. Members of the judicial branch lobbied and campaigned hard for the passage of the amendment that created Part II Article 73a in 1978. Since then they have made their own rules unchecked, and things have been getting worse and worse for people in the courts, both civil and criminal. So I did my reading and asking and thinking and this is what I figured out. I am building a more detailed piece, which I'll share with anyone who asks.  I think justice is a big deal, and I think there isn't much of it in NH for lots of people, and I think Article 73a is the enabler for their misery. I can't work on campaigns or phone banks or rallies this year; Mumcare is becoming increasingly restrictive, although she is doing very well for someone who'll turn 103 around Thanksgiving. So I started my own campaign on a very important issue, one I don't think will get much attention with all that's going on. I urge you to do some of your own research or take mine and take action. Here's what I'm thinking and saying to you. Please pass it along to NH voters you know, and vote "yes" on CACR 26 in November. Just remember, _this_ campaign isn't robo-calling you at suppertime :-}

CACR 26 Should Pass 

   In 1947 Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote that the basic function of any court is to judge a case on its merits. This legal terminology means that only two factors should influence any decision by any court: the law and the facts. Thus, the “…judges as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit,” a guaranteed right by Article 35 of the NH State Constitution, can disregard neither law nor facts but must examine the facts presented in light of both statutory and case law.

    New Hampshire has a problem: Part II Article 73a of our Constitution (passed in 1978) lets judges make their own rules. The rules the judges have made allow them to disregard any evidence, any laws, any decisions, and even the rules they, themselves, have made. Court records from all over NH show that judges have increasingly failed to consider applicable laws and decisions raised by parties in a case; they have refused to consider evidence submitted by litigants; and they have violated the Rules of Judicial Conduct and rules written specifically for the courts in which they serve.

   It is time to fix that problem. It is time to restore the system of checks and balances originating in  NH Constitution’s Article 37. It is time to vote “yes” on CACR 26 and change Part II Article 73a to provide a check on the judiciary’s ability to make its own rules and use them to apply laws and findings differently to different parties in cases in our civil and criminal courts.

Lois