Dear Editor,In a September 9 Seacoastonline Op-Ed, entitled “N.H. Legislature Should Not Run The Courts” former NH Justice Joseph Nadeau and former NH Governor Steve Merrill recommended voting against CACR 26, a proposed constitutional amendment that will be on the ballot this fall. What they want you to vote against is restoring legislative oversight of NH Supreme Court rule making that was lost when Part II Article 73a of the State Constitution was unwisely adopted in 1978. They are wrong.
The legislature does not “want to run the courts.” The legislature simply wants to restore public oversight of the courts.Justice Nadeau andas well as your readers should know that when current Supreme Court Justice Hicks and Justice Lynn testified at the Senate hearing on the subject of CACR 26 they offered for the Senate’s consideration the exact amended language that will appear on the ballot in November and in the course of their testimony they assured the Senate that the language that they were proposing had the blessing of all of the Justices on the Court. In other words, the CACR 26 language that will be on the ballot for voter approval is language that was created and endorsed by the Justices of the NH Supreme Court themselves.
Obviously, our Justices have also come to realize that our current lack of public oversight of judicial rule making has unnecessarily provoked friction between the branches that in turn has resulted in bad public policy outcomes for both the judicial and legislative branches of state government.When opponents of court reform like former Governor Merrill and former Justice Nadeau quote the language from Part 1, Article 37 of the New Hampshire Constitution that provides that the branches of government “ought to be kept as separate from, and independent of, each other, as the nature of a free government will admit, or as is consistent with that chain of connection that binds the whole fabric of the constitution in one indissoluble bond of union and amity.” they deliberately abuse the language to promote absolute separation between the branches when the Part I, Article 37 wording has the exact opposite meaning. The most important phrase within Part I, Article 37 consists of the words “as the nature of a free government will admit.” It is a simple and undeniable fact that a “free government” cannot exist without constant and effective public oversight and control of ALL branches of government – including the judiciary. It is public oversight that court sycophants wish to stifle and it is public oversight of Court rule making that must be restored.Since our present Justices all support the CACR 26 language that will be on November’s ballot, I encourage all NH voters to also and enthusiastically embrace the amended language as well. Vote ‘yes’ in November on CACR 26 in order to restore public oversight of court rule making authority.Representative Paul Mirski, Grafton District 10
POB 190
Enfield Center, New Hampshire 03749 / (Tel) 603 632 5555
