Many out-of-state students on campus may wonder why New Hampshire stands on an island of its own on a variety of policy issues, sometimes being referred to as “the Alabama of the north,” and while there are many potential reasons for this, the structure of our legislature could be the biggest contributing factor.
For starters, N.H. holds the third place spot for largest legislative body in the English-speaking world, an astonishing feat for a state with just over 1.4 million people.
While I can understand the argument for more granular representation, it ultimately causes more harm than good.
The N.H. House of Representatives has 400 members, which amounts to about one representative per 3,500 citizens. Because of this, our legislature has many issues, namely the amount of representatives who hold wildly unpopular or radical positions who go unnoticed during election cycles.
For instance, each year, you can see a small but noticeable number of legislators who wish for the Granite State to secede entirely from the U.S.. While the measure has never passed and probably never will, it is worrying to see such proposals even receive a vote in a legislative body.
However, there are some positives in having a small barrier to entry in terms of running for elected office in the state, as it costs just $2 to file to run for the state house.
On the other hand, legislators get paid a staggeringly low $100-per-year stipend, as well as woefully low mileage reimbursement for the trips to Concord and back.
While some may argue that it would be bad or a waste of taxpayer dollars to put more money in the pockets of legislators, I would say that the current system discourages working-class people from running.
Why would you put so much work and effort into a job that pays just $100 a year? Their salary has not changed since 1889, and it is ridiculous to expect 400 people to ditch or shirk their primary commitments to go vote and attend hearings in Concord for months on end.
Where would legislators look to make money if not paid sufficiently by their government salary? One would think looking for lobbying money may seem appealing given the way things are.
I agree legislators should be passionate about their civic responsibility and duty to represent, but I also want to be realistic, and our current way of operating as a “citizen legislature” is not cutting it.
You can already observe several instances of representatives not being able to attend votes due to either legitimate travel concerns in harsh winter conditions or simply because of the other commitments in their lives that take precedence.
College professors may know better than anyone else how hard it is to get a group of 15 to 25 students to show up for an hour and 45 minute time period twice a week, now imagine trying to get 400 people to all drive to Concord and spend several hours a day in meetings and attending votes.
The lack of cohesion in the constituencies represented is also worrying. Given that there are so many representatives for so few people, we often end up with a legislature that is far out of touch with the state’s wants and needs in terms of policy.
N.H. has not legalized marijuana in contrast with all of its New England neighbors, it has not raised its minimum wage up from $7.25 and it has not enshrined reproductive rights into law.
All three of these policies are viewed favorably by Granite Staters and yet never end up passing the legislature due to gridlock and a number of no-name representatives voting down any attempts at progress.
This is all not to mention the gerrymandering of the state senate, which also contributes to the stifling of progress on a number of issues.
The solution is rather simple: Cut the state house down to 100 people and implement a fair and non-partisan redistricting process that ensures voters’ voices are truly heard.
N.H. does not have to keep its reputation of isolation from its progressive neighbors.
Nathan Hope can be contacted at
nhope@kscequinox.com
