Tomorrow voters will have more to worry about than simply their choice for president, governor, senator, and congressman.
They'll have more to think about than who will sit in those 424 seats in the Statehouse.
On the ballot voters will also see something called Question 1.
It's the chance to amend the state's constitution....and effect a shift in the balance of power between the courts and the legislature.
NHPR's Mark Bevis reports.
Currently, the Chief Justice of the State's Supreme Court establishes the rules for every court in the State.
Those rules apply to everything from hours of operation to the sort of evidence that can be used in a trial.
But the vast majority of lawmakers think the court has too much power.
Republican Representative Henry Mock of Jackson is one of them.
The Chair the House Judiciary Committee has been a driving force behind the proposal to amend the constitution.
Mock2: we believe... we need to return to the people some say in the operation of their court system by allowing the legislature to pass laws that may effect the rules and regulations of the court system
Mock's proposal is not radical.
In fact it's the way things are in most states across the country and it was the way things were in New Hampshire until 1978.
But in the 1970s, the popular consensus was that the courts rules system was a bit of a mess.
The four levels of the state judiciary, the probate, district, superior and Supreme courts all operated with different rules. .
So voters changed the constitution so that the people who ran the court could standardize their procedures.
Attorney Russ Hilliard is the former President of the New Hampshire Bar Association.
.... the amendment in 1978....brought a uniformity of procedures in all the courts in the state, allowed for modernization of rules in all the courts in the state and greatly improved the efficiency of handling of cases and I think of the quality of justice delivered to the citizens
Hilliard and other oppponents don't want to turn back the clock.
But if Question 1 is approved on Tuesday, the new Amendment would give the legislature the right to share rule-making power with the courts.
And in the case of a conflict between lawmakers and judges, the lawmakers would prevail.
Their rules would become law as long as their rules didn't violate the constitution.
Former House Speaker Donna Sytek argues that unless voters change the constitution, Judges have greater power than they should.
Sytek: ...I'm not in favor of the legislature deciding cases and I'm not in favor of the court making laws and unless we make this change the court has the ability to make rules that have the force and effect of law with no opportunity for anybody to do anything about it.
But Question 1's opponents call it a legislative power grab.
Again Russ Hilliard.
hilliard1: we have felt strongly that the wording and the intent of this proposal is to improperly allow the legislature to try to run what has been and should be an independent branch of government.
The debate has in general pitted the state's lawyers against the state's citizen lawmakers.
Both the House and Senate approved the proposed amendment by about 75% ....far more than what was required.
But Question 1 is bringing people out who typically don't advocate for particular policies.
Judges.
Recently, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Broderick told listeners on NHPR's The Exchange that this amendment would diminish his abilities to oversee the courts.
Broderick: I think that as someone who sits in this job, who doesn't own the job, it would be a mistake to change the system. I don't know what problem it is designed to correct, but I think it would cause more problems than it was meant to solve.
Some judges fear lawmakers would get involved in the minutiae of court administration, by setting hours of operation or changing security details.
But not all Judges agree.
Bob Lynn is Chief Justice of the state's Superior courts.
Lynn insists that if he thought passing this amendment would in any way affect how he does his job, he would oppose it.
what this amendment is about is democracy. it's about restoring to the legislature the power to set this state's public policy. And in a free and open society the legislature has to have that power.
What's not clear, however, is what policy the amendment's supporters want to set.
When pressed for an example, Representative Mock mentions one court rule he'd like to overturn.
That rule makes some prior convictions inadmissible as evidence in some sexual abuse cases.
Mock: for instance if a person has committed a crime, three times and been convicted three times. and it's always on Saturday night, it's always raining, it's always between 11 and 12 and he always uses a knife. should the jury hear that.
In Mock's view, that's an example of how citizens could get more justice from the courts.
But Attorney Russ Hilliard argues that getting more justice depends on how you define justice.
you're seeing a collision between how do we secure more convictions with the concern about the presumption of innocence and the right to have a fair trial.
This is not the first time, voters have had the chance to cast their ballot on this issue.
2 years ago, lawmakers presented voters with a similar question..
And it fell just 3% shy of the 2/3 needed to pass.
This year, voters may have a harder time deciding how to vote.
Proponents of Question 1 had produced a voters guide to describe the proposed amendment.
The guide was to be available at polling places.
But last week, a Merrimack County Superior Court ruled the Guide was invalid and ordered it recalled.
For NHPR News this is Mark Bevis, in Concord.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo