On March 21, the New Hampshire Senate Election Laws & Municipal Affairs Committee passed CACR9. It is a proposed constitutional amendment to say that New Hampshire shall hold the nation’s earliest presidential primary in each presidential election year. If the legislature passes this bill, the voters would vote on the amendment in November 2024.
This seems like a silly idea. New Hampshire cannot by itself guarantee that it always has the nation’s earliest presidential primary, so putting that idea into the State Constitution won’t accomplish its goal.
Will they go to war with another state that sets it earlier? This whole game is silly. Have one round, one election, one time a year. Voters stand and be counted. Winning party – Pick one office: peace officer = law enforcement, judge, jury, executioner. No election above precinct level – one tax only: poll tax. No other tax except head tax for national defense military. Generals and admirals pick commander in chief. There is literally zero need for any other government, election, or tax at any level. One page of laws – no need for lawyers, lobbyists, legislators etc. Peace officers decide how law applies to situations that they encounter in the field. On the spot decisions with immediate execution of offenders. Trash company disposed of offenders corpses. Why make simple things complicated???
Isn’t this ridiculous? Wouldn’t it be a conflict of interest if state officials that are elected from the two-party system Majority of the time) conducts the elections of those same two parties?
New Hampshire could secede and hold its own Presidential election whenever it wants.
Can it? How did that work out the last time some states tried that?
FIND NH ON A WORLD MAP.
PREZ HACKS TRAVEL AND TV ATTACK ADS ARE WHAT PCT OF NH GDP ???
IE TOTAL ECON ROT IN NH IF NH IS N-O-T FIRST ???
AZ what the fuck are you even talking about? Speak English!
@ Eric:
It would have to be a negotiated secession, not a unilateral one, as was attempted in 1861.
The definitive ruling on the matter of secession was Texas v White. This ruling was quite emphatic in its rejection of unilateral secession, but it left the door open a crack for a negotiated secession, by saying that a state could secede with the consent of the other states.
Brexit was an example of a negotiated secession. The UK didn’t just bug out, like the Confederates in 1861, but came to an agreement with the EU as to the terms of their leaving.
Another example of a successful negotiated secession was the division of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. No civil war; just an amicable divorce.
@WZ,
The reasoning of Texas v. White is specious. The Articles of Confederation established a Perpetual Union. In 1787 a meeting in secrecy in Philadelphia proposed a so-called constitution that abrogated the Articles of Confederation.
This document purported to create a more perfect union (more perfect than perpetual). But they bypassed the bodies that had the sole authority to amend the AOC: Congress and the State legislatures.
I highly doubt any successful negotiation of secession will happen. There are zero examples of anything close in 250 years.