Secretary of state backs moving state primary to August
Feb. 25—Secretary of State David Scanlan told a key House committee that he would prefer to move the state's primary election up two weeks rather than three months in the middle of the summer tourism season.
The state primary currently is the second Tuesday in September.
In 2026, the election is to be held on Sept. 8, the day after Labor Day.
Moving the primary up to the fourth Tuesday of August would provide the least disruption to both state and local election workers, Scanlan told the House Election Laws Committee as he endorsed that legislation (HB 408) Tuesday.
"There is no question that we need to move the primary further back from the general election," Scanlan said. "We are on a really tight time frame."
But a bipartisan duo of House members said a competing bill (HB 481) setting the primary on the second Tuesday in June would be a big help for challenging candidates to try and overcome the other advantages that incumbents already have.
"This gives such a bonus to the incumbent that does not favor democracy," said Rep. Kris Schultz, D-Concord and a party activist who's worked on elections in New Hampshire and nearly a dozen other states.
In 2024, New Hampshire's Sept. 10 primary tied with Delaware and Rhode Island for the latest date on the calendar.
House Election Laws Chairman Ross Berry, R-Weare, joined in on Schultz's bill for a June primary.
"I don't care. I just want to move it." Berry said.
Yet it appears state senators from both parties prefer the June date, Berry said.
"August appears to be not an option," Berry said. "It's June or bust again."
Last year, the Senate passed a bill with the June primary, and it had the backing of then-Gov. Chris Sununu.
The House preferred the August date it had passed and killed the Senate's bill in response.
In 2022, Sununu vetoed an August primary bill and argued that schedule would conflict with the plans of New Hampshire families for vacations at the end of the summer.
The push for making the change at all is the state's growing difficulty with meeting a federal law deadline that all absentee ballots for overseas or voters serving abroad in the military must be sent out at least 45 days before the general election.
Scanlan said that window gets extremely tight in years when there are many recounts that delay the final printing of the general election ballot.
"I was holding my breath in the last primary because there were a number of hotly contested races which right before the election looked close enough that there might have been a recount," Scanlan recalled.
June primary would conflict with local elections
Holding the primary in June would create a candidate filing period in March, which is a busy time for state and local election officials dealing with town and school district races for local offices, Scanlan said.
Scanlan said the state could carry out a June election, but the August date would create less conflict.
Schultz agreed that the opinion of new Gov. Kelly Ayotte will go a long way to determining if the election reform becomes a reality this year.
Ayotte has yet to publicly weigh in on it.
Residents online were evenly split over these bills.
"Should the primary get moved, moving it to June vs. August is better for everyone," wrote Michael Horne of Hooksett. "Having a primary in August is a horrible time for both election officials and the voters. That's prime N.H. vacation time."
Russell Hodgkins of Amherst said the June election would make the race too costly.
"This would extend the political season and make it too expensive for challengers to compete against incumbents," Hodgkins said
Berry said House Democrats should get behind the June primary and learn the lesson from 2024 when their party had a close and bitter primary for governor between former Manchester Mayor Joyce Craig and Executive Councilor Cinde Warmington of Concord.
Craig beat Warmington, but then lost to Ayotte in a race that wasn't as close as many thought it would be.
"Ayotte kind of ran away with her election," Berry summed up. "You saw how that worked out."
klandrigan@unionleader.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
17 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers
President Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food assistance for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food assistance program, by the numbers: The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law eliminated a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the country. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. The money can be spent on most groceries, but the Trump administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion in federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come from shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come from expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. The House resolution containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts passed last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food assistance and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it. Lieb writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - No amount of marijuana is safe for teens
'Since the failed war on drugs began more than 50 years ago, the prohibition of marijuana has ruined lives, families and communities, particularly communities of color,' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) recently said while announcing a bipartisan bill to legalize cannabis that the federal level. Jeffries added that the bill 'will lay the groundwork to finally right these wrongs in a way that advances public safety.' But the growing body of evidence on cannabis's effects on kids suggests this is not true at all. Cannabis legalization efforts across the U.S. have greatly accelerated over the last 15 years. Despite some recent success at anti-legalization efforts (e.g., Florida and North Dakota voters rejected in 2024 an adult use bill), the widespread public support for cannabis reform has translated to nearly half of U.S. states permitting adult use of cannabis, and 46 states with some form of a medical cannabis program. Though all legal-marijuana states have set the minimum age at 21, underage use has become a significant health concern. National data indicate that in 2024, 16.2 percent of 12th graders reported cannabis use in the past 30 days, and about 5.1 percent indicated daily use. To compound matters, product potency levels of the main intoxicant in the cannabis plant, THC (or Delta-9), have skyrocketed, from approximately 5 percent in the 1970s to upwards of 95 percent in THC concentrate products today. Even street-weed is routinely five to six times more potent than it was back in the day. The pro-cannabis landscape has likely moved teen perceptions of cannabis use. A prior encouraging trend of the 1970s and 1980s, when more and more teens each year perceived use of cannabis to be harmful, is now in reverse. Only 35.9 percent of 12th graders view regular cannabis use as harmful, compared to 50.4 percent in 1980. This is happening even as research is showing that cannabis is more deleterious to young people than we previously believed. The negative effects of cannabis use on a teenager can be seen across a range of behaviors. Changes may be subtle at first and masked as typical teenage turmoil. But ominous signs can soon emerge, including changes in friends, loss of interest in school and hobbies, and use on a daily basis. The usual pushback against parental rules and expectations becomes anger and defiance. For many, underlying issues of depression and anxiety get worse. And there is a vast body of scientific research indicating that teen-onset use of THC use significantly increases the risk of addiction and can be a trigger for developing psychosis, including schizophrenia. The pro-cannabis trend is not occurring in a vacuum. Those entrusted with protecting the health and well-being of youth — parents, community leaders, policy makers — have dropped the ball on the issue. Policymakers tout exaggerated claims that THC is a source of wellness and safer than alcohol or nicotine. In some states, cannabis-based edibles are sold in convenience stores. Many parents have a rearview-mirror perception of cannabis, as they assume the products these days are the water-downed versions from the 1960's and '70s. Aggravating matters are the influences of some business interests. The playbook from Big Tobacco is now being used by Big Cannabis: political donations, legislative lobbying, media support, and claims that solutions to social problems will follow legalization. The debate on the public health impact of legalizing cannabis will continue. We hope the discourse and policies will follow the science and give priority to the health and well-being of youth. An international panel of elite researchers on cannabis recently concluded that there is no level of cannabis use that is safe, and if use occurs, it's vital to refrain until after puberty. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Institute on Drug Abuse also agree with these guidelines. One state — Minnesota — is requiring school-based drug prevention programs to include specific information on cannabis harms, a hopeful trend for other states to follow. When recreational cannabis is made available to adults, perhaps we assume that legal restrictions to those age 21 and older is a sufficient guardrail. But history tells us that youth will indulge in adult-only activities. The pro-cannabis environment in the U.S. poses a public health challenge to young people. There isn't a single challenge of being a teenager that cannabis will help solve. Sadly, this is a message that is not getting enough attention. Naomi Schaefer Riley is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where she focuses on child welfare and foster care issues. Ken Winters is a senior scientist at the Minnesota branch of the Oregon Research Institute and is the co-founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana Minnesota. This essay is adapted from a chapter in the forthcoming edited volume, 'Mind the Children: How to Think About the Youth Mental Health Collapse.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
An old Capitol Hill troublemaker is trying to clinch a megabill deal
It's a scene jarringly familiar to many Republicans on Capitol Hill: a high-stakes piece of legislation, a tense standoff between GOP leaders and conservative hard-liners — and Mark Meadows in the middle of it all. The former North Carolina congressman and Donald Trump chief of staff has been lying low in recent years. But he's re-emerged as a behind-the-scenes sounding board for Republican hard-liners, who view him as an informal conduit with the White House as they try to shape the president's 'big, beautiful bill.' It's just the latest turn for Meadows, who played a central role in ousting John Boehner as speaker, then served as conservative gadfly in Paul Ryan's House GOP before leaving for the White House. He was at Trump's side through 2020 until the ignominious end of his first term. His most recent headlines have concerned his role in the 'stop the steal' efforts that followed the 2020 election and his interactions with Trump during the Jan. 6 Capitol riots. Reports of an immunity deal and his testimony to a federal grand jury made him persona non grata in some MAGA circles. But Meadows, who declined to comment for this story, has maintained a foothold on the hard right as a senior partner at the Conservative Partnership Institute — a conservative think tank in Washington headed by former South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint. It's where the current iteration of the House Freedom Caucus, which Meadows once led, huddles for its weekly meetings, and he keeps in frequent touch with the group's members. Those conversations have heated up in recent weeks as the GOP megabill has moved to the top of the Capitol Hill agenda. This past Tuesday evening, for instance, Meadows ventured into the Capitol complex to meet with a small cadre of hard-liners from both chambers: GOP Sens. Rick Scott of Florida, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Mike Lee of Utah, as well as Reps. Chip Roy of Texas and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. The meeting in Lee's office, which was first reported by POLITICO, focused on how the right flank could hang onto some of its biggest priorities in the House version of the megabill, while trying to eke out some new wins in the Senate. 'He's just trying to figure out how to thread the needle here,' Johnson said in an interview. Added Scott, 'Mark is trying to help get a deal done.' All five sitting lawmakers who attended the Tuesday evening meeting have threatened to oppose Trump's domestic-policy package if it doesn't meet their demands, a strategy Meadows is no stranger to. He played a key role, for instance, in shaping the first attempt at major party-line legislation in Trump's first term — a 2017 attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. He pushed as Freedom Caucus chair to make the bill much more aggressive in undoing the 2010 law's mandates. Meadows helped broker deals that ultimately got a bill through the House, but it went too far for key senators, and the effort fizzled. Now, according to Republicans who have spoken with him, Meadows has been helpful in brainstorming ideas for hard-liners as they seek to force as many of their demands into the bill as possible. He's also viewed by others as eager to stay in the mix on Capitol Hill — akin to a sort of MAGA Zelig who likes to be where the action is. 'He wants to be involved,' said one House Republican, who was skeptical that Meadows is serving a GOP interest larger than himself. It's unclear whether Meadows' role has been blessed by the White House, where opinions about 'The Chief's Chief' — as Meadows titled his memoir — vary widely. Administration officials are aware of Meadows' quiet shuttle diplomacy in the name of the president's signature policy item. Even if the Trump administration hasn't formally sanctioned his role, GOP lawmakers see him as someone who still has the ear of the president and his advisors. Scott noted that Meadows has 'a good working relationship with the White House.' Johnson said it was his impression that Meadows is still actively engaged with the administration, even though he's technically out of government. 'It's my understanding that President Trump's former chiefs stay in touch with him,' Johnson said, adding that Meadows is trying to play a 'helpful role.' Meadows grew so loyal at one point that Trump publicly lauded Meadows during a 2020 rally for physically staying by his side when he contracted Covid. But after Trump lost the election and amid the post-Jan. 6 flurry of congressional and federal investigations, the president and some top MAGA figures increasingly saw Meadows as an unreliable ally given reports about a possible federal immunity deal. 'Some people would make [an immunity] deal, but they are weaklings and cowards,' Trump wrote in 2023. 'I don't think that Mark Meadows is one of them, but who really knows?' In the end, Meadows was never charged federally and Trump's indictment on conspiracy changes related to the 2020 election never went to trial. Then, after Trump's re-election, Meadows assumed his quiet role as power broker. Meadows has popped up in the House at several big moments in recent months. He huddled with hard-liners and House GOP leaders separately during speaker election fights, including when a small group of conservatives ousted Kevin McCarthy in October 2023. He emerged from Speaker Mike Johnson's office just a few days before Trump's inauguration before being spotted on the House side of the Capitol multiple times later in the spring. Asked if he was working on Trump's behalf, Meadows replied: 'Oh no, I'm just here for a brief meeting.' He headed into the speaker's office late last month hours before the Louisiana Republican pulled off what many believed to be impossible — passing the House version of the megabill with the support of every Freedom Caucus member, save Chair Andy Harris of Maryland, who voted present. Unlike with Boehner, Ryan and McCarthy, Meadows is more ideologically aligned with Mike Johnson. The two men were both part of a group of House Republicans who took on the role of Trump's unofficial defenders during his first Senate impeachment trial, and Johnson — while never a member — has long had close ties to the Freedom Caucus, including when Meadows chaired the group. Now members of the Freedom Caucus are still in regular contact with Meadows, and the House GOP is studded with old Meadows allies, such as fellow HFC co-founder and current Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who estimated he still talks to Meadows once a week. Many of them see his low-key involvement in megabill talks as being in line with his general approach. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), who said he sees Meadows regularly, said he wouldn't be surprised if Meadows was 'facilitating' conversations, summing up his general approach as 'like, how do you get this done?' Rachael Bade contributed to this report.
