Senate Elections: New Hampshire Lawmakers Propose Changes To Candidate Selection

A group of New Hampshire lawmakers -- including two tied to "birther" movement leader Orly Taitz -- are pushing a measure to partially end direct election of U.S. senators.

The lawmakers have introduced a bill calling for state legislative caucuses to select candidates for the Senate primaries, ending an almost century-old practice of Granite State residents filing to run in Senate races. State legislatures elected senators until the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913.

"This is original intent," said state Rep. Bob Kingsbury (R-Laconia), the bill's lead sponsor.

Kingsbury said the bill would align the state with the original intent of the Constitution by letting the legislature play a role in the selection of Senate candidates. He stressed that the bill would be in the same spirit as the 17th Amendment because it would leave the final say up to the voters.

Under the proposal, members of the Democratic and Republican caucuses in the state House of Representatives and the state Senate would nominate candidates for the primary ballot. Voters would then choose general election candidates. The bill would allow write-in candidates to seek Senate nominations.

Kingsbury said the bill would allow Senate candidates to work more effectively with state lawmakers.

"Being personally acquainted makes a difference," he said.

He added that he did not think a change would impact the election chances of the state's two senators -- Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Republican Kelly Ayotte.

Among Kingsbury's co-sponsors are state Rep. Susan DeLemus (R-Rochester) and state Rep. Lucien Vita (R-Middleton), who both joined Taitz when she testified before the state's ballot law commission about challenges to President Obama's birth certificate. DeLemus was filmed challenging an assistant state attorney general over the decision to allow Obama on the ballot and demanding to see Secretary of State Bill Gardiner to discuss her belief that Obama was not born in the United States.

This is the lawmakers' second attempt to push the Senate change in New Hampshire. A plan earlier this year died on the House floor after being negatively endorsed by the state federal relations committee. The new bill is being routed to the election law committee.

Kingsbury said that he would like to see other states adopt similar Senate election plans, but noted he would not be launching a national tour to push the measure. While the legislation has not been introduced in other states, libertarian leaders have noted a desire to repeal the 17th Amendment, an idea pushed by Alan Keyes in his 2004 U.S. Senate race against Obama. Kingsbury has called himself a libertarian and has previously advocated for state bills to audit the Federal Reserve and withdraw the U.S. from NAFTA and the United Nations.

State Democrats were quick to oppose Kinsgbury's bill.

"If you ask most voters in New Hampshire they'd want the state legislature deciding fewer things," state Democratic party spokesman Harrell Kirstein said.

Comments

[Newsguy10]

12:24 AM on 02/21/2013

Let's repeal the 17th ammendment, let's repeal all the ammendments, let's repeal the laws of nature. Let's repeal the Law of Gravity, I always hated that one. Let pigs fly! Do all Republicans have brain cancer?

[mrld20]

09:18 PM on 01/04/2012

Isn't this unconstitutional?

[peterhenry]

11:35 PM on 01/04/2012

facts, facts, facts;

we don't need no steenkin' facts...

[K August]

02:03 AM on 01/05/2012

It's just more voter restriction nonsense. They want to tell people who they can vote for and IF they can vote.

[Epilef2000]

07:15 PM on 12/16/2011

"original intent" is being taken to a strange area--getting rid of the 14th and 17th amendment..by this interpretation,,,we will have to resort to having 3/5 people for a large segment of the community..as that was the original intent

[Colony14]

01:52 PM on 12/15/2011

According to the Supreme Court, Obama is not a natural born citizen. Whether he was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or Vancouver is irrelevant:

In Minor v. Happersett (1875) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Morrison Remick Waite wrote, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."

[schnauzergirl]

02:25 PM on 12/15/2011

Minor v. Happersett is dealing with the right to vote. Virginia Minor felt the limitation of suffrage to male citizens was an infringement of her rights, as a citizen, under the 14th Amendment. The court ruled that the 14 Amendment does not add to the privileges or immunities of a citizen and that, historically, "citizen" and "eligible voter" have not been synonymous.

The Cheif Justice does not say that having 2 parents who are citizens is the ONLY way to be one nor does he define the ever elusive definition of "natural born."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a SCOTUS decision that set an important legal precedent about the role of jus soli (birth in the United States) as a factor in determining a person's claim to citizenship.

The opinion of the court held that the "offspring of aliens" born in the U.S. were citizens at birth. The court traces its reasoning back to the English common law principle that children of aliens born under British jurisdiction were natural-born British subjects.

If you were born in the U.S., you are a citizen at birth, a natural-born citizen. The law is clear.

In the words of a 2007 legal analysis, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40176768

[llwlknsn]

05:09 PM on 12/22/2011

The definition was never changed. It was used to show that Minor was a natural born citizen and thus should have been granted the same sufferage as male natural born citizens. We are no longer under British rule, although Obama is still a natural born subject to Britain. YOUR interpretation of the law is clear. You believe what you post, however the law is what it is, not what you want it to be.

Natural/native born citizen is and remains: born on US soil to US citizen parents.

Obama is not a natural born citizen and frankly his signing away US National Sovereignty in the last three FTAs (Ch 11, look it up)shows just how relevant this criterion is.

Wong Kim Ark was NEVER declared a natural born citizen, merely a citizen by birth and as such he never had a chance to run for President. There is no difference between Obama and Mr. Wong. As far as jus soli goes they are both citizens, only.

[Rick Huggins]

02:28 PM on 12/15/2011

What? That doesn't not even reach to the horizon you so long too reach.

[rgilley]

01:39 PM on 12/15/2011

New Hampshire voters will vote these birthers out at next opportunity. We are now crazy here in New England.
Oh wait Im a Mainer...we voted LePage in by 34%.
Maybey we are stupid as the baggerstanis.

[StopMakingSense2]

01:36 PM on 12/15/2011

Republicans love democracy so much they undermine it every chance they get! If gerrymandering, voter suppression, half truths and lies, and fear mongering can't get it done call in the birthers!

[demisfine]

01:26 PM on 12/15/2011

Removing people from the equation and putting more power in the hands of a select few.
Where have we seen this plot before???
No surprise it is being promoted by the GOP.
They feel their power waning, and are on their last breath as a party.

[Jennifer Mead]

01:33 PM on 12/15/2011

Exactly.

[ca maven]

01:18 PM on 12/15/2011

Honestly, I'm undecided on the Senatorial election controversy. The original method of having state legislatures elect Senators made Senators more accountable to the legislatures. In theory, local people put state reps and state Senators in office, who they could hold accountable, who would in turn elect and hold US Senators accountable. Didn't really work out that way.

Good people felt that it was a crony system, so it was subsequently changed to direct election, via the 17th Amendment. While that bypassed the middlemen (state legislators), it also created some new problems. Today, mounting a Senatorial campaign in a state as large as California, for example, with 40 million residents (not really sure of the actual citizen count), it is incredibly expensive and requires powerful political and financial supporters. So, we are back to big money and power controlling things. It is possible that the Internet will lower the cost of campaigning and make it more accessible to other than very wealthy candidates and backers. But so far, this hasn't been the case. TV ads, mailings and personal appearances are still required and still very expensive in the larger states.

Maybe we need smaller states? We certainly need less big government role in our lives.

[commiepinko]

01:15 PM on 12/15/2011

OMG. Get the RUBBER ROOM ready!

[hans sulu]

12:51 PM on 12/15/2011

If that was enacted in Arizona, last year there would have been a good chance that Russell Pearce would have been nominated for Senator. The man responsible for one of the strictest anti-immigration laws in this county

[duckpuddle]

12:49 PM on 12/15/2011

I guess if your don't believe in evolution, original intent is all you got going for ya.

The rest of civilization tends to learn and grow.

[Rickstersays]

12:51 PM on 12/15/2011

if original intent held any water these jerks would only be able to own muskets.

[Daveatthedoor]

12:32 PM on 12/15/2011

Maybe change name too...from 'The Senate" to 'House of Lords'

[ladyjonquil]

12:39 PM on 12/15/2011

That seems like a good idea. They already act like they are Lords.

[AleMaker]

12:27 PM on 12/15/2011

"Kingsbury said the bill would allow Senate candidates to work more effectively with state lawmakers. Being personally acquainted makes a difference, he said."

Translation: We prefer the good-ol' boys club. After all, it's not what you know, it's who you know, that counts.

[Blaze Burton]

12:17 PM on 12/15/2011

people need to realize that the consitution is not a perfect divinly inspired and writen document. It has flaws, using the logic of original intent could also be used to justify discrimination and slavery.

[nomadrdw]

12:46 PM on 12/15/2011

don't even get started on the reality of the modern world, which our Founding Fathers could not even have conceived of.

[obamathegreat235]

12:50 PM on 12/15/2011

The 13th Amendment of the Constitution abolishes slavery in America.

The 1964 civil rights act abolished discrimination in terms of employment, public accommodations and other public privileges.
http://citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm

[CSKAP]

12:14 PM on 12/15/2011

Why not just get it over with and just allow corporations to make the decisions on who runs directly? Under this plan, they would have to first buy the state representatives, and then tell them who to nominate.
Seems like a waste of time for the corporations, just let them tell us who is running and who will win and avoid all this.

[JumboBurrito]

11:06 AM on 01/05/2012

There should be a public auction where the corporations can bid for legislators. 90% of the proceeds would go into the state coffers, 10% to the lawmaker. Under this system the public would at least get some revenue out of the corporations.