​indepthnh.org/2018/03/05/opinion-nh-towns-act-to-protect-community-rights/To the Editor: Towns Act To Protect Community Rights
There is a community rights movement in New Hampshire and across the Nation for cities and towns to act to protect their health, safety, and welfare through local ordinances.  This is the right thing for EVERY town to do!
Nottingham passed a Rights Based Ordinance (RBO) in 2008 to ban commercial water extraction when USA Springs wanted to pump us dry – we stopped them and we protected our water supplies.  Barnstead and Barrington did the same thing, and Atkinson also passed a RBO to protect their water supplies.
On March 17, Nottingham residents at Town Meeting will vote on a ban against toxic waste dumping (Article 19).  An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure!
Sugar Hill, Easton, and Plymouth have passed RBO’s prohibiting high voltage transmission lines and that helped to oppose the Northern Pass project.
Grafton, Danbury, Hebron, and Alexandria passed RBO’s to stop commercial wind turbines from sprouting all over their towns.  Sustainable renewable energy must be of, by, and for the people.
Durham is now organizing to stop Great Bay from dredging by Eversource that will cause severe environmental damage, and Newmarket is in the midst of an RBO effort to prevent chemical trespass in the Great Bay and the surrounding watershed.  Act now before they dig it up and poison the water, afterwards will be too late.
Towns are becoming mobilized to stop Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) pipelines and storage facilities.  The Granite Bridge pipeline will endanger every community on its route with highly explosive LNG, especially the Epping area where they want to build a storage tank 140 feet tall.  One spark, one human error, one malfunction, and BOOM the whole region will be affected by that disaster, including Exeter!  Then it will be too late to do anything, as it is for communities being destroyed by gas fracking.
The Legislature is now considering CACR 19 for an Amendment to the NH Constitution’s Bill of Rights that will make it clear that towns and cities have the right to self-protection and control of their destiny.  Please get involved in your town and also call your Representatives to vote against the efforts to kill this crucial piece of Legislation.  We the People must lead to get our leaders to follow!
Sincerely, Peter A. White, Treasurer, NH Community Rights Network

​www.sentinelsource.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/democracy-means-we-decide-for-ourselves-by-deborah-sumner/article_8e2323a9-4821-5358-98b6-5df748030b55.html
​
The legislative subcommittee studying CACR 19 supported (3-2) bringing this constitutional amendment to the people for a vote, but the House Municipal and County Government Committee will recommend (11-8) the House not allow us that opportunity.
I better understand how difficult our legislators’ jobs are and how little time they have to really understand complex issues. Did committee members favor the authoritarian model of government, under the influence of money and lobbyists, or moving toward a more mature (and yes, messy) democratic decision-making process that includes ordinary citizens?
The Legislature believes it is smarter than the people, Rep. Steven Rand, D-Plymouth, said, so have to make that decision for us. He disagreed. “I think the people are smart.”

Rep. Vincent Migliore, R-Bridgewater, chose not to “succumb to fear and doubt” and extensively researched to understand the proposed amendment before signing on in support. He had confidence citizens can do the same.
However, Chair James Belanger, Vice Chairman Frank Sterling and Rep. Frank McCarthy evidently see their job as stopping democratic decision-making at the local level because they don’t trust it: Anarchy, “damage beyond realization,” “devastate,” “abomination,” “234 separate city states.”

Really?

What would this amendment do? It codifies the constitutional right we already have to protect the health, safety and welfare of our communities against corporate harms and their court-bestowed personhood “rights.” Under the current interpretation of courts, those rights trump the civil and political rights of real people trying to protect our communities. That is not what my 12 Revolutionary War ancestors fought for and it is not what our elected officials take an oath to protect.
A sincere thank you to Rep. Bruce Tatro from Swanzey and Rep. David Meader from Keene, who listened to their constituents as well as the two opposing views.

I hope more citizens will do their own research. Why were the gun lobby and Americans for Prosperity (funded by the Koch brothers) opposed? Why did 600 New Hampshire citizens sign a petition supporting it and so many of us travel to Concord more than once to watch “our” government at work?
Contact www.nhcommunityrights.org to begin educating yourselves and become part of the conversation at the local level.
DEBORAH SUMNER
Jaffrey

nhpr.org/post/supporters-undeterred-nh-house-votes-down-local-rights-constitutional-amendment#stream/0
By ANNIE ROPEIK 

CORRECTION: HOUSE VOTE WAS 217 TO 112
The state House has again rejected a bid to give New Hampshire towns more control over their own environmental protections – but advocates of the constitutional amendment say they're making progress.
Organizer Michelle Sanborn with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund says the House barely debated the proposal the first time around, in 2016.
So she's encouraged by Thursday’s House vote of 271 to 112 against it.
"One third of the House supported elevating the right of New Hampshire people... basically to pass laws protecting health, safety and welfare of individuals but also their communities and natural environments above corporate activities that harm them,” she says.
As in most states, New Hampshire's legislature must grant towns all their governing powers – a system known as Dillon's Rule. Opponents say the amendment would create too much of the opposite, known as home rule, which allows more local freedom to govern.
Sanborn says this year's debate already has more towns interested in passing their own environmental laws, to protect against big energy developments or water quality threats. The amendment would help those laws stand up in court.
“The New Hampshire constitution is very clear about where the power originates, and that is with the people,” she says. “I think that awareness is growing and taking root in people.” 
She says she was also pleased to have support this year from legislators outside of towns affected by issues the amendment addresses.
Her organization hopes to campaign for the amendment again next year. They say it’s the first community rights constitutional amendment to reach a state legislature.
"If we've learned anything from prior people's movements, it's that fundamental change comes from persistent, unrelenting pressure," Sanborn says. 
The legislature isn't their only option to push the proposal in New Hampshire. Every 10 years, the state votes on whether to hold an open constitutional convention.
It's happened just five times since 1793, and comes up next in 2022.

​www.laconiadailysun.com/newsx/local-news/112501-asserting-home-rule-corporate-personhood-threatened-by-rights-based-ordinances-1463
​

​Michelle Sanborn, the president and coordinator of the New Hampshire Community Rights Network who also represents the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, holds a copy of the New Hampshire Constitution, which forms the basis for rights-based ordinances. Sanborn, a resident of Alexandria, initiated an RBO for that town, and assisted in crafting the ordinance that Ashland residents will be voting on next Tuesday. Behind her is the Alexandria Town Hall. (Tom Caldwell, Laconia Daily Sun)
By THOMAS P. CALDWELL, LACONIA DAILY SUN
ASHLAND — The Northern Pass hydroelectric project, like the prospect of wind towers on area mountaintops, has fueled an interest in rights-based ordinances, which empower communities to set limits on development that residents feel would adversely impact their health, safety, and welfare.
Whether such ordinances are legal in New Hampshire is an open question that has yet to be tested in court. A proposed constitutional amendment would settle the question by inserting the right to local self-government into the New Hampshire Constitution.
Plymouth recently adopted a rights-based ordinance, and Ashland has a petitioned RBO article on the Town Meeting ballot, both aimed at stopping projects like Northern Pass.
Opponents of the ordinance point to the denial of Eversource’s application for a permit from the state’s Site Evaluation Committee as evidence that the current system works, and say a rights-based ordinance can have unintended consequences and potentially pit towns and neighbors against one another.
Similarly, a House committee that heard testimony on Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 19, that would recognize RBOs, has deemed it inexpedient to legislate, which would effectively kill it instead of forwarding it on to voters for a decision.
Even without constitutional protection, rights-based ordinances are effective in fighting “corporate personhood” — the view that companies such as Eversource have a right to do what they wish, where they wish — according to Michelle Sanborn of Alexandria, who serves as president and coordinator of the New Hampshire Community Rights Network and represents the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund. Since persuading her town to adopt an RBO, she has assisted residents of other communities, including Ashland, in drafting their own rights-based ordinances.
Sanborn said Ashland would be the 12th community in the state to adopt an RBO. There are almost 200 such ordinances across the nation, she said.
“Here in New Hampshire, RBOs have been effective in stopping four industrial wind turbine projects and one corporate water withdrawal project,” she said. “Four communities are using them to oppose Northern Pass, and four new communities have expressed an interest in using RBOs to secure their right to decide about fossil fuel pipeline and liquified natural gas storage projects.”
She noted that Nottingham has held off USA Springs and its investors for 10 years after enacting an RBO. The company had gone through the standard regulatory process and was ready to tap into the town’s aquifer when passage of an RBO stopped the process.
Her own town of Alexandria, along with other Newfound/Mount Cardigan towns, has used RBOs to hold off industrial wind projects for the past four years.
Ashland’s ordinance
Each ordinance can be crafted to meet that particular community’s needs, Sanborn said. Ashland’s would prohibit land acquisition for “unsustainable” energy systems, defined in the ordinance as energy systems controlled by state and federal energy policies, rather than community policies; industrial-scale water and wind power that is not municipally owned and operated; and non-renewable energy sources or those that produce toxins or substances that are injurious to humans or ecosystems. The ordinance provides exceptions for non-commercial energy produced for on-site use.
One of the problems some people have with the ordinance is that, since state and federal government regulates virtually all power, the ordinance effectively defines any power source as “unsustainable” unless it is used on-site. There is an exception for utility companies operating under contract with the town, and those previously operating in Ashland.
Other provisions of Ashland’s ordinance ban toxic waste disposal and exploratory data collection, engineering and geotechnical work associated with an unsustainable energy system.
Sanborn said the ordinance does not require the town to enforce its provisions if the community decides it desires a particular energy project.
“What the RBO does is give the community a decision-making seat at the table, as a matter of right, that they do not currently have through any state regulatory process,” she said.
The idea behind rights-based ordinances is that both the United States and New Hampshire constitutions assert the right of self-government, but New Hampshire law operates on a top-down basis, saying that any municipal rights derive from enabling legislation by the state. Local control is a myth under such a system.
Corporations are able to navigate through the laws and regulations to achieve what they desire, and towns and cities can only impose restrictions. If a town wants to stop a project, it has to rely on the courts.
A rights-based ordinance bypasses the judicial system by bringing the decision to the local level.
Yet detractors argue that it will end up in court, anyway. Mardean Badger, in a letter to The Laconia Daily Sun, said, “The proposed ordinance may set neighbor against neighbor, townspeople against the town, the town against the state, and the town against the federal government. ... The Water and Sewer Department could be sued for filing for permits from NHDES or the EPA or for simply following state and federal regulations. You could be sued for cutting down trees on your property because your neighbor could claim that you are destroying an ecosystem or violating the rights of living things.”
Home rule
During hearings in Concord on CACR 19, which asserts that, “All government of right originates from the people, is founded in their consent, and instituted for the general good,” the constitutional amendment faced opposition from legislators who reminded speakers that New Hampshire is not a home rule state. Having a 400-member House of Representatives ensures that people have an adequate voice in setting policy, they said.
Sanborn testified, “This is a people’s amendment. It brings clarity to the people, the courts, and businesses. It gives people a right to protect themselves.”
Passing the amendment would give rights-based ordinance legal status, allowing people to challenge development that they believe would adversely affect their town. It would take the approval process out of the regulatory arena and make it a constitutional matter, proponents said.
Should the legislature pass the amendment, it still would have to be approved by two-thirds of the state’s residents.
A subcommittee voted, 3-2, to recommend passage of the bill, but when it went before the full Municipal and County Government Committee, Vice Chairman Franklin Sterling moved to label it as inexpedient to legislate.
Rep. Steve Rand (D-Plymouth) objected because the committee had not had a chance to offer its recommendation, but the chairman allowed the motion, leading to an 11-8 vote to “ITL it,” according to Vincent Paul Migliore (R-Bridgewater), a sponsor of the bill, who was the only Republican to support the measure.
“Obviously, it was predetermined that he would do that,” Migliore said. “The motion was seconded, so the discussion in committee was only on the ITL, rather than the report by the subcommittee.”
The bill was on the agenda for action by the full House on March 7 before that body recessed early because of the snowstorm. It is scheduled for action when the House reconvenes on March 15.
The House calendar states both the majority opinion and the minority view.
“Passage of this amendment would allow one community to forbid a highway construction or expansion in their community although the surrounding communities desired it,” the majority wrote. “When Planning Boards consider projects with ‘regional impact’ they consult neighboring communities that will be affected. This amendment would render that purpose impractical since a community would no longer need to consider how a project would affect their neighbors. ... The effect might be different rules from community to community relating to leash laws, taxi cabs, highway uses with different weight limits, municipal sales taxes, firearm controls and a myriad of other quality of life provisions guaranteed to us by the state.”
The minority wrote, “[I]t does NOT allow the establishment of ordinances that would remove or weaken any existing protections or rights of natural persons currently secured by local, state or federal law (such as second amendment rights). ... Within narrow limits, it gives towns the flexibility to address matters of local concern without needing state enabling legislation. The minority believes that this substantive matter must be decided by the people themselves as the ultimate stakeholders in our system of government, through the popular vote of the amendment process.”
Sanborn commented, “Almost a dozen towns over the past decade have enacted RBOs because the right of local, community self-government is an inherent and unalienable right expressed within the Declaration of Independence and carried over into state constitutions. If CACR 19 is not approved by the House to move to the Senate, then people are being denied the right to amend their own Bill of Rights, but that hasn’t stopped any towns so far and, if anything, it will inspire more towns to enact RBOs to correct the balance of power.
“This is not a sprint; it’s a marathon.”

​www.fosters.com/news/20180306/another-view-bipartisanship-call-to-secure-rights-of-local-communities

We are calling for bipartisanship solidarity to recognize New Hampshire citizens’ right to self-government that CACR19 seeks to codify as it goes to New Hampshire House debate and vote this week.
Granite State citizens have asked for CACR 19 to recognize and protect in New Hampshire’s Bill of Rights the authority of New Hampshire communities to enact local laws by majority vote to ban harmful corporate projects in order to protect NH citizens and the air, water, and soil on which they depend—so long as local laws wouldn’t limit existing state and constitutional rights of natural persons.
In short, CACR 19 addresses inequality. New Hampshire citizens have neither binding voice nor equal standing against harmful corporate activities and “personhood” that consistently appeal to state preemption to remove any recourse New Hampshire citizens have to prevent their communities and ecosystems from becoming sacrifice zones to profit marketed as a “greater good”.
CACR 19′s 9 bi-partisan sponsors, including 2 Republican NRA members, understand that the language of the amendment ensures that local rights-based laws could not weaken real persons’ existing rights—including 2nd Amendment rights—under state and federal constitution and law but could be used only to expand rights. Moreover, 2008 and 2010 U.S. Supreme Court precedents declared that 2nd Amendment rights are individual constitutional rights, which are protected by CACR 19′s language.
Because rights are not gifted by but recognized and enumerated within constitutions, CACR19 is not a proposed law but a proposed constitutional amendment seeking to enumerate the right of local community self-government within New Hampshire’s Constitution the same way freed slaves’ equal rights were recognized within the U.S. Constitution.
If CACR 19 passes through both New Hampshire’s House and Senate with 3/5 votes, then New Hampshire’s people get to decide if they want the right to elevate and protect people and planet over profit. A 2/3 vote by New Hampshire citizens would codify this right in New Hampshire’s Bill of Rights.
CACR19 co-sponsor Rep. Steven Rand (D) outlines this process for legislators and citizens: “We represent constituents to create statutes, but the people represent themselves constitutionally. The constitution is higher than statutes. Giving them the chance to vote on CACR19 is the one thing we can do to support their ability to protect their health, safety, and welfare. It will help them expand, not decrease their rights.”
Rep. Ellen Read (D), CACR19′s proposer, asks her fellow Representatives to understand the worth of this expansion of rights: “I truly hope my colleagues join me in supporting CACR19 because it means doing exactly what we came to Concord to do—protect the people and ecosystems of NH. This Amendment places the power back into the hands of the governed, the very thing our Revolutionary ancestors fought for.”
The Revolutionaries of this country fought for something intangible but rich—the right to pursue a self-determined life of honesty and goodness. For our legislators to deny us an enlightened, democratic, constitutional path to access this self-determination is to admit their doubt in their constituents’ ability to understand, trust in, and make decisions in the best interest of the goodness in ourselves and in the ecosystems around us. CACR19 will secure our right to protect this goodness for a new future honoring people’s and nature’s natural right to sustainability.
CACR 19 supporter Rep. Bruce Tatro (D) believes in this constitutional path to self-determination: “CACR 19 is an amendment to a constitution that was formed by the people of the state. The people should have the opportunity to vote this amendment up or down. I’m not in favor of short-circuiting that.”
As NH Community Rights Network (NHCRN) board members, we support CACR 19′s effort to amend our NH Bill of Rights to recognize the individual and collective right of local self-governance in order to secure and protect the inherent and unalienable rights of all NH inhabitants to economic, social, and environmental justice.
This week, we hope New Hampshire representatives vote in support of CACR 19 by voting NO on the current inexpedient-to-legislate (ITL) recommendation for CACR 19. Overturning ITL on CACR 19 would give the House the chance to vote that CACR19 ought-to-pass (OTP), sending it on to the Senate, and hopefully to New Hampshire citizens.
Learn how you can support protecting people, places, and principle over profit by contacting [email protected] or visiting www.nhcommunityrights.org.
— Douglas Darrell is from Center Barnstead and Monica Christofili lives in Newmarket.

www.sentinelsource.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/let-the-people-decide-on-their-own-laws-by-janice/article_a1acd68c-40b1-54c8-8403-fbca80ce0f63.html

On Feb. 27, the N.H. House's Municipal and County Government Committee met to determine what to do with proposed Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 19 (CACR19), "related to the right to govern, PROVIDING THAT: the people of the state may enact local laws that protect health, safety and welfare."
​
CACR19 had already been discussed at prior subcommittee work sessions. A resulting 3-2 vote prompted a recommendation to the full committee that CACR19 "ought to pass," bringing it one step closer to allowing the public to vote on the proposed amendment. Unfortunately, the panel voted 11-8 to recommend deeming CACR19 "inexpedient to legislate."

In a growing chaotic atmosphere, various members of the committee in bold opposition to CACR19 stressed claims of: loss of individual rights; the fear of competing regulations across the state; and that the N.H. Constitution gives power to representatives, not the public. Some reps vehemently insisted that supporting the recommended ought-to-pass tag would lead to chaos and total anarchy.

On the contrary, the proposed amendment is clear: "Local laws adopted pursuant to this article shall not weaken existing protections, or constrict the fundamental rights of, natural persons, or their local communities, or nature, as those protections are secured by local, state, federal or international law."

Thanks to Swanzey Rep. Bruce Tatro and Keene's David Meader for their support. Tatro and Meader, along with Reps. Vincent Migliore and Steven Rand (both cosponsors of CACR19), were among the eight lawmakers favoring encouraging the people to "educate themselves" and "let the people decide" what they want. The latter was enough to convince Rep. Susan Treleaven to change her vote to support "ought to pass."

The N.H. Constitution, Article 8, notes: "All power residing originally in, and being derived from the people ..." confirming final decisions should be made by the voters. Let us get started exercising that right in our own communities. Rep. Rand reminded everyone, "Each legislator took an oath. The people are the authority; we are their representatives."
Follow CACR19's progress at: www.nhcommunityrights.org, then contact your representative and share your opinion.
JANICE SEVENE

​www.eagletimes.com/articles/readers-forum-21/

I am concerned by the underhanded treatment NH Community Rights Amendment, CACR19, received during its Feb. 27  House Municipal & County Government executive session.
At CACR19’s original hearing on Feb. 6 , I testified as a mother and Alliance for Newmarket Citizen & Ecosystem Rights member determined to say an effectively resounding NO to projects that would contaminate the water my son drinks.
CACR19 was proposed to recognize and protect in our NH Bill of Rights the authority of N.H. communities to enact local laws by majority vote in order to protect themselves (and the air, water, and soil on which they depend) from harmful corporate projects — as long as local laws wouldn’t limit existing state and constitutional rights of natural persons.
CACR19’s nine bi-partisan sponsors — including two Republican NRA members — believe CACR19 is needed because N.H. citizens currently have neither binding voice nor equal standing against harmful corporate interests that consistently and unfairly appeal to state preemption to take away any real recourse citizens have to prevent their communities from becoming sacrifice zones to profit marketed as “greater good” for the larger state.
After its initial hearing, I watched CACR19 move through Feb. 13 and 14 subcommittee work sessions resulting in a 3-2 bi-partisan vote recommending that it ought to pass. The next step was CACR19’s executive session where protocol would have the full House Municipal & Government committee chair open by calling the subcommittee chair to report to the full committee the outcome and reasoning behind this ought-to-pass recommendation.
Not only was this protocol not followed at CACR19’s Feb. 27  executive session, but the senior Republican chair of the full committee ignored the first hand that went up. It belonged to a CACR19-supporting Republican subcommittee member seeking to motion that CACR19 ought to pass as recommended.
The full committee chair looked at him, looked away, and instead called on the subcommittee chair — a fellow senior Republican voting against CACR19 who not only neglected reporting the ought-to-pass subcommittee recommendation vote but also immediately motioned that CACR19 be inexpedient to legislate.
This subcommittee chair should have reported on and motioned that CACR19 ought to pass so that it could be seconded and voted on by the full committee. If it did not garner majority support as such, then it could have been motioned inexpedient to legislate, seconded, and voted on accordingly.
Point of order was called to have the inappropriate inexpedient to legislate motion withdrawn, but to no effect. This prompted additional protest from six bi-partisan committee members — one of whom is registering formal objection, all of which decreased their time to actually discuss CACR19.
Meanwhile, representatives opposing CACR19 ignored the amendment’s language, which clearly states local laws protected under the amendment would go through town majority vote procedures and would not limit but expand citizen rights. They hyperbolically characterized the amendment as a harbinger of anarchy and chaos.
The only approach to anarchy I see associated with CACR19 is that of senior committee members believing their opinions supersede the process deserved by each piece of legislation that comes before them.
Ultimately, the vote tallied 11-8 in favor of recommending to the full N.H. House that CACR19 be inexpedient to legislate (one absent representative supporting CACR19 would have made it 11-9).
Before the vote, committee member Rep. Rand (D), one of CACR19’s co-sponsors, asked fellow committee members, “Who are we to make a decision for the people? If we do not allow voters the chance to establish their will, we are not honoring the principles of our constitution, which provides that the people’s authority can supersede the state when seeking to reform government.”
Sometime next month, CACR19 heads to the N.H. House floor and anticipated heated debate to overturn the committee recommendation of inexpedient to legislate.
I urge N.H. voters to visit www.nhcommunityrights.org to learn more about CACR19 and to call their representatives to ask them to support the amendment.
Monica Christofili
Newmarket