The Hidden Game Inside the New Hampshire State House

Why timing and procedure can matter more than the bill itself.

. The NH State House in Session (Boston Globe)

During legislative sessions at the New Hampshire State House, the fate of a bill is often determined not by its merits, but by a series of procedural moves on the House floor. This is why each party relies on a skilled parliamentarian, someone who understands the rules inside and out and knows exactly when to deploy a procedural maneuver.

Here are some of the strategies that can determine whether a bill passes.

One of the most important is timing.

In a House where the majority party currently holds about a 40-seat advantage, timing does not usually determine the outcome. However, when a vote is expected to be close, leadership may schedule it late in the day, when some members have already left the chamber.

This tactic was more common in years when the numbers of Democrats and Republicans were nearly equal. Party leadership would lean heavily on its members not to leave early, or occasionally encourage certain members to step out of the room for a critical vote.

I saw just how serious leadership can be about securing a vote after my recent cataract surgery.

A potentially critical vote was scheduled for the day after my procedure, when I would still not be able to drive. Leadership offered to have someone drive more than two hours to my home to bring me to the State House so I could cast my vote.

I agreed. But when I jokingly asked whether a limousine would be sent for me, I was told the vehicle would more likely be the back of a pickup truck. I was game as I was not going to be the one representative that toppled a critical bill.

Fortunately, the vote on that bill was postponed.

Over the years I have seen leadership from both sides of the aisle offer, and sometimes aggressively insist, that members come in for an important vote, sometimes providing transportation to make sure every possible vote is present.

For critical bills, leadership will also conduct an informal headcount of who is expected to be in session that day. Members from both parties sometimes position themselves near the chamber doors, cajoling colleagues not to leave before a major vote.

This can be challenging in a chamber with a rapidly aging membership, where frequent trips to the restroom are sometimes unavoidable, yours truly included.

Another important procedural move is the motion to table.

If a motion to table succeeds, debate on the bill ends immediately. Only a simple majority is required. If the bill is never taken off the table, it effectively dies.

Occasionally, however, a bill is removed from the table when one party realizes that changes in attendance have shifted the vote count and they suddenly have a chance to pass legislation that once seemed unwinnable. These moments have produced more than a few surprise victories for both sides of the aisle.

A bill may also be tabled when leadership suspects it may lose a vote and would prefer to avoid a public defeat.

The method of voting can also shape the outcome.

Some votes occur by voice vote, where members shout “aye” or “nay,” and the Speaker determines which side sounded louder. It is a somewhat archaic procedure, particularly challenging when the presiding officer is not blessed with perfect hearing. I am not naming names at this juncture.

Because voice votes are not recorded, there is no public record of how individual legislators voted.

A division vote requires members to stand and be counted but still does not record each individual vote.

A roll-call vote, by contrast, records every representative’s vote and becomes part of the public record. These are sometimes requested by leadership to ensure party discipline, or by the minority party to make sure every member is publicly accountable for their vote.

Another powerful tool involves floor amendments. These are amendments introduced when a bill has already reached the for debate, but before a vote has been taken.

Amendments are often presented as efforts to “improve” a bill. Sometimes they genuinely do. But at other times they are used to reshape a bill so significantly that it loses the support it originally had.

A well-placed amendment can fracture the coalition behind a bill.

For example, an amendment might change the language of a bill so dramatically that the original supporters can no longer vote for it. It may narrow the bill so much that key allies abandon it or expand the bill in ways that create new opposition. Sometimes an amendment adds provisions that increase costs, forcing the bill to go to the Finance Committee and delaying its progress.

In some cases, once an amendment passes, supporters of the original bill find themselves voting against the very legislation they once supported or even sponsored.

There are also times when an amendment is introduced with a different goal entirely: to make the bill so politically uncomfortable that its supporters ask for it to be tabled.

To outside observers it may appear that the House suddenly turned against a bill. The outcome may have been shaped by a carefully crafted amendment offered at exactly the right moment.

To most voters, a bill simply comes up for debate and then a vote. But inside the chamber, experienced legislators know that the real battle often happens in the procedural maneuvers that take place long before the final vote is taken.

In the next edition of Inside the New Hampshire Dome, I’ll take you inside a recent House session and break down the procedural moves that can quietly determine whether a bill lives or dies.

If you enjoy this kind of behind-the-scenes look at how the New Hampshire legislature really works, consider sharing this post or subscribing so you don’t miss the next one.