A misleading
response

To the editor:

I’m writing in reply to Rep. John Hunt’s misleading response to my Letter to the Editor of Aug.18 concerning Senate Bill 136; a bill establishing a study committee (not an interim study committee) to consider a constitutional amendment overturning the Supreme Court decision on Citizen’s United.

Rep. Hunt insists that he didn’t vote against the bill until the last vote. He is being disingenuous at best. I will grant that following the motions is not always easy, but Rep. Hunt has been around a long, long time and I’m confident that he knows how it works. I will contrast the votes as recorded for Rep. Richard Ames of Jaffrey, who supported the bill, and Rep. John Hunt.

Vote #1 go to Interim Study again (Hunt votes Yea, Ames votes Nay). Vote #2 Table (Hunt votes Yea , Ames votes Nay). Vote #3 Ought to Pass as Amended (OTPA) (Hunt votes Nay, Ames votes Yea).

At this point, the bill had passed, but in an amazing and inappropriate call by leadership, the House was asked to reconsider the bill they had just passed.

Vote #4 Reconsider previous OTPA (Hunt votes Yea, Ames votes Nay). Vote #5 OTPA after reconsideration (Hunt votes Nay, Ames votes Yea).

Vote #6 Inexpedient to Legislate, which effectively kills the bill (Hunt votes Yea, Ames votes Nay).

Rep. Hunt, your response to my request for an explanation is just not credible. Anyone can check these votes by going to http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/nhgcrollcalls/rollcallsearch.aspx to check for themselves. Simply choose 2016 and SB 136 from the pull-down menu, click on search and then select the roll call for the vote.

Rep. Hunt, I’m still waiting for an explanation as to why you voted against the directive of your Rindge constituents.Thank you.

Patricia Martin

Rindge