The Meaning of our Constitution, and Why it Matters

I had the privilege of attending the Ballot Law Commission hearing last Monday morning in Concord.  At issue was the qualification of Walt Havenstein to run for, and serve as Governor of New Hampshire.  The central question before the Commission was whether our Constitution, that requires a candidate to live in state for seven years before election, barred Mr. Havenstein because he actually lived most of that time period in Maryland.

I felt privileged to attend this hearing because I thought the lawyers for both sides of the issue did a remarkably good job presenting their analysis of the facts and law.  Their questions and arguments were elegant, but very different in style. Mr. Havenstein’s counsel offered up a seamless story of his client’s connection to New Hampshire while he was, in fact, pursuing his career in Maryland.  The lawyer representing the Democratic Party and the people Mr. Havenstein named in his petition told a very different story, in a folksy and informal style that clearly explained why our Constitution was written to require seven years of living in the Granite State as a pre-condition to holding the Governorship.  I won’t re-hash the arguments made by both sides, but I do want to emphasize that the issue they addressed is more important than many realize.

New Hampshire’s Constitution includes a qualification of seven years actual residency prior to election for a reason.  The folks who adopted our Constitution wanted the Governor to actually know the state government and the people who live here.  Royal Governors had a history of being absent, and the framers of our Constitution wanted the elected Governors to be here so the voters might know their character, and they, in turn, might know the people’s needs.  New Hampshire voters still place great emphasis on the uniqueness of New Hampshire, and its “Live Free or Die” traditions.  I remember when then candidate Judd Gregg challenged his opponent John Rauh to locate a New Hampshire town, and John failed to do so.  Connectedness matters in our state.

Of course recent events have shown how quickly that can change.  Scott Brown’s candidacy for U.S. Senate offers up the image of the carpetbagger in vivid terms.  There are so many recorded video clips of him declaring his connections to his beloved Massachusetts, it’s hard not to giggle.  And now we have Walt Havenstein, who by his own testimony lived in Maryland more than two hundred days a year, year after year, during the period in which our Constitution says he should have been here.

The Ballot Law Commission is comprised of terrific people.  Three of them voted to let Mr. Havenstein on the ballot.  Two of them did not.  A change of one vote would have supported the meaning of our Constitution the way our forefathers believed it should be.  And just one more thing:  the Chairman said that the Commission’s vote is final and unappeasable.  In this he mis-spoke: the right to determine the meaning of our Constitution is always appealable to our Supreme Court, as it should be.