New Hampshire Voting History - History

New Hampshire Voting History - History


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

182410,032John Q Ada9,38993.6Andrew Jack-------
182844,035Andrew Jack20,21245.9John Q Ada23,82354.1
183243,793Andrew Jack24,85556.8Henry Clay18,93843.2
183624,925Martin Van18,69775William Harr6,228
184059,956William Harr26,31043.9Martin VaN32,77454.7
184449,187James Polk27,16055.2Henry Clay17,86636.3
184850,104Zachary Tayl14,78129.5Lewis Cass27,76355.4
185250,535Frankilin Pier28,50356.4Winfield Sco15,48630.6
185669,774James Bucha31,89145.7John Fremon37,47353.7
186065,943Abraham Lin37,51956.9Stephen Dou25,88739.3
186469,630Abraham Lin36,59652.6George McCl33,03447.4
186868,304Ulysses Gran37,71855.2Horatio Sey30,57544.8
187268,906Ulysses Gran37,16853.9Horace Greel31,42545.6
187680,143Rutherford H41,54051.8Samuel Tilde38,51048.1
188086,361James Garfie44,85651.9Winfield Sco40,79747.2
188484,586Grover Cleve39,19846.3James Blaine43,25451.1
188890,770Benjamin Ha45,73450.4Grover Cleve43,38247.8
189289,328Grover Cleve42,08147.1Benjamin Ha45,65851.1
189683,670William McKi57,44468.7William Brya21,65025.9
190092,364William McKi54,79959.3William Brya35,48938.4
190490,151Theo. Roose54,15760.1Alton Parker34,07137.8
190889,595William Taft53,14459.3William Brya33,65537.6
191287,961Woodrow W34,72439.5Theo. Roose17,79420.2
191689,127Woodrow W43,78149.1Charles Hug43,72549.1
1920159,092Warren Hard95,19659.8James Cox62,66239.4
1924164,769Calvin Coolid98,57559.8John Davis57,20134.7
1928196,757Herbert Hoo115,40458.7Alfred Smith80,71541
1932196,757Franklin Roo115,40458.7Herbert Hoo80,71541
1936218,114Franklin Roo108,46049.7Alfred Lando104,64248
1940235,419Franklin Roo125,29253.2Wendell Will110,12746.8
1944229,625Franklin Roo119,66352.1Thomas Dew109,91647.9
1948231,440Harry Truma107,99546.7Thomas Dew121,29952.4
1952272,950Dwight Eisen166,28760.9Adlai Steven106,66339.1
1956266,994Dwight Eisen176,51966.1Adlai Steven90,36433.8
1960295,761John F Kenn137,77246.6Richard Nixo157,98953.4
1964288,093Lyndon John184,06463.9Barry Goldw104,02936.1
1968297,298Richard Nixo154,90352.1Hubert Hum130,58943.9
1972334,055Richard Nixo213,72464George McG116,43534.9
1976339,618Jimmy Carter147,63543.5Gerald Ford185,93554.7
1980383,990Ronald Reag221,70557.7Jimmy Carter108,86428.4
1984389,066Ronald Reag267,05168.6Walter Mon120,39530.9
1988451,074George Bush281,53762.4Michael Duk163,69636.3
1992537,943Bill Clinton20904038.9George Bush202,48437.6
1996499,175William Clint246,21449.3Bob Dole196,33239
2000569,081George W B273,55948.1Al Gore266,34846.8
2004677,738George W B331,23748.9John Kerry340,51150.2
2008707,081Barack Oba384,82654.4%John McCain316,53444.8%

Developing: New Hampshire Department of Justice Refuses to Investigate the Largest Voting Machine Counting Error in State History

As we previously reported at The Gateway Pundit —
A recent hand recount in the Rockingham District 7 NH House Race in Windham, New Hampshire, found that the Dominion-owned voting machines shorted EVERY REPUBLICAN by roughly 300 votes.


Via Facebook

The Dominion-owned machine counted results were wrong for all 4 Republicans in Windham by almost exactly 300 votes.

The Town of Windham used Dominion machines to count paper ballots and upon a believable hand recount, it was confirmed each Republican was machine-cheated out of roughly 300 votes.

You would think this would have been solved by the Dominion machine company, the Secretary of State, the Elections Unit of the AG’s Office, or the laughable Ballot Law Commission. (Kathy Sullivan, d (Term expires July 1, 2024)

Just like every other state that used machines that alter ballot counts in favor of one political party over another – here we are.

Dominion Voting Systems owns the intellectual property of the AccuVote machines used in New Hampshire.

On Thursday we spoke with Dr. David Strang M.D., the Belknap County Republican Committee State Committee Member, New Hampshire GOP.

David told The Gateway Pundit that the Republican candidates in Windham had 6% of their total votes removed by the Dominion-owned voting machines.

According to Dr. Strang, these same Dominion-owned machines are used in 85% of the towns in New Hampshire.

What makes the New Hampshire results even more suspect:
** Republicans flipped the New Hampshire Senate from 14-10, Democrat, to 14-10 Republican in 2020.
** Republicans flipped the New Hampshire House from 230-156 majority Democrat to 213-187 Republican majority in 2020!
** Yet, Joe Biden who was 4th in Dem primary and Kamala Harris, who did not make it to the Dem primary, won the state 52.7 to 45.4 to Trump.

These results are IMPOSSIBLE.

Now, state Senator Bob Giuda is calling out state officials for their dereliction of duty.

New Hampshire State Senator Bob Giuda wrote a letter to Granite Grok website this week.

Senator Giuda accused the New Hampshire Department of Justice of refusing to investigate the largest voting machine counting error in state history.

During the most recent conference call on February 5th, associate AG Ann Edwards and Election Law chief Nicholas Chong Yen reiterated the department’s refusal to test the voting machines or count the ballots. They also refused to consider obtaining a court order to alleviate their concerns about statutory authority under RSA 7:6(c).

This isn’t a partisan issue it’s a matter of election integrity. The town, the Secretary of State, the Democrat candidate, the Ballot Law Commission, a concerned citizen, and a Republican State Senator asked the NH Department of Justice to investigate the largest machine count error in NH history. The department refused.

This refusal by those charged with ensuring the integrity of our elections is inexcusable. Absent legal action – which would probably wind up in a Supreme Court led by Chief Justice MacDonald – we will never know what happened in Windham, or if any machine count errors occurred in the nearly 200 other towns that use those machines today.

In choosing not to investigate the Windham incident, the Department of Justice failed our state and her citizens, both of whom had every right to expect a prompt, thorough investigation into the still-unexplained largest recount error in state history.


Contents

Between 1900 and 2020, New Hampshire participated in 31 presidential elections.

1900-2020

    voted for Joe Biden (D) in the 2020 presidential election.
  • Between 1900 and 2020, New Hampshire voted for the winning presidential candidate 80.6% of the time.
  • Between 2000 and 2020, New Hampshire voted for the winning presidential candidate 66.7% of the time.
  • Since 1900, New Hampshire has voted Democratic 41.9% of the time and Republican 58.1% of the time.
  • Since 2000, New Hampshire has voted Democratic 83.3% of the time and Republican 16.7% of the time.

Presidential voting history

New Hampshire presidential election results (1900-2020)


Contents

In 1964, both Dixville Notch and Hart's Location gave the majority of their votes to the write-in candidacies of the 1960 Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge II.

In 1972, former Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator Edmund Muskie won their respective primaries in Dixville Notch. [5]

During the 1976 presidential campaign, former California Governor Ronald Reagan was the only major party presidential candidate to visit Dixville Notch. President Gerald Ford won the Republican primary while Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter won the Democratic primary. [6]

During the 1980 presidential campaign, former CIA director George H. W. Bush visited Dixville Notch. [7] President Jimmy Carter won the Democratic primary and former California Governor Ronald Reagan was initially declared the winner of the Republican primary with six votes, but it was discovered that a vote for Senator Howard Baker was accidentally given to Reagan changing the vote to a tie between Reagan and Bush. [8]

During the 1984 presidential campaign Senator Fritz Hollings and former Florida Governor Reubin Askew were the only major party presidential candidates to visit Dixville Notch. Hollings met with the town's four registered Democrats and four independents on February 19, 1984, while former Vice President Walter Mondale and Senator Gary Hart personally made phone calls to the area. [9] [10] Hollings won the Democratic midnight vote and President Ronald Reagan won the Republican, with the remaining Republican votes being write-ins for Hollings. [11]

During the 1988 presidential campaign Senator Paul Laxalt, former Secretary of State Alexander Haig, and Representative Dick Gephardt visited Dixville Notch, while former Governor Meldrim Thomson Jr. campaigned for Pat Robertson in the area. [12] [13] Haig announced his campaign on March 24, 1987, in New York and then traveled to Dixville Notch later in the day after opening his headquarters in New Hampshire. [14] Gephardt narrowly won the town with four of its seven votes while Vice President George H. W. Bush received eleven out of twenty-seven votes in their primaries. [15]

During the 1992 presidential campaign Pat Buchanan, Andre Marrou, and Ralph Nader visited Dixville Notch, while Vice President Dan Quayle and Bonnie Newman, chief of operations for Chief of Staff John H. Sununu, campaigned for President Bush, and members of Bob Kerrey's campaign made calls to residents of Dixville Notch. [16] [17] Governor Bill Clinton won the Democratic primary, Bush won the Republican primary, and Marrou, as the only Libertarian, won the Libertarian primary. [18] [19]

During the 1996 presidential campaign, Senator Bob Dole and his wife Elizabeth Dole visited the area in August, 1995 and Pat Buchanan and Morry Taylor later visited the area. [20] [21] Dole narrowly won the Republican primary while President Bill Clinton received unanimous support marking the first time since 1980 that the winner of the midnight voting communities also won statewide although Clinton faced no serious opposition. [22]

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Texas Governor George W. Bush and Senator John McCain visited Dixville Notch. [23] [24] This was the last time that Neil Tillotson voted first in the Dixville Notch midnight vote before his death in 2001. [25] In the Republican primary Bush won Dixville Notch while McCain won Hart's Location and in the Democratic primary Senator Bill Bradley won both towns. [26] In the general election Bush won both towns against Vice President Al Gore. [27]

During the 2004 presidential campaign, General Wesley Clark was the only major party presidential candidate to visit the area. President George W. Bush won the Republican primaries with unanimous support while in the Democratic primary Clark won both towns. [28]

During the 2008 presidential campaign, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani visited Dixville Notch. [29] Senator John McCain won both towns in the Republican primary and Senator Barack Obama won both towns in the Democratic primary. [30]

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Ohio Governor John Kasich was the only major party presidential candidate to visit Dixville Notch with the rally he held on January 16, 2016. He later won all three precincts and tied with Senator Ted Cruz and Donald Trump for total votes. [3] Senator Bernie Sanders won two of the precincts and 60.71% of the total vote, becoming the first Democratic candidate to win both the midnight voting precincts with major opposition and the statewide vote since 1980.

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Senator Michael Bennet was the only major party presidential candidate to visit Dixville Notch before the primary, but received zero votes from all three precincts. [32] Michael Bloomberg won both the Republican and Democratic primary in Dixville Notch as a write-in candidate, while Senator Amy Klobuchar and President Donald Trump won the other two towns in their respective primaries. In the three towns, Klobuchar won a plurality with eight votes for 29.63% of the total vote. [33]

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic during the general election, Hart's Location delayed its traditional midnight voting to the daylight hours. [34] Dixville Notch's population briefly fell below the minimum of five residents required to hold an election in 2019, but Les Otten moved his official residence to the community to ensure that the midnight voting tradition could continue. [35]


New Hampshire

New Hampshire, one of the original 13 colonies, was the first state to have its own state constitution. Its spirit of independence is epitomized in the state motto–“Live Free or Die.” New Hampshire was the 9th state to ratify the U.S. Constitution–the final state needed to put the document into effect. It plays an important role in national elections, as it is the first state to holdnational primaries, and its primary results are thought to influence those in the rest of the nation, giving rise to the saying 𠇊s New Hampshire goes, so goes the nation.” It is the site of the White Mountains and the famed Mount Washington, one of the windiest places in the nation.

Date of Statehood: June 21, 1788

Capital: Concord

Population: 1,316,470 (2010)

Size: 9,348 square miles

Nickname(s): Granite State Mother of Rivers White Mountain State Switzerland of America


New Hampshire Voting History - History

R. Stuart Wallace
Former Director, Division of Historical Resources

The land now called New Hampshire has been inhabited for approximately 12,000 years. For centuries, bands of prehistoric Native American Indians migrated on a seasonal basis along New Hampshire's rivers and lake shores, variously fishing, hunting, gathering wild nuts and berries, and planting crops. Having no written language, these early inhabitants are known today primarily through archaeological investigations.

European interest in New Hampshire dates from the 1500s, when French and English ships explored the coast of North America. By approximately 1600, Englishmen were fishing off the New England coast seasonally, using the Isles of Shoals for temporary shelter and to dry their catch.

New Hampshire's first permanent European settlement began in 1623. In the wake of native populations, largely decimated by European diseases, English traders and fishermen settled at Odiorne Point in present-day Rye, and on Dover Point. By 1640, New Hampshire's Seacoast was divided among four towns or "plantations," Dover, Portsmouth, Exeter, and Hampton. Inhabitants of these towns, along with settlers in southern Maine, chose to be part of Massachusetts for much of the 1600s, but in 1680, New Hampshire became a separate province.

Throughout the 1600s, people in New Hampshire made their living through a combination of fishing, farming, cutting and sawing timber, shipbuilding, and coastal trade. By the first quarter of the 1700s, the provincial capital of Portsmouth had become a thriving commercial port, exporting timber products and importing everything from food to European finery. As the population grew, the original four towns subdivided into towns of smaller area.

The growing English presence in North America, compounded by the long-standing animosity between England and France, led to a series of wars along the American frontier throughout the late 1600s and the 1700s. Native American Indian tribes living in the Merrimack Valley tried at first to remain neutral, but by the 1680s, most had sided with the French. Beginning in 1689, New Hampshire's English settlements were periodically attacked. The situation worsened in the 1720s, when English settlers pushed out from the seacoast area and started the "second tier" towns of Rochester, Nottingham, Barrington, and Chester. In addition, Scotch-Irish farmers from Northern Ireland began the prosperous settlement of Londonderry in 1719, and in doing so, joined with farmers from Massachusetts in settling the Merrimack Valley and beyond. By the 1740s, if not somewhat earlier, New Hampshire's Indian population had been forced out of the province entirely.

By the time of the American Revolution, New Hampshire was a divided province. The economic and social life of the Seacoast revolved around sawmills, shipyards, merchant's warehouses, and established village and town centers. Wealthy merchants built substantial homes, furnished them with the finest luxuries, and invested their capital in trade and land speculation. At the other end of the social scale, there developed a permanent class of day laborers, mariners, indentured servants, and even slaves.

In the central and western parts of the province, however, the inhabitants were farmers. Many, if not most, had come from Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Northern Ireland, and their ties to Portsmouth were weak. They spread themselves over the countryside, clearing small lots and building simple one- and two-story farmhouses. Their towns were punctuated with a few sawmills and gristmills, a number of taverns, a meetinghouse, and perhaps a store or public school. During the War for Independence, farm towns in the Connecticut Valley became so disenchanted with provincial leaders in the Seacoast area that they attempted to secede. Only by agreeing to hold several legislative sessions in the Merrimack Valley, and particularly in the town of Concord, did New Hampshire keep itself from breaking apart.

New Hampshire's sectionalism was intensified by its mountainous terrain. The state's major rivers run from north to south, which dictated that most roads, and later railroads, would lead to Boston, rather than Portsmouth. New Hampshire's economic and social ties to Boston also meant that its residents were more sensitive to events in Boston. When Revolutionary politics closed the port of Boston, New Hampshire sent food. When news came of Lexington and Concord, New Hampshire towns sent troops. The once-loyal British subjects of New Hampshire became the first in America to draft a separate state constitution, and they were the first to instruct their delegates attending the Continental Congress in Philadelphia to vote for independence.

Throughout the 1800s, the Seacoast declined as a commercial center. As economic activity slowed in Portsmouth, towns like Dover, Newmarket, and Somersworth prospered by turning to textile manufacturing. It was the Merrimack Valley, however, that took over as the social, political, and economic center of the state. Manchester and Nashua became major textile manufacturing centers, while Concord's central location and diversified economy made it well-suited to serve as the new state capital. At first, textile mills around the state hired local youths to operate their machinery, but by 1850, mill owners had begun to supplement the local work force with immigrant labor, making a special effort to recruit the French-speaking farmers of Quebec.

Although New Hampshire emerged as a major manufacturing state in the late 1800s, it did so at the expense of the traditional family hill farm. New Hampshire hill farms could not compete with farms in the Midwest, and the farm population not only declined in the second half of the century it literally moved downhill, leaving behind a maze of stone walls and cellar holes. The population that remained in New Hampshire's farm towns became increasingly concentrated in one or more village centers, usually marked by a few stores, a district school, a church, an inn or hotel, and perhaps surrounded by a small number of dairy farms.

In spite of these agricultural reverses, however, New Hampshire's rural areas were not without options. In the late 1800s, New Hampshire's North Country turned to commercial logging. Logging railroads were built into once-inaccessible forests. Other forests sent their logs to mills in Groveton, Berlin, and Massachusetts via log drives down the Connecticut and Androscoggin Rivers. Meanwhile, urban areas around Boston and Portland needed daily shipments of perishable foods. By 1870, New Hampshire's railroad network was largely complete, and farmers near the various rail depots found a ready market for dairy and poultry products, as well as fresh fruit.

Happily for New Hampshire, the same railroads that brought produce to Boston and Portland also brought tourists from those urban centers. New Hampshire's natural splendors attracted artists, poets and writers, scientists, and a host of curious sightseers throughout the 1800s. By the last quarter of the century, investors were building grand hotels along coastal areas and in the majestic White Mountains. Tourists came from all over the United States and Europe. While some joined in the lavish social life of the hotels, others chose to "rough it" in rustic fishing camps or to build their own summer home, a term which takes in everything from humble cottages to large and elegant estates. In time, "summer people" began buying up New Hampshire's old hill farms for summer homes.

At the beginning of this century, New Hampshire was a leading producer of textiles, machinery, wood products, and paper. Its manufacturing towns and cities were populated not only by native-born Americans and immigrants from Canada, but also by workers from virtually every European country, giving New Hampshire's population a percentage of foreign-born persons that was above the national average. Meanwhile, as New Hampshire hill farms struggled, tourism was providing some relief for rural areas.

By the end of the First World War, however, New Hampshire's old textile mills were proving to be as uncompetitive as the old hill farms. Newer cotton mills in the South spelled decline and eventual doom for New Hampshire's mills. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, New Hampshire's mill towns were as economically depressed as its farm towns, and the growth of the state's population slowed markedly. Manufacturing centers responded by attracting new industries, in particular the manufacture of shoes and electronics, while rural towns took advantage of the growing popularity of the automobile to attract larger numbers of tourists and summer home buyers. The growing national interest in antiques and handcrafts meant that Americans increasingly wanted to buy a piece of the Granite State and take it home to Boston, New York, or Philadelphia. Starting in the 1930s, other visitors came to New Hampshire slopes each winter in a demonstration of America's fascination with Alpine skiing.

In spite of a brief economic resurgence during the Second World War, the economic trends of the period between the wars continued throughout the late 1940s and the 1950s. Efforts were made at all levels to encourage growth and attract new businesses to the state. By the 1960s, these efforts had begun to pay off. The urban sprawl of Boston spilled over into southern New Hampshire, aided by the new interstate highway system, encouraged by a favorable tax structure and good living conditions. In a fairly short time, New Hampshire was transformed from a slow-growing state of seemingly inexhaustible natural and man-made resources into the fastest growing state in the Northeast - and one whose natural and man-made resources are threatened in a variety of ways. The introduction of high-tech industries, the continued growth of tourism, and the proliferation of service industry jobs has made New Hampshire a state of high average wages and very low unemployment. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, New Hampshire has worked hard in its attempts to reap the benefits of a healthy economy while protecting its resources and preserving the best of what gives the Granite State its distinctive character.


Voting in the U.S.A.

While voting would seem fundamental in a democracy, voting rights in the U.S. have long been contentious. The Constitution makes no stipulations concerning who can vote. Instead, it is left to the states to decide, and they have often tried—with varying degrees of success—to limit voting.

States initially allowed only a select few to cast a ballot, enacting property, tax, religion, gender, and race requirements. In the first presidential election (1789), voters were almost all landowning white Protestant males. Movements to end various restrictions were subsequently mounted. In 1792 New Hampshire became the first state to remove its landowning requirement, though it took until 1856 for the last state (North Carolina) to drop property demands for white men. And while the Constitution decreed that no officeholder should be subjected to a religion test, various states continued to require one for voting until 1828, when Maryland allowed Jews to enter the ballot booth. By the 1860s white males largely enjoyed universal suffrage in the U.S.

But while voting rights were expanding for some areas of the population, states began enacting laws that barred women, African Americans, Native Americans, and many immigrants from casting ballots. The New Jersey constitution of 1776 gave voting rights to “all inhabitants,” and in the 1797 state legislative election, a number of women voted. However, the threat of a “government of petticoats” led the legislature to pass a law in 1807 that barred women from the polls. In 1821 New York amended its constitution to require black voters to own property worth an amount that effectively banned them from the ballot booth. Other examples of efforts to limit voting included the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882), which prevented Chinese immigrants from becoming citizens and thereby blocked them from the polls.

After slavery ended, a campaign was launched to secure voting rights for African American men. This was seemingly fulfilled with the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870, which guaranteed the right to vote to all men, regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” However, Southern states subsequently suppressed the black vote through intimidation and various other measures—such as poll taxes and literacy tests. The latter often required perfect scores and were frequently designed to be confusing in one Louisiana test, the person was told to “Write every other word in this first line and print every third word in same line (original type smaller and first line ended at comma) but capitalize the fifth word that you write.” Such efforts proved so effective that by the early 20th century, nearly all African Americans had been disenfranchised in the South.

During this time, women were demanding the right to vote. The woman suffrage movement in the U.S. began in the early 19th century and was initially linked with antislavery efforts. Backed by formidable activists—notably Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Lucy Stone, and Susan B. Anthony—the movement slowly made progress. In 1890 Wyoming became the first state to adopt a constitution that granted women the right to vote, and by 1918 women had acquired equal suffrage with men in 15 states. However, it was realized that a constitutional amendment was needed, and in 1920 the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified when Tennessee approved the measure by one vote, becoming the 36th state to pass it the victory was ensured only after a 24-year-old legislator changed his previous vote at the request of his mother, who told him “to be a good boy.”

In the ensuing decades, other groups—such as Native Americans (1957)—gained universal suffrage. For African Americans, however, their vote continued to be suppressed. By the mid-1960s fewer than 7 percent of blacks were registered to vote in Mississippi. With the civil rights movement, efforts were renewed to enforce the rights of African American voters. In 1964 the Twenty-fourth Amendment was adopted, prohibiting poll taxes in federal elections. The following year the Voting Rights Act was signed. The landmark legislation banned any effort to deny voting rights, such as literacy tests. In addition, Section 5 of the act provided for federal approval of proposed changes to voting laws or procedures in jurisdictions that had been deemed by a formula set forth in Section 4 to have practiced racial discrimination.

Sections 4 and 5 were repeatedly extended by Congress, but in 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4, thus making Section 5 unenforceable. A number of states previously governed by Section 5 subsequently implemented various new measures, such as stricter voter ID requirements and limited early voting. Many of the changes had the proclaimed purpose of preventing voter fraud, though critics alleged that they were intended to suppress voting. Legal challenges resulted in a number of the laws being ruled unconstitutional.


The Supreme Court Justice Who Made History By Voting No on Racial Segregation

The old saying holds that history is written by the winners.

A new book explores the life of U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan, who, through his writing, made history even though he lost. Harlan was on the court in 1896 when it endorsed racial segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson and was the lone justice who voted no. He wrote the only dissenting opinion.

"His dissent was largely invisible in the white community, but it was read aloud in Black churches. It was published in Black newspapers. This was the one link of hope that white people might support them and see the law through their eyes," said Peter Canellos, author of The Great Dissenter: The Story of John Marshall Harlan, America's Judicial Hero, in an interview on Morning Edition.

It took generations, but eventually the dissenter won. The court ruled differently in 1954.

Harlan, a white man from Kentucky, grew up before the Civil War in a family that enslaved people.

"One of the great mysteries of Harlan's career is that he grew up in such a family and yet became the leading defender of Black rights of his generation," Canellos. Part of the reason might have been a Black man who grew up with him, widely believed to have been his half-brother.

Interview Highlights

On Harlan writing dissents during the era of Jim Crowe

That's what's striking about it. I think the court of that period has gotten way too little attention in history because it was responsible, essentially, for segregation and clearing the way for segregation. That court . ruled against civil rights, it ruled against voting rights for African Americans. In Plessy v. Ferguson it approved the legal architecture of segregation. As Harlan predicted in his dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, it consigned the nation to hundreds of years of racial strife. He says in that dissent, what can more surely sow the seeds of racial discord than a system under the law that creates two separate systems of rights, one for Blacks and one for whites?

On how Harlan and the court's majority could find support in the Constitution and law to bolster very different conclusions regarding separate but equal

I think it's not too mysterious. I hate to say it, but I think notions of white supremacy, prejudice and — frankly — expediency are very visible in the majority opinion of Plessy v. Ferguson. You go back in these cases and you try to say, well, could this be an issue in which reasonable jurists might disagree? And the answer essentially is no in Plessy v. Ferguson. The majority opinion is an abomination. The key line in the majority opinion says this is a law that was specifically enacted to put Black people in a separate [train] carriage, and they said if there's any stigma here it's because Black people themselves are putting that construction on it. Harlan's dissent, which was forceful, essentially called their bluff on everything. He noted the plain language of the Constitution, which said equal protection under law in the 14th amendment is the law of the land. And Harlan didn't just call them out on the law. He issued kind of a manifesto that went to the real heart and soul of what the law is and what the Constitution means in this country. And I think his dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson is one of the great documents in American history.

On what it's like to go through historical cases at a time when judges, justices and the Supreme Court have been in the news

I think it suggests the parallels between that era and this era. We may well be entering a period when the Supreme Court is far more conservative than the country. That's what happened in the 1880s and 1890s. There was a long string of pro-business presidents of both parties that appointed Northern railroad attorneys essentially to the Supreme Court, and then you have this economic crisis and this racial crisis, and they're not equipped to deal with it. We had the wrong people on the Supreme Court, and they set the country back decades. I hope that doesn't happen, and there's certainly a lot of history in the Supreme Court to suggest that justices who are appointed with one set of expectations end up completely defying them. So that may well happen this time. But we may also be entering a period where, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested, dissent is every bit as important as the majority opinion — where today's justices who dissent on cases will be the Harlans of the next generation.

An old saying holds that history is written by the winners. Today we have a story of a man who made history with what he wrote, even though he lost. John Marshall Harlan was a U.S. Supreme Court justice on the court in 1896 when it endorsed racial segregation, and Harlan was the only justice who voted no, the only one who wrote a dissent. Peter Canellos wrote a new biography of Harlan.

PETER CANELLOS: His dissent was largely invisible in the white community. But it was, like, read aloud in Black churches. It was published in Black newspapers. This was the one link of hope that white people might support them and see the law through their eyes.

INSKEEP: It took generations, but eventually the dissenter won - the court ruled differently. Peter Canellos is an observer of modern-day politics as an editor at Politico. He's also studying a much earlier time, when the court upheld a Louisiana law forcing Black and white people onto separate railway cars. John Marshall Harlan, the guy who dissented, was a white man from Kentucky, from the South. He grew up before the Civil War in a family that enslaved people.

CANELLOS: One of the great mysteries of Harlan's career is that he grew up in such a family and yet became the leading defender of Black rights of his generation.

INSKEEP: After the war, constitutional amendments ended slavery, and Harlan embraced that change. Part of the reason might have been a Black man who grew up with them, rumored to be his half-brother. In 1877, John Marshall Harlan - named for John Marshall, a great chief justice - was appointed to the court himself.

CANELLOS: He was a forceful dissenter, and his entire career is a testament to the power of dissent. It's also, in some ways, a testament to the way that the legal academy neglects dissent. You know, law is taught case by case through the majority opinion. Most of those casebooks don't even have dissents in them. But when you study law and you read it and you see Harlan's dissents, if you can get a hold of them - and the one in Plessy v. Ferguson, generally, is widely distributed, so that one stands out - he's speaking in a different language. He brings in powerful notions of justice. He's addressing the big issues facing the country.

This was true not only in the race cases but in cases during the Gilded Age about economic protections, economic freedoms. On the race cases, it started in 1883 on this very, very high-profile case. Unlike Plessy v. Ferguson, the Civil Rights Cases of 1883 was something that was a major topic of public conversation. It was - they were interrupting theater productions in Atlanta to report on the court's deliberations. The entire white establishment essentially decided that sacrificing Black rights was the cost of unity with the South. Harlan took a totally opposite approach. He said, yes, we can enforce these post-Civil War amendments that guarantee equality. And he broke with his colleagues in a very fundamental way in that case.

INSKEEP: I want to sketch for people what is happening in the country at that time. Harlan was born in the time of slavery. Then came the Civil War. Then came Reconstruction, a period where African Americans in the South had a lot of political rights, and some were even elected to office, and a great many voted. And then came the era of Jim Crow, when white Southerners reestablished total control. This is the 1880s, the 1890s. Is this the period where Harlan begins to write his great dissents?

CANELLOS: Absolutely. And that's what's striking about it. I think the court of that period has gotten way too little attention in history because it was responsible, essentially, for segregation and clearing the way for segregation. That court, the Fuller court, ruled against civil rights. It ruled against voting rights for African Americans. In Plessy v. Ferguson, it approved the legal architecture of segregation. As Harlan predicted in his dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, it consigned the nation to hundreds of years of racial strife. I mean, he says in that dissent, you know, what can more surely sow the seeds of racial discord than a system under the law that creates two separate systems of rights - one for Blacks, one for whites?

INSKEEP: How was it that the court majority reached back into the Constitution and the law and found that separate but equal policies for different races were totally fine, and then how did John Marshall Harlan go into the same Constitution and the same law and find a completely different conclusion?

CANELLOS: Well, I think it's not too mysterious. I hate to say it, but I think notions of white supremacy, prejudice and, frankly, expediency are very visible in the majority opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson. You know, you go back in these cases and you try to say, well, could this be an issue on which reasonable jurists might disagree? And the answer essentially is no in Plessy v. Ferguson. I mean, the majority opinion is an abomination. The key line in the majority opinion says this is a law that was specifically enacted to put Black people in a separate carriage. And he said, well, if there's any stigma here, it's because Black people themselves are putting that construction on it. I mean, Harlan's dissent, which was forceful, essentially called their bluff on everything. He noted the plain language of the Constitution, which said equal protection under law in the 14th Amendment is the law of the land.

And Harlan didn't just call them out on the law he issued kind of a manifesto that went to the real heart and soul of what the law is and what the Constitution means in this country. And I think his dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson is one of the great documents in American history. And, you know, everybody on this program should read it.

INSKEEP: What's it been like for you the last few years, I assume, to be going through these court cases from another century at a time when judges and justices and the Supreme Court itself have been so much in the news?

CANELLOS: Well, I think it suggests the parallels between that era and this era. We may well be entering a period when the Supreme Court is far more conservative than the country. That's what happened in the 1880s and 1890s. There was a long string of pro-business presidents of both parties that appointed Northern railroad attorneys, essentially, to the Supreme Court, and then you have this economic crisis and this racial crisis, and they're not equipped to deal with it. We had the wrong people on the Supreme Court, and they set the country back decades. I hope that doesn't happen.

And there's certainly a lot of history in the Supreme Court to suggest that justices who are appointed with one set of expectations end up completely defying them. So that may well happen this time. But we may also be entering a period where, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested, dissent is every bit as important as the majority opinion, where today's justices who dissent on cases will be the Harlans of the next generation.

INSKEEP: Peter S. Canellos is the author of "The Great Dissenter: The Story Of John Marshall Harlan, America's Judicial Hero." Thank you so much.

(SOUNDBITE OF JOSHUA BELL AND EDGAR MEYER WITH SAM BUSH AND MIKE MARSHALL'S "SHORT TRIP HOME") Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.


The second part addresses how the government of the state will function and is divided into 11 groups of articles.

Form of Government

Article 1, when first enacted established The State of New Hampshire as the official name of the sovereign and independent state, formerly known as the province of New Hampshire.

Articles 2 through 8 establish the framework for the General Court and its authority to establish courts, enact state laws affecting the government of New Hampshire, provide for the state's emergency powers, and gather funding and use collected monies.

Click here to read this article of the New Hampshire Constitution.

House of Representatives

Articles 9 through 24 establish the authority and makeup of the House of Representatives, the lower house of the General Court. This section of the constitution establishes how representatives are elected, their responsibilities, and their privileges. These articles make clear that all state-level budgetary legislation must originate from the House, much like the British House of Commons and the United States House of Representatives.

Articles 10 and 13 have been repealed.

Click here to read this article of the New Hampshire Constitution.

Senate

Articles 25 through 40, excluding 28, which was repealed in 1976, define the role and makeup of the Senate, the upper house of the General Court. This section is similar to the section regarding the House of Representatives, with the largest difference being that the Senate is the ultimate arbiter of all elections.

Click here to read this article of the New Hampshire Constitution.

Executive Power - Governor

Articles 41 through 59 define the roles and selection of the executive branch. The governor of the state of New Hampshire is the supreme executive magistrate and is titled "His Excellency." The governor also is given the sole authority to command the New Hampshire National Guard, has sole right to sign or veto bills and resolutions passed by the General Court and is charged with the "faithful execution of the laws." The governor must be 30 years old and have been a resident of the state for seven years at the time of election. The governor is elected to a two-year term during the November biennial elections.

Click here to read this article of the New Hampshire Constitution.

Council

The Council part of the New Hampshire Constitution consists of seven articles.

Click here to read this article of the New Hampshire Constitution.

Secretary, Treasurer, etc.

Articles 67 through 70 discuss the duties and selection of the state's treasurer, secretaries, and other such officials.

Click here to read this article of the New Hampshire Constitution.

County Treasurer, etc.

Article 71 details the responsibilities and powers of county-level officials, such as the county sheriffs, county attorneys, county treasurers, registrars of probate, and registrars of deeds. Article 72 details the selection of registrars of deeds, which usually is a countywide position.

Click here to read this article of the New Hampshire Constitution.

Judiciary Power

Article s72-a. through 81 dictate the rights and responsibilities of the Supreme and Superior Courts as well as other state-sanctioned court officers.

Click here to read this article of the New Hampshire Constitution.

Clerks of Courts

Article 82 gives judges of the courts (except probate) the sole authority to appoint clerks to serve office at the pleasure of the judge. Clerks are prohibited from acting as attorneys in the courts for which they serve and from drawing any writ originating a civil action.

Click here to read this article of the New Hampshire Constitution.

Encouragement of Literature, Trade, etc.

Article 83 states the importance of education and associated endeavors to the citizens of New Hampshire. It also gives the General Court the power to safeguard them from hostile forces and encourages forces that advance the general knowledge of the state's citizens.

Click here to read this article of the New Hampshire Constitution.

Oaths and Subscriptions Exclusion from Offices, etc.

Articles 84 through 101 (excluding Articles 97 and 99) regard the installment of appointed and elected state officials. These articles also discuss the method for the constitution taking effect, it being enrolled, and methods for proposing amendments.

Click here to read this article of the New Hampshire Constitution.


Millsfield Home Where New Hampshire's Midnight Voting Began Earns New Spot On Historic Register

A farmhouse in Millsfield believed to be the birthplace of New Hampshire's midnight voting tradition is among the newest additions to the state's register of historic places, the Division of Historical Resources announced Tuesday.

The residents of Dixville Notch and Hart's Location have long attracted the lion's share of attention for their midnight voting rituals during New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation presidential primary. Hart's Location began the practice in the 1940s, and Dixville Notch followed suit two decades later.

But, according to the earliest available public records, the first documented midnight vote took place in Millsfield during the general election of 1936. According to a dispatch in the Boston Globe, "the idea of having the election at midnight was hatched, it is generally agreed, in the mind of Genevieve G. Nadig, 27-year-old artist and pillowmaker."

"Miss Nadig is town clerk - on election day, which is the only day on which Millsfield has any town officials - and it seemed to her that this would be an excellent way of putting Millsfield in a conspicuous spot on the map," the Globe reported.

Millsfield's midnight voting tradition continued through at least the 1960s. Community members revived the tradition in 2016 and continued it this year.

Other new additions to the state's register of historic places include the Town Pound in Boscawen, the Old Abbott Library in Sunapee and an 1898 schoolhouse in Orford that now serves as the town office building.

(For more on the backstory behind New Hampshire's midnight voting ritual, check out NHPR's podcast about the New Hampshire primary,Stranglehold.)


Watch the video: Living in Exeter New Hampshire. The Seacoast Lifestyle