Eric’s Priorities

• Health Care and Reproduction
• Public Education
• Community Affordability & Taxes
• Environmental Protection
• Public Safety/Public Health
• Civic Engagement and Voting

“I have seen the best and worst of what government and industry can do to solve problems, and I believe I know the difference.”

Questions below posed by Citizens Count and other organizations.

  • YES - Any decisions that a woman and her family makes in this area are deeply personal and difficult. They should be made by the woman her health care providers, and those she wishes to involve…… not by the state.  Nothing is gained by state intervention in these private family matters. I am firmly Pro Choice, from both a practical and philosophical perspective. Under the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, a woman's/family's right to make private medical decisions has been abandoned and opened to state legislatures, with disastrous consequences.  It has never been more important to have representative in Concord that will honor the rights of privacy and personal choice that women have held for decades. I was honored to present two bills (CACRs) to enshrine reproductive choice in our state constitution and I will continue to fight for this as a right in NH, as it has been federally for the past 50 years..

    With respect to the 24 week threshold – this is a ban on something that is literally not done in our state.  This law only exists to open the door to further restrictions by allowing the legislature to lower the threshold in increments – which has been attempted repeatedly with severe restrictions proposed each year.  Serving on the Judiciary Committee, I was able to speak directly against such bills and help prevent their passage, but that is small comfort in an ever-changing legislature.


     Unintended pregnancies, forced pregnancies, and unknown health risks are things that do happen. We can't ban abortions - only safe and medically appropriate ones. Our society is also strengthened by family planning and parents that are ready and able to care for their children to the degree they feel is appropriate. There is also seemingly little appetite for providing greater resources to support children born to families that cannot support them (separate discussion). Nobody is forced to have an abortion - it is a choice and often a difficult one, as it should be.   Abortion should be rare, safe, and legal.  Privacy and choice over one’s body and family should be sacrosanct freedoms, not to be infringed by the state.


    More could be said here, but I will also add that this is more than an abstract argument to me. My wife is an Ob/Gyn physician who has cared for women in our community for decades, and she has seen the many permutations of these difficult decisions play out in real, not theoretical, terms.  

  • Yes, absolutely. There are 2 questions here:  1) Continued Medicaid expansion was of primary importance for assuring access to care for our most vulnerable citizens. Turning away $400M per year in federal funds at a 90:10 match with no reduction in federal taxes for NH residents should be considered legislative malpractice.  Imagine how much more difficult responding to the opioid crisis or to COVID would be without this coverage.  2) The initial decision to implement this through private insurance was largely symbolic and political from the outset... it was always destined to be more costly and administratively difficult than traditional Medicaid, and that was proven true.  

  • Yes, both parties proposed a version of paid family and medical leave during the last session, so there is broad agreement that we need such a program fostered by the state. COVID has shown that even more clearly. With that seemingly settled, the question is how best to structure and pay for the program - which is truly a form of insurance that you own personally when you pay in (not a government program covering others who don't pay, as it’s often portrayed). From my 30 years of health policy consulting it is clear that bigger more inclusive risk pools are more stable and less costly overall for many reasons. You can see the convolutions the Sununu/Bradley plan go through trying to recreate that stability in the smaller voluntary approach, with taxes on premiums, rebates on premiums paid, and even an attempt to get VT to join in. Also, voluntary insurance tends to fail because people can game when they participate and those that have truly unexpected events are left out, or pay the price that process (adverse selection). To rebuff one of the key talking points we hear, this is NOT an income tax.... it's tied to your income because the benefit you get is proportional to your income. It doesn't fund any expansion of other government programs as many fear a true "income tax" (which I don't support) will.

  • No. See my statement above about the statewide option.

  • Our state has suffered terribly from the opioid crisis, with rates well above most other areas nationally. Treatment of addiction is in the interest of everyone and resources were badly lacking in our state at the outset of the crisis. Federal funds eventually became available to help supplement the resources and the crisis is abating. Ultimately, however, we must target the underlying causes of addiction and the market driven incentives, both legal and illegal, that promote initiation and addiction.

  • NO – I trust our educators to balance the needs of young students in addressing these topics, as they always have in instances when any questions of sexuality arise from children trying to understand the often complex world of adults around them.  Bans like this serve no purpose other than to leave these children with no resources and likely greater fears and questions as they sense the inability of trusted adults to engage with them.  

  • As I have stated regarding abortion and reproduction in general, issues such as gender identity are likewise deeply personal matters in which the intervention by the legislature serves no purpose. If any needed procedure is legal in the state of NH, we must defend the rights of individuals to see that care here, as we would with any other type of care.  Furthermore, the restrictions being passed in other states have produced stark examples of the flaws in these policies, endangering the life and health of women with treatable medical conditions.  Those seeking gender transition services are often highly vulnerable individuals that must be protected from discriminatory policies if they choose to come to the "Live Free or Die" state for help.  We must not help other states to impose regressive policies.

  • NO – The flaws in the current education funding system are more than fully documented, and have been the subject of multiple state Supreme Court cases which have refuted the system as not just flawed, but unconstitutional. Another pair of NH Supreme Court decisions on a case filed in 2022 further found that the state has failed to address the underlying problems.  Our town pays a much higher tax rate for our schools as a direct result of this flawed formula.   The non-partisan NH School Funding Fairness Project has done a great deal to outline the issues and potential solutions, but fundamentally it requires a greater ability for the state to address the inequalities that result from a local property-tax based system by providing a true 'adequate education' base for all students. 

    With respect to the 24 week threshold – this is a ban on something that is literally not done in our state.  This law only exists to open the door to further restrictions by allowing the legislature to lower the threshold in increments – which has been attempted repeatedly with severe restrictions proposed each year.  Serving on the Judiciary Committee, I was able to speak directly against such bills and help prevent their passage, but that is small comfort in an ever-changing legislature.


     Unintended pregnancies, forced pregnancies, and unknown health risks are things that do happen. We can't ban abortions - only safe and medically appropriate ones. Our society is also strengthened by family planning and parents that are ready and able to care for their children to the degree they feel is appropriate. There is also seemingly little appetite for providing greater resources to support children born to families that cannot support them (separate discussion). Nobody is forced to have an abortion - it is a choice and often a difficult one, as it should be.   Abortion should be rare, safe, and legal.  Privacy and choice over one’s body and family should be sacrosanct freedoms, not to be infringed by the state.


    More could be said here, but I will also add that this is more than an abstract argument to me. My wife is an Ob/Gyn physician who has cared for women in our community for decades, and she has seen the many permutations of these difficult decisions play out in real, not theoretical, terms.  

  • Yes, the state’s definition of ‘adequacy’ ($3700 per student) falls incredibly far below any realistic expectation of the cost of providing an adequate education (several times that amount), which has been affirmed as a state constitutional requirement in NH by multiple Supreme Court cases. Local property taxes must make up the difference. Cuts to aid to towns from the state, billed as tax cuts, simply pushed the costs to the towns, which have few ways to diversify revenue sources, which must be spread across the property valuation. The result is massive disparities in education, with towns having lower property valuations, such as ones in my district, bearing a greater burden. This pits long-time residents living on fixed incomes and afraid of being driven out of their homes against young families seeking a good education for their children. A healthy community needs both, and nobody will teach a child more than the town’s ‘old timers’! 

  • NO – This is a terrible policy that undermines the premise of public education and the unity of the community to continually improve our school system. It diverts public funds to private and religious schools with little oversight or accountability.  Most of the recipients to date were already in private/home school settings before the program was enacted, demonstrating that it is not providing greater 'educational freedom' as implied.  Vouchers lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure in public education systems, as those with the means use public resources as a supplement to support their private decision, and leave the schools with the fixed costs and little ability to adjust staffing in a predictable way. This option was inserted into the budget, rather than being passed by legislators, and has opened the existing education system to costs that have already greatly exceeded the programs’ budget.  Proposals to expand the family income caps and other eligibility limits, further deepen the problem and further remove any pretense of providing needed options that are not otherwise possible.

  • Yes. There is no perfect process to monitor educational outcomes, but not monitoring them is irresponsible. The process should be minimally intrusive and the content of the tests should reflect the diverse range of knowledge and experience expected. The current situation regarding the pandemic may make administration impractical in the short term, however the overall goal should not be abandoned going forward, once the situation normalizes.

  • NO - This is among the worst pieces of legislation passed pertaining to state education.  It diminishes the quality of education at the minimum, and - in reality - places an arbitrary threat over educators, forcing them to avoid some of the most important topics students should learn about.  It is likely unconstitutional and has created a ‘bounty system’ for any parent that wishes to assert their preferences over the established curricula to call out individual teachers for scrutiny.  It will erode our teaching workforce just as we are facing a crisis in teacher availability.

  • NO - I do not support an income tax, but I also do not support our current property tax system that forces the elderly, others on low and/or fixed income, or those that live in rapidly changing communities, to leave their homes due to rising taxes. Tax relief should be targeted at those that need it.  I would support expanding and re-targeting of tax relief programs such as the means-based protections on statewide property taxes for those at the lower-end and middle of the income scale, as well as similar programs such as those in place for veterans, the elderly, and the disabled. The basic structure for this is already in place in NH law, but it is crude, narrowly defined, and doesn't provide meaningful assistance at current levels or support to towns to offset the cost. Expanding these types of options could provide key protections to those at risk of being forced from their homes for no fault of their own, without an income tax

    With respect to the 24 week threshold – this is a ban on something that is literally not done in our state.  This law only exists to open the door to further restrictions by allowing the legislature to lower the threshold in increments – which has been attempted repeatedly with severe restrictions proposed each year.  Serving on the Judiciary Committee, I was able to speak directly against such bills and help prevent their passage, but that is small comfort in an ever-changing legislature.


     Unintended pregnancies, forced pregnancies, and unknown health risks are things that do happen. We can't ban abortions - only safe and medically appropriate ones. Our society is also strengthened by family planning and parents that are ready and able to care for their children to the degree they feel is appropriate. There is also seemingly little appetite for providing greater resources to support children born to families that cannot support them (separate discussion). Nobody is forced to have an abortion - it is a choice and often a difficult one, as it should be.   Abortion should be rare, safe, and legal.  Privacy and choice over one’s body and family should be sacrosanct freedoms, not to be infringed by the state.


    More could be said here, but I will also add that this is more than an abstract argument to me. My wife is an Ob/Gyn physician who has cared for women in our community for decades, and she has seen the many permutations of these difficult decisions play out in real, not theoretical, terms.  

  • NO – Sales taxes are highly regressive, as those with the lowest income spend all of what they earn and would be effectively taxed on every dollar. They are also difficult to administer logistically, placing an additional burden on small and retail businesses.

  • I would consider a capital gains tax as a means of diversifying the state’s revenue sources without an income tax. The capital gains tax rate was significantly reduced at the federal level in 2003 and these cuts were supposed to expire in 2008, but were not due to the Great Recession. Such a tax should protect those living off of invested savings from paying this tax with a minimum threshold. The wealth disparity in our country is at historic levels, with many having little to no capital savings to tax the gains on, while some have seen great growth in the value of invested funds while the economy suffers. It would be reasonable for those benefiting from these gains, not tied to jobs or labor, to contribute to the state through taxation when they ‘cash in’ these gains. This can be done without reducing the incentive to invest or causing capital flight from the state.

  • NO - There are two taxes on business in NH, the Business Profits Tax and the Business Enterprise Tax. Most small and in-state businesses do not pay the Business Profits Tax, so recent cuts to this tax simply allow large out of state corporations, which will do business here regardless, to take these needed funds out of our state with no benefit to keeping jobs in NH. The Business Enterprise tax is more relevant as it is paid on the total scope of each NH businesses. The tax rate is less than 1% on businesses over $281K in value, which is a reasonable contribution level, and provides a vehicle for state cuts to support business in the event of future downturns.

  • YES - NH has no state minimum wage – relying on the federal minimum only, placing it among the states with the lowest minimum wages in the country.  We are one of the ‘wealthier’ states overall, and NH has a relatively high cost of living compared to other parts of the country.  Recent price increases in some key sectors has only further reduced the value of our fixed minimum wage with no means to adjust it to match. Wages are rising but not at a pace to match costs.  Other states in New England have minimum wages more than 50% higher than ours. Establishing a phased in increase to the minimum wage in the state is needed, and can be accomplished without impacting the job market.

  • Yes. Housing prices in our region are very high and rental availability is very limited. This makes it difficult to attract and retain our retail and service workforce, and young residents to our communities. There are a range of effective strategies to incentivize increased affordable housing and avoid gentrification.

  • This depends on the situation. I support limited government subsidies/credits for business investments that might not otherwise be in the short term financial interest of the organization, but which serves a societal goal (hiring/training veterans lacking skills, move to more efficient/clean energy production, etc). Most investments should yield benefits that are their own incentives, without state support. The key is that it is an 'investment'. I was opposed to the cut in the Business Profits Tax, for example, because it simply rewards large corporations for taking $ out of the state.

  • DEPENDS – The burden of student loan debt is a large and growing problem that threatens to hamper the ability of our most capable young citizens to reach their full potential.  Several industries are suffering from lack of workers, while our state loses talented graduates to other areas of the country unnecessarily. Education loan repayment programs have proven successful in attracting talented graduates into needed industries and communities in need, while providing a vehicle for students to access higher education. A business tax relief financed approach seems well suited to the situation in some industries.  I have worked with the National Health Service Corps and Nurse Corps programs as part of my professional work for nearly 3 decades, both here in NH and across the country,  These programs succeeds by targeting the aid to those individuals, professions, and communities where assistance is needed. A similar approach should be taken here.  The recent proposal to target such assistance to a single industry - human organ manufacturing (SB 564) seems based on scant evidence of targeted need in a potentially highly profitable field, however I remain open to learning more on this.

  • DEPENDS. Affordable housing is a huge challenge for our state.  Housing prices in our region are very high and rental availability is very limited. This makes it difficult to attract and retain our retail and service workforce, and for young residents to live in our communities.  This is unsustainable. There are a range of effective strategies to incentivize increased affordable housing and avoid gentrification.  That said, our community has recently seen the unintended impacts of changes to zoning and building ordinances that threaten the rural character of our town while failing to produce more affordable options.  Encouraging municipalities to adopt changes that promote the development of affordable housing is different than imposing statewide changes that override town planning and zoning boards and remove local control. 

  • Raising our children should be our top priority, yet affordable quality child care is very difficult to find in our state.  This leaves young families in difficult positions balancing their work and family obligations.  Young families are forced to decide between raising their children in a positive environment and working to support their needs.  I support efforts to address both the affordability of child care for lower income families and to increase the supply of child care providers in the workforce.  Our state relies heavily on federal child care support, some of which requires state matching, and the one-time funds related to the pandemic are expiring soon, meaning that state funding will be more important going forward.

  • YES - Reducing and mitigating carbon emissions is critically important. The impacts of inaction are becoming increasingly evident and time for effective action is running out.  The technology to reduce reliance on carbon-based energy sources is becoming increasingly accessible and affordable, while technology to increase efficiency, such as electric vehicles and geothermal heating, are seeing a similar trend.  I have personally moved to both of these technologies and have seen nothing but positive results, particularly when energy prices spiked.  Both transitions were made more practical through government incentives, which lower the transition cost and make these technologies more attractive until widely adopted.  Regional solutions, such as RGGI, are also important as they assure that no one area is bearing the burden while others continue outmoded practices. Carbon offsets are an effective approach to limiting our climate. Two recent reports have shown that RGGI has also protected children's health through reduced particulate emissions, while helping the environment and lowering family energy costs.

  • Yes, I believe the transformation of our energy infrastructure to clean, carbon neutral, and locally produced sources should be supported in any way possible – both for the environment and to foster the jobs and innovation that leading in this area bring to our economy. Limits on the expansion of solar energy are shortsighted and will hurt our state in the long run.

  • YES - The move to renewable energy sources will help our state in the long run, and this is also increasingly practical and important today – both in terms of environment and cost.  Incentivizing the rapid adoption of locally sourced and renewable energy sources is in our best interest. The speed and methods for implementing such incentives should be set based on the practical predictions of technological advancement. As with the net metering expansion question, standards for inclusion of increasing levels of renewable energy in the generation mix has been a positive on many levels for the state. A 2018 review of the Renewable Portfolio Standard noted that, “RPS has increased use of renewable fuels and the development of renewable technologies, and has provided both economic and environmental benefits.” We must continue and accelerate that progress to protect environment and protect our energy supply from the foreign influences of fossil fuel markets that are causing current spikes in cost.

  • Should New Hampshire continue to participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which requires utilities to purchase allowances for every ton of carbon they emit?**

    Yes, reducing and mitigating carbon emissions is critically important. Regional solutions assure that no one area is bearing the burden while others continue outmoded practices. Carbon offsets are an effective approach to limiting our climate impact and RGGI was an effective initiative. Two recent reports have shown that RGGI has also protected children's health through reduced particulate emissions, while helping the environment and lowering family energy costs.

  • DEPENDS - I support the phasing in of road usage fees in the future. Our transportation system is in the midst of a major revolution as electric vehicles become practical and desirable as alternatives to internal combustion engines. I currently drive an all-electric vehicle and love it for many reasons including cost, capability, and environmental impact. The trend towards electric cars will undoubtedly continue, and that should be supported in every way. There were tax credits to purchase the vehicle and incentives from my electric company to install the charger. That said, I am aware that I am not contributing to the upkeep of our roads through the gas tax, which is untenable in the long term. In the short term the lack of gas taxes is yet another incentive to move towards electric vehicles and is justifiable on that basis. Going forward, I would support a ‘road usage’ fee, but not as an in-state tax on electric vehicles which is insensitive to the level of actual use. Instead I feel an expansion of our toll system, which impacts all vehicles, including out-of-state drivers and trucks that damage the roads, would be best. It is tied directly to use, and the EZ-pass system avoids cost and delays.  It can also allow for individual vehicle tax exemptions as incentives that are limited by time and value.

  • Yes we should. Continued widening of our highways is a massively wasteful way to improve our connectivity to Boston and other major hubs. Rail is far more efficient - both in terms of energy and people's time. The opposition is limiting employment opportunities, increasing pollution, and holding our state back.

  • I believe the transformation of our energy infrastructure to clean, carbon neutral, and locally produced sources should be supported in every way possible – both for the good of our environment and to foster the jobs and innovation that being a leader in this area brings to our economy. Limits on the expansion of solar energy are shortsighted and will hurt our state in the long run.  The need for restrictive caps on net metering may have been a reasonable approach to assuring a manageable transition to alternatives but the need for these is no longer justified.

  • YES - I do support a range of reasonable changes to our gun control laws to address the disproportionate issues with gun violence in our society compare to others. We will not solve all issues with gun violence, but we can do much better without impinging on anyone's rights. I believe the second amendment does provide for the individual right to own firearms, and as a practical matter that will always be the case as well. The second amendment does, however, start with the phrase, "A well regulated militia..." so I don't feel it precludes sensible regulations, which should not interfere with a responsible individual's gun ownership, but which would prevent issues stemming from those that should not have had access to a weapon, or the availability of weapons that have no place in civil society. I view it similarly to how cars and driving are regulated in terms of registration and licensing, but also to include universal background checks. Even the first amendment has limits. Classically, you can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater.... because it would endanger public safety, and the same is true for this right. I further believe - as affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Heller ruling – that the second amendment is "…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever."

  • DEPENDS - I believe that citizens should be able to grow, purchase, and possess marijuana with appropriate age and product controls, but I am opposed to policies that lead to organizations that have an interest in actively promoting initiation or increased use of THC products. The only difference between the marijuana industry and big tobacco is the federal ban on moving the proceeds though the banking system.  This federal law will likely be repealed in the near future, which could open the door to a new profit-driven public health crisis.  I believe sales and distribution should be accomplished through strategies that use the connection with consumers to educate them on the risks, hold use to a minimum, and target revenues first to the associated costs to the state.  Marijuana sales should not be viewed as a new general-revenue stream, as this undermines the government’s role in oversight and control of the product.  The state has not lived up to its role in similar areas, where funds collected through alcohol, tobacco, and legal gambling are not used to address the known and predictable consequences of these ‘products’, ignore the related costs of these products to our state, and use the funds derived to mask expenses rightfully borne more broadly. 

  • DEPENDS - The state should certainly legalize recreational use of marijuana, but this should not be viewed as a new general-revenue stream based on taxation or state-owned profit, as this undermines the government’s role in oversight and control of the product.  An excise tax, to recoup monitoring costs and fund any public health needs, may be appropriate.  The state has not lived up to its role in similar areas, where funds collected through alcohol, tobacco, and legal gambling are not used – even minimally – to address the known and predictable consequences of these ‘products’, while the funds derived simply mask expenses rightfully borne more broadly. If the state is to be involved in the distribution of marijuana, it must be first to act in the public interest and not simply to avoid the need to raise revenue through other more traditional and broadly shared means.

  • As a career public health consultant, one might expect that this would be a simple ‘yes’, however the dynamics of tobacco taxation vs spending on treatment and prevention in NH have not lived up to the state’s obligations in upholding public health priorities. Currently the state spends less than 1% of the CDC recommended target on treatment and prevention, while taking in tobacco related revenue well in excess of those recommendations from taxes, tobacco settlement, etc. The estimated cost of tobacco related illness in NH is nearly three times the total revenue the state takes in, so smoking is not a net positive financially for the state, beyond the human costs. While there is evidence that tobacco taxes do directly discourage youth initiation, for most smokers tobacco is an addiction and they will generally pay the increased costs of the higher taxation while programs to help them go underfunded. Smoking impacts lower income people disproportionately, making this even more problematic. I would support increased taxation only once state meets the recommended expenditure on prevention and cessation, and the remainder should go towards offsetting non-state costs form tobacco, such as higher insurance and health care costs.

  • YES – I have absolutely no issue with private recreational marijuana use, including home growing for non-commercial purposes.  Criminalization of growing and possession has led to decades of unwarranted and wasteful use of law enforcement and judicial resources, and damaged many lives

  • The police are, appropriately, vested with great power in our society – including the ability to use force – and they also carry great personal risk in their work. We must take every opportunity to minimize risk and also to assure that every use of force is necessary, appropriate, and minimal for the situation. I support the use of body and dash cameras as a means of monitoring and reviewing police interactions.  De-escalation should be the primary goal of volatile situations and the availability/integration of social services and behavioral health providers should be increased.  We should be mindful of how law enforcement officials interact with the public as an overall principal.  Police brutality is a real issue, as are issues of systemic and implicit bias.  Every incident of this sort hurts the reputation of the vast majority of officers that seek to limit violence, even in dangerous and tense situations. We have seen graphic examples of police brutality nationally. Thankfully we have not seen such glaring examples of overt police violence in our state recently, and I believe the police in my community and state do an excellent job overall.  We must do everything possible to preserve that.

  • Yes, I am particularly focused on the “Laurie List”, where known issues of conduct or credibility have been identified with sufficient merit to make that officer an unreliable witness. In term of reporting all misconduct reports to the state, there is also merit in knowing that such reports have been made, as long as the final outcome is identified. As I’ve said, it is my experience that our law enforcement officers try very hard to uphold their duties in a difficult job, so openness about those that may not will further highlight the good work of the great majority.

  • No.  It is not our state's role to enforce federal immigration laws and our current federal environment is particularly at odds with NH values. We should pursue immigration reform nationally, and not draw our state and local communities into the enforcement of the federal obligations. It is widely agreed that our federal immigration policies are badly in need of reform to expand legal immigration, yet changes to our existing immigration policies have only resulted in worker shortages in key NH industries.   

  • YES - The rules passed to allow COVID to be a valid reason for not voting in person was a positive and necessary step at the time. In general, this option should be available to anyone that wishes to vote remotely instead of in-person on election day. This could expand participation and assure that last minute issues do no thwart any person’s ability to vote. The system is secure and valid.

  • Yes, however we must be careful not to undermine the process of informed representative government in the process. We are a citizen led society, so leadership should not be a permanent job. Term limits can have an important role in keeping leaders connected and accountable. I do, however, favor relatively long term limits as it takes time to 'learn' the job and much time is spent on re-election, so there is value in continuity as long as the voters still support the official.

  • No. I was very disappointed when Gov. Sununu signed HB 1264 in 2018, after his initial, and correct, statement that this was a terrible bill that he promised to veto. It adds unnecessary cost and burden to the process of voting, which should be encouraged more than ever - especially for the college students we should hope to keep in our state. It solves a non-existent problem with a heavy handed fix. Once a student goes off to college, why would we assume he/she will return to the state they came from. Other states' residency requirements do not impose these burdens, so this is not just NH catching up.

  • YES – Providing a process for a newly registering voter to cast a valid ballot on election day, even if they don’t bring the needed documentation, is important to assure that their effort to participate in the process is not thwarted by a technicality.  Failing to obtain or bring proper documentation can happen for a variety of reasons.  As long as eligibility is ultimately verified, and the confidentiality of the voter’s ballot is assured throughout the process, this option assures that the will of the voter is recorded. Efforts to restrict such options are a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist in our voting system.

  • I don’t see a strong case for restricting the powers and, in fact, I wish he had used them to a greater degree by mandating the wearing of masks in public places, as all other New England governors did, to protect our state’s advantageous status in terms of COVID. I do think the question of oversight of spending on federal relief funds should be clarified to preserve the financial oversight role of the legislature.