Preview:

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Noble Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme.
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Merrimack
No. 2004-707
ROBERT A. BAINES, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANCHESTER & a.
v.
NEW HAMPSHIRE SENATE PRESIDENT
Argued: February 16, 2005
Opinion Issued: April 20, 2005
Nixon, Raiche, Manning, Casinghino & Leach, P.A., of Manchester (David L. Nixon and Leslie C. Nixon on the brief, and Ms. Nixon orally), and Wensley, Wirth & Azarian, P.L.L.C. , of Rochester (Danford J. Wensley on the brief and orally), for the petitioners.
Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general (Anne M. Edwards, associate attorney general, and Laura E. B. Lombardi , assistant attorney general, on the brief, and Ms. Edwards, orally), and Richard J. Lehmann, senate legal counsel, by brief, and Patrick Donovan, house legal counsel, by brief, for the State.
Richard J. Lehmann, senate legal counsel, on the joint brief and orally, for the President of the New Hampshire Senate.
Patrick Donovan, house legal counsel, on the joint brief, for the Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives.
Nadeau, J. The petitioners, the Cities of Manchester and Rochester and their mayors, appeal the order of the Superior Court (McGuire, J.) denying their petition for a declaration that Laws 2004, chapter 200 is unconstitutional. We affirm.
The petitioners argue that Laws 2004, chapter 200 is unconstitutional because, as a "money bill," the constitution requires that it originate in the New Hampshire House of Representatives (House) and because it differs materially from the bill the legislature passed. We conclude, however, based upon the facts of this case, that when this law became a "money bill," it originated in the House and it did not differ materially from the bill the legislature passed. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court

Download baine047.pdf

New Hampshire Law