Best for Liberty? An Analysis of Three Leading States

Best for Liberty?  An Analysis of Three Leading States

by Robert Hawes

With the Free State Project (FSP) closing in on the 5,000-member mark, the time for the state vote is close at hand. After rigorous research and debate, a few states have slowly migrated their way to the top of our list of candidates, and it is time that we took a good, hard look at these states to see which might make the best candidate for a future free state: Idaho, New Hampshire, and Wyoming (in no particular order).

Many feel that all three of these states possess various virtues that rank them as the most liberty-friendly states in the country, but the question remains: which is best for liberty along the lines of what the FSP has in mind?

A few thoughts for your consideration

1. Population

In terms of total population (from the 2000 Census):

Wyoming	493,782
New Hampshire	1,235,786
Idaho	1,293,953

In his essay What Can 20,000 Liberty Activists Accomplish? Jason Sorens revealed that the FSP's target participation level of 20,000 activists (as well as the slate of candidate states) was chosen based on the example of Quebec's Parti Quebecois, which achieved a parliamentary majority in 1976 as follows:

"At the time, the PQ had a paid membership of roughly 100,000, while the population of Quebec at that time was 6.2 million. In other words, having a paid member for every 62 citizens of the province gave the PQ a parliamentary majority. Applying the same ratio to the FSP's membership goal, we get 1.2 million population for a state in which 20,000 party members could win majorities at the state level. The following states have less than 1.2 million population: Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island (Hawaii, Idaho, New Hampshire, and Maine are close)."

If you are trying to influence and reform government in a given region, it only makes sense that your chances for doing so improve if the number of those who support you is as large as possible in proportion to the total population of that region. That is the logic of the FSP's plan: a higher number of activists concentrated in a lower population region. Population was thus the first criteria by which candidate states were selected.

That said, those that qualify based on their populations are not necessarily equally workable. Those states that are further beneath that cut-off level are logically better candidates (as long as there are not significant intervening factors) due to the fact that they allow for progressively higher saturation levels of activists with regard to the total and voting populations of a state.

Here is a ratio comparing the above three states (considering 1 FSP activist, out of 20,000 total, for every state resident):

Wyoming	1 to 24.5
New Hampshire	1 to 61.8
Idaho	1 to 64.7

Rounding up, New Hampshire maxes out at the upper acceptable limit of the activist-to-resident ratio (1 to 62), and Idaho clearly exceeds it. Wyoming, on the other hand, is far below the threshold and thus represents more than twice the saturation levels that the FSP could have in either New Hampshire or Idaho.

But now let's say that the FSP does not attract 20,000 activists. Instead, it only attracts 15,000. How do the numbers look then?

Wyoming	1 to 33.0
New Hampshire	1 to 82.4
Idaho	1 to 86.3

New Hampshire and Idaho are now far above the upper acceptable limit of the activist-to-resident ratio, while Wyoming is still far beneath it. In fact, Wyoming could drop to less than 8,000 activists and still equal the activist-to-resident ratio in New Hampshire and Idaho. This means that at full-strength, half-strength, or even less, Wyoming allows the FSP activists to saturate the state's population more heavily than either Idaho or New Hampshire, which grow dangerously out of reach as the number of activists is reduced. This is a serious consideration for us. If we choose a state that will take a full 20,000 hard-working participants, and we get any fewer than that, or if they are not as activist as we need them to be, there is a great likelihood that we could fail in our attempt to create a free state due to our effective activists simply being vastly outnumbered.

Also, if we vote for a higher population state at 5,000, and then do not get all 20,000, we could end up with a split in the FSP's ranks. According to the FSP's FAQ, the assumption is that the FSP will disband if it fails to reach 20,000 within five years of its start-up date (September, 2001). If we have, say, only 12,000 in the FSP by 2006, and 3,000 have already moved, the remaining 9,000 will have to decide whether to join the others in a place where we would likely not be able to create a free state, give up and go their separate ways, or fall back to another state where 9,000 would have more of a realistic chance at attaining the goal. Choosing a smaller state eliminates this issue as the need to fall back in the event that we fail to reach 20,000 would be less likely to occur (particularly in Wyoming – there is no smaller state than this one).

2. Voting-Age Population

Voting-age population numbers reflect the number of state residents that we will be actively working with (or against) since they are the ones who are eligible to vote and participate in the political process alongside us. The more of them that there are, the more potential they have to either help us or hinder us.

In terms of voting-age population (from the 2000 Census):

Wyoming	364.909
Idaho	924,923
New Hampshire	926,224

Idaho and New Hampshire are virtually the same here, at nearly one million voting-age inhabitants each. However, notice again that Wyoming presents far less of an obstacle.

20,000 FSPer's would represent:

Wyoming	5.5% of voters
Idaho	2.2% of voters
New Hampshire	2.2% of voters

Once again, we see that our saturation is much higher in Wyoming where we would represent more than twice the total percentage of voting-age residents as in either Idaho or New Hampshire. At 15,000 activists FSPer's would represent:

Wyoming	4.1% of voters
Idaho	1.6% of voters
New Hampshire	1.6% of voters

So if the FSP is only able to attract 15,000 or so activists to its chosen state, we see that this would give us nearly three times the saturation among voting-age residents in Wyoming as in either Idaho or New Hampshire. Which figure are the politicians likely to take more seriously? Which figure is likely to make more of a difference in a close election? The answer here may very well be tied to our degree of influence and success in implementing our agenda.

3. Urbanization – Largest MSA's

These are the largest metropolitan areas (MSA's – Metropolitan Statistical Areas) that are fully within each candidate state (some may overlap with other states, but these numbers do not incorporate the overlapping portion):

Wyoming	81,607	Cheyenne
Idaho	432,345	Boise City and Nampa
New Hampshire	739,699	Boston-Worcester-Nashua

Why list only the largest MSA's? Because it shows what is likely to be the single most difficult area to access, influence, and reform. Conducting campaigns in more heavily populated areas is generally much more difficult because they tend to be havens of statist thought, government dependency, and entrenched opposition. Welfare recipients and those who are more dependent upon other forms of government assistance (such as public education and housing) are more heavily concentrated in these areas. These folks are the least likely to listen to our political reform message due to the fact that the removal of such programs and services (as we would likely target) would impact them first and foremost.

Densely populated areas are also home to big business interests, which are often directly tied to political offices via campaign contributions and union activism. Our intent to introduce greater competition in the market place, and to remove preferences, would likely cut into the profit margins of such big business entities, earning us their wrath as well as that of their political partners. Political party machines are also generally more entrenched in such areas due to the statist-driven infrastructure that they have put into place and now maintain for a willing constituency.

The media is also a crucial element to larger population areas, and one that we must not underestimate. Most of us realize that the media in this country is overwhelmingly statist-oriented, particularly those media outlets owned and operated by such industry giants as Gannett. Their message is very clearly a Leftist one, and their power to do harm to budding movements such as ours is enormous. They can focus both local and national attention on us, and while this may not necessarily phase us, consider what impact it might have upon the residents of our chosen state should they find themselves being ridiculed before the nation because of something that we are driving. Embarrassment and a desire to avoid controversy could create a backlash against us.

So, for those reasons, I decided to go with the sheer size of the largest MSA's we'd be dealing with. As such, they represent places where campaigns might be cheaper and less time-consuming, but they also represent ascending levels of difficulty with regard to the other factors that I mentioned (which could negate any advantages).

Which of these areas would presumably be easier for 15,000 or 20,000 activists to influence?

4. Political History and Trends

This element reflects the degree to which a state has historically supported lesser-statist or non-statist candidates (over a lengthy period of time). In places where there is a more established history of support for liberty-friendly candidates, we will find an electorate more willing to listen to our message, and perhaps sooner than elsewhere.

Changing a state to be what we would like it to be, will be an uphill battle in many ways, not the least of which is going to be persuading the electorate to deviate from the current statist mentality that pervades this country. But the further an electorate is from our ideological foundation, the longer it will take us to educate them, hence the longer it will likely take for them to support our reform efforts. We will have a large group of activists working together, but we cannot do this by ourselves! We will have to convince a relatively large portion of the present electorate to support us. How tough we make that on ourselves, and thus how long it takes, is up to us.

With this idea, I present two measurements for your consideration:

1. "High Votes for Conservative and Libertarian Presidential Candidates" (from the FSP's State Data Page). This is a ranking of how often our candidates states have supported more liberty-oriented candidates.

   Wyoming	No. 1 of 10
   Idaho	No. 2 of 10
   New Hampshire	No. 7 of 10

2. Analyzing the Freedom Orientation of Existing State Populations by "Tennyson". In this analysis, Tennyson compares how the states voted in the 2000 presidential election and ranks them by what percentages they voted in favor of "Big Government" candidates and "Small Government" candidates.

   Wyoming	71.5% for "Small Gov't" candidates	60,908 to 152,851 votes with 59.7% voter turn-out
   Idaho	70.1% for "Small Gov't" candidates	144,869 to 349,601 votes with 53.7% voter turn-out
   New Hampshire	51% for "Big Gov't" candidates	288,504 to 279,211 votes with 62.3% voter turn-out

The above two measurements show Wyoming and Idaho with a commanding lead over New Hampshire. Note once again the size of voter turn-outs in these states and judge yourself where the FSP's few thousand would have their largest impact on the state vote.
5. Expense of Elections

When the FSPer's first start out, we're going to be low on both cash and experience. We could always team up with the local GOP or libertarians, as has been suggested, and this could have some advantages in saving us time, effort, and expense. However, at the same time, any assistance they render us will basically equate to a level of dependency that we will have on them. They could assist us … at a price. A price that could slow our agenda or end up compromising it completely depending upon the circumstances.

To succeed, we may have to join up with the local GOP (LP, Constitution Party, or what-have-you) but we should also have an environment where we can run our own candidates or at least support worthy candidates outside of main parties, if necessary. Even if we do work within, say the GOP, there will still be: primaries and run-offs; mailings; get-out-the-vote drives; television, radio and newspaper ads to purchase (among a host of other things), and all of this costs money. Our chances to successfully access the system in our candidate states will thus be largely dependent upon how much it costs to get a chance at access.

The three states we are examining rank as follows (from "Low Campaign Expenditures" ("Fin" variable) on the FSP's State Data Page):

Wyoming	No. 3 out of 10
Idaho	No. 5 out of 10
New Hampshire	No. 10 out of 10

6. % Native Population = to FSP Acceptance?

The attitude of our new state's current inhabitants toward new-comers may realistically impact our effectiveness there. Thus, the FSP may be more acceptable to the residents of states in which a higher percentage of persons are not native to that state. For instance, Maine seems to have quite a reputation of being suspicious of those who are "from away." This is not really surprising when you consider that, as of 1990, 70.6% of Maine's population was native-born.

The three states we are examining rank as follows in terms of what percentage of their population is actually native (from a forum thread and thanks to Joe Swyers for compiling):

Wyoming	42.5%	(43.4% in 1990)	No. 2 out of 10
New Hampshire	43.3%	(45.8% in 1990)	No. 3 out of 10
Idaho	47.2%	(52.1% in 1990)	No. 4 out of 10

7. Term limits

Term limits can assist by preventing opposition forces from using the power of incumbency and name-recognition in order to permanently entrench themselves in the legislature. In other words, term limits open up the field to greater competition from those who might not otherwise be able to compete with powerful, well-financed, political elite. This could be a powerful tool for us to gain access to the system in whatever state we choose.

Of these three states, only Wyoming has term limits (which go into effect in 2004).

A voter initiative approved term limits in Idaho; however, the state legislature repealed the measure. Idaho's governor vetoed the repeal, and the legislature then voted to override his veto (50-20 in the House, 26-8 in the Senate). A new effort is currently underway to secure term limits in Idaho.

New Hampshire does not, and has not had, term limits.

8. Initiatives and Referendums

Initiatives allow state voters to bypass the legislature and governor and propose a law or constitutional amendment to be placed on the ballot. Referendums allow voters to vote on a law passed by the legislature in order to keep it from taking effect. Both of these measures can be used to defeat partisan political forces that might otherwise prove unassailable by means of the normal legislative process, and could thus prove invaluable for our purposes.

• Idaho – has both the initiative and referendum, and requires:

  "All petitions for initiative and referendum must contain signatures of registered voters equal to 6% (40,772 signatures) of the qualified electors at the November 5, 2002 general election before being considered for final filing." [Source]

• Wyoming – has both the initiative and referendum, and requires:

  "28,204 (signatures) – 15% of the total votes cast in the 2002 election" [Source]

  Idaho and Wyoming also require that those signing the initiative proposal reside in a specified number of counties. Idaho's process is somewhat simpler although it requires more signatures due to its larger population. (*Note … In Wyoming, the FSP's projected 20,000 would nearly muster enough signatures just by themselves to put an initiative item on the ballot. In Idaho, it would take a little over twice our own number).

• New Hampshire – does not have either the initiative or referendum

9. Unions and Right-to-work Laws

In states without right-to-work laws, you could be required to join a union and pay dues in order to hold a job. Unions are infamous for their political activism, and you could very well find your dues going to support political causes you do not agree with. States with powerful, forced-membership unions would present a difficult obstacle for us, and in many cases, we would be partially financing our own opposition.

Wyoming and Idaho both have right-to-work laws. New Hampshire is not a right-to-work state; however, right-to-work legislation has been introduced there.

One particularly powerful union organization is the teacher's union. They have considerable political clout because of their proximity to "the children," and could give us a real battle when it comes to education reform issues.

Of the three states that we are considering here …

• Wyoming – does not allow for either teacher monopoly bargaining or forced dues (the only one of our ten candidate states that meets this description – putting unions at their least powerful).

• Idaho – allows for teacher monopoly bargaining, but not for forced dues.

• New Hampshire – allows both teacher monopoly bargaining and forced dues.

Some Concluding Thoughts on These Three States

This report could be much longer and more involved; however, I believe that it adequately addresses some of the most important issues in our consideration of which state the FSP should select.

The main thrust of the FSP is an attempt on the part of, we hope, 20,000 activists to transform one state of the Union into a bastion of liberty. Candidate states have been narrowed down based on two criteria to date: 1) population and 2) liberty-orientation.

As explained previously, the FSP's 20,000 activists are targeted at states of no more than 1.2 million inhabitants, based on the Quebec example. This is in order to achieve the maximum possible saturation of FSP activists in relation to the native population of that state. The higher the saturation of FSPer's, the better our chances for success. Two states (Rhode Island and Hawaii) were also eliminated; not due to their populations, but because they are infamous statist strongholds. So population is not even the deciding element by itself. Population and liberty-orientation must both prove to be reasonably favorable.

Of all of our candidate states, and particularly among what appear to be the top three most-considered states, Wyoming stands out strongly due to the fact that it is one of the most liberty-friendly states in the country, and allows us the maximum possible saturation of FSP activists among the general inhabitants due to its low population. Even among the lower population states, Wyoming still maintains a commanding lead.

Here are some other things to consider about these states …

• New Hampshire

New Hampshire boasts some impressive personal liberty provisions and incentives. For instance, seatbelt and helmet usage are not required there, nor is auto liability insurance. New Hampshire ranks 2nd in the FSP's "gun freedom" measurement, and is 2nd in expected job outlook (behind Idaho). New Hampshire has no personal income tax or state sales tax (ranking 2nd of all ten states for overall low taxes), and has elected a number of libertarians to lower offices. (The one libertarian serving in New Hampshire's legislature recently switched to the GOP).

New Hampshire is undoubtedly the freest state in New England; however, it also has some issues that detract from it as being the best state for liberty, as per the FSP's designs.

New Hampshire does not tax goods and services or wages. However, it does have four types of income taxes. New Hampshire taxes dividends, interest, general business revenue, and has a unique tax called the "business enterprise tax." New Hampshire's comparatively high property taxes are also tied to funding for public education, a fact that will make them difficult to reduce as it will bring us into direct conflict with the teacher's unions, which are at their most powerful in this state since New Hampshire allows for both monopoly bargaining and forced dues. This may make both education reform and property tax reductions an almost insurmountable problem in New Hampshire. The short distances between cities in New England, and the region's overall proximity to major statist enclaves such as New York City, Boston, and Burlington also make it likely that Leftist media elements could more easily draw national scrutiny on us, and Leftist sympathizers could easily bus in supporters for rallies and demonstrations. The NAACP is one example of a special interest group that has mastered this tactic. The unions have as well, and such groups are capable of exerting enormous pressure on local businesses and politicians. In New Hampshire, their propaganda masters and other reinforcements would be within easy hailing distance.

New Hampshire has nearly one million voting-age inhabitants and lacks term limits and the initiative and referendum, meaning that state-wide level reforms must be routed through the legislature; and ballot issues must be backed and approved by a larger number of voters. This puts the FSP's potential 20,000 or so activists at a decided disadvantage. Without the initiative and referendum, we will be unable to work around the legislature, meaning that our attempts at reform will lie at the mercy of the major political parties that control state politics. And without term limits, those major political parties will be able to continue fronting the same candidates year after year, making it difficult for us to have a chance at introducing better candidates into the system and have them actually prove viable. Incumbent politicians would be able to use their name-recognition and experience to draw greater funding and essentially eclipse competitors in a number of ways as a result. Thus, New Hampshire's comparatively large population will weigh against us most heavily here.

New Hampshire has a 400-member legislature and very small districts (the smallest having 3,089 people), which can be an advantage in that it may offer more of a chance for more people to participate in the system. However, New Hampshire's districts are growing with its population. Its largest House district is currently at 21,559 inhabitants, which is larger than in any other state, with the exception of Idaho. Legislation has recently been introduced to reduce district size even further, but its passage is not yet certain. Also, on the other side of the legislative coin, New Hampshire has the largest Senate districts of any of our candidate states: 53,000 people, which is far ahead of the closest runners-up, Delaware and Idaho, both of which have Senate districts of more than 38,000.

New Hampshire is the fastest growing state in New England, a factor that is causing problems with regard to providing for education and transportation funding in addition to expanding its electoral districts. These issues are likely to begin driving up taxes in the state and renewing the call for a state income or sales tax. New Hampshire defeated a state income tax attempt in 2002, but the opposition is not likely to vanish into the woodwork. Witness the example of Tennessee where vehement tax protests virtually besieged the state capital on several occasions. However, the legislature still adopted tax increases and more may be on the way. In a related example, Oregon recently defeated an income tax increase measure. The Portland School district is now pushing to implement an income tax on Portland residents strictly to fund education within the Portland MSA. And the powers-that-be in Oregon politics are already working on another sales tax proposal – just a few weeks after their previous attempt was defeated!

New Hampshire is especially vulnerable to new tax proposals due to the fact that the state is nursing a rising budget deficit. It was at $19.7 million in 2002 and is projected to rise to $54.6 million in 2003. This will put additional pressure on the legislature to increase existing taxes or implement new ones. In politics, there is rarely any sort of true "defeat." There is only "next time."

Finance also comes to bear in terms of activism when you consider that New Hampshire ranks at the bottom of our ten states when it comes to expense of elections. The 2002 tax battle in New Hampshire was a costly one. It is evident from this that there are strong political forces at work here, and that they are locked in a determined contest for control of the state's political system. We are at great risk of being out-spent by the opposition in this state.

Also, consider the fact that New Hampshire's neighboring states have little reputation for being liberty-friendly despite the fact that they are FSP candidate states (with the exception of Massachusetts, of course). Vermont might have been dismissed by the FSP for statist tendencies (like Rhode Island) were it not for its "Vermont Carry" provision, which allows anyone to carry a gun without a concealed carry permit. Maine consistently scores at the bottom of our measurements, and Massachusetts is infamous for its statist tendencies.

If the FSP moves into New Hampshire, it will most likely draw freedom-lovers desiring to escape from the oppressive taxes and statist systems in Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts (if not New York as well). This may bolster the FSP's numbers in New Hampshire, but I believe it would also isolate the state. If what freedom-loving element there is in those states leave them for New Hampshire, it seems that they would become even more statist. This could then have the effect of raising a perimeter around New Hampshire, preventing us from being able to expand this movement in the future as the neighboring states would likely be more hostile than ever. It might then be said that New Hampshire could serve as a magnificent contrast to the statist governments of Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts, but the fact of the matter is that it already does! And these states are not changing to conform to it. Why should we expect them to do so in the future, particularly if there are fewer liberty-loving people lobbying for change in them?

Some also fear that statists will flee from the increasing cost of living in nearby locations like Boston due to New Hampshire's growing economy and job market. After all, the population pools that employers will have available to draw new hires from in New Hampshire's region of the country are mostly statist strongholds. If such people do move in, they could effectively dilute the FSP's activists. Thus, either way you look at it, New Hampshire is situated very badly in terms of potential allies and enemies.

• Idaho

Personally, I believe that Idaho is the best choice among the three most populous candidate states: Idaho, Maine, and New Hampshire.

Idaho is at a disadvantage in that it has the largest population of any of our ten candidate states, the largest House districts, and very large Senate districts; however, as you can see below, it has various advantages that place it above New Hampshire in my analysis.

Idaho:

• Has the strongest predicted job growth of all ten states (New Hampshire is 2nd) and is not located as close to major statist enclaves, thus making it less likely to attract statist immigrants seeking better jobs

• Has the lowest number of voting-age inhabitants of our three largest states: 924,923 out of 1,293,653 total inhabitants (as compared to 926,224 out of 1,235,786 total in New Hampshire and 973,685 out of 1,274,923 total in Maine)

• Has the 2nd lowest degree of federal dependence in the West (after Wyoming)

• Has an international border and even port access for those who believe this is a positive (but small and remote enough not to worry others too badly)

• Has the lowest campaign expenditures of the three largest states (ranks 5th overall as compared to 10th for New Hampshire)

• Has the 2nd highest number of votes for conservative and libertarian presidential candidates (after Wyoming, and as compared to 7th for New Hampshire)

• Ties with Wyoming for 3rd place in terms of gun freedom

• Ranks 4th (under New Hampshire) in terms of low number of native residents – 47.2%

• Ties with New Hampshire for 1st in low number of NEA/AFT members

• 1st in economic freedom (as compared to 4th for New Hampshire)

• Has more privately and locally held land than New Hampshire (in fact, Idaho's private and locally held land totals an area greater in size than the entire State of New Hampshire)

• Has some of the most varied terrain and mild temperatures of any of our candidate states – certainly milder than New England (more suitable to a larger number of folks)

• Has the initiative and referendum (for working around a stubborn legislature)

• Has the term limits issue in hot contention as a possible threat to the GOP-dominated legislature (may be a good issue for us)

• Is a right-to-work state

• Empowers teacher's unions less than New Hampshire (allows monopoly bargaining but not forced dues)

• Borders lower population, liberty-friendly states where we could easily expand the movement in the future and build a regional solidarity

• Has a budget deficit but has reduced it substantially from the last fiscal year: $221 million in 2002 to $75 million (projected) in 2003

Idaho is likely to be acceptable to a larger number of both westerners and easterners, and together with its mild climate and vibrant economy, is the most likely (in my opinion) to attract 20,000 or more activists. Adding to this, and in addition to the initiative and referendum, Idaho also gives us a native population that, despite its large size, votes heavily in favor of small government candidates (refer back to the above criteria for details). I also believe that the low population, liberty-friendly neighboring states are a significant factor here. Idaho gives us a more realistic chance of building regional solidarity to oppose the statist power of the growing "mega states" in Washington DC (CA, IL, NY, etc. …)

If we need to pick a higher population state, it seems that Idaho gives us more advantages for dealing with that population, attracting 20,000 activists, and expanding this movement in the future.

• Wyoming
• Has the lowest total and voting-age populations in the country (again, giving us maximum saturation of activists among the inhabitants)

• Has the initiative and referendum

• Has term limits (which go into effect in 2004)

• Has no individual income tax or business tax at all

• Has some of the lowest property taxes in the country

• 2nd lowest gas tax of our candidate states (0.13 – only Alaska is lower with 0.8)

• Has the lowest federal dependence of all the western states (4th out of all 10 states)

• Has the 3rd lowest number of government employees (behind North Dakota and Vermont)

• Has the 3rd smallest House districts of all ten states (no more than 8,230 people), and the 2nd lowest Senate districts (no more than 16,500 people)

• Has the 3rd lowest campaign expenditures of all ten states (after North Dakota and Vermont) – Idaho is 5th, New Hampshire is 10th

• Ranks 1st in high votes for conservative and libertarian presidential candidates (Idaho is 2nd, New Hampshire is 7th)

• Leads all western states (except for Alaska) in highest per capita income (ranks 5th of all 10 states) New Hampshire is 2nd, Idaho is 6th of all ten

• Ranks 1st for lack of state-wide land-use planning (Idaho is 6th, New Hampshire is 7th)

• Ties for 3rd with Idaho for favorable gun laws (New Hampshire is 2nd)

• Ranks 1st for gun ownership rates and gun shows (88% est. gun-ownership rate – Idaho had an est. 76% and New Hampshire had an estimated 36%) (Wyoming had 50 gun shows in 2000 – Idaho had 49, New Hampshire had 17)

• 2nd lowest number of unionized laborers – 20,000 (North Dakota is 1st with 19,000 – Idaho has 42,000 to New Hampshire's 60,000)

• Ranks 1st for low numbers of unionized teachers (5,713 to Idaho's 11,132 and New Hampshire's 11,834)

• Ranks 3rd for "low level of city urbanization" on the state data page (1st of all western states) – New Hampshire is 8th, Idaho is 9th

• Ranks 2nd under "livability" on the state data page (New Hampshire is 1st, Idaho is 8th)

• Ranks 2nd for lowest number of native-born inhabitants (42.5%) – New Hampshire is 3rd, Idaho is 4th

• Ranks 2nd under "economic freedom" (Idaho is 1st, New Hampshire is 4th)

• Ranks 4th in "more private and locally owned land" (Idaho is 5th, New Hampshire is 9th)

• Has no state budget deficit – has a $1.8 billion surplus (very unlikely there will be any call for new taxes here, in fact, Wyoming is considering lowering its 4% sales tax)

• Has a large royalty income from mining activities (the source of its $1.8 billion surplus), which helps fund education and various aspects of government, giving the FSP an opportunity to lower or eliminate other types of taxes (it also shows fiscal prudence on the part of Wyoming – this fund has existed and grown steadily since 1974)

• Borders several other FSP candidate states where this movement could spread (Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota)

• Wyoming's population is concentrated in several pockets throughout the state (such as Cheyenne and Casper), but the population in these areas is not as high as that in other larger areas like Boise City or Anchorage, or the Wilmington and Boston MSA's. This means that more of our activists will be voting and otherwise supporting one another in the same elections, enhancing their group strength without spreading it too thin or presenting it with too large and powerful of a target. Our combined numbers would thus be more manifest on the town, county, and state levels here.

Wyoming is also closer to large population centers than any other western candidate state. Denver is within 90 minutes of Cheyenne, the state capitol, and Boulder is even closer. Fort Collins, Colorado is only 45 minutes from Cheyenne. Salt Lake City is one and a half hours from Wyoming (Park City, Utah, part of the Salt Lake MSA, is only one hour and 10 minutes from Wyoming). So Wyoming, while it does not have many inhabitants or "big city" amenities itself, is closer to both than any other western candidate. The Denver area is also growing and expanding toward Wyoming, and we will be close enough to reap the benefits of that economic progress; however, we will also have the state line between ourselves and Colorado – keeping that state's more statist politics at bay. And despite this growth trend, the immigration rate into Wyoming is yet low enough that it is not affecting Wyoming politics and infrastructure to any great degree.

Additionally, we have a chance to help Wyoming diversify its economy, something that it needs and wants to do. By moving in people and jobs from all over the country, we can help diversify the state economy and raise the standard of living to a degree that would be impossible for us to duplicate in Idaho or New Hampshire where the economies are more robust and the people more affluent. Not only would this be a very positive thing for the people of Wyoming, but it would also be an opportunity for us to diminish our "outsider" image and prove that we are coming to contribute to Wyoming, not just "using" it.

In terms of more "livability" elements, Wyoming's climate and terrain are greatly varied (it has the third warmest winters of our ten candidate states), a fact that would make it easier for FSPer's to find someplace to live that is more in line with their expectations and desires. States like New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Alaska, and North Dakota are well-known for their harsh winter conditions. New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine are definitely located well within the snow-belt as well (for those of you who don't enjoy shoveling the stuff). Parts of Wyoming can have harsh wintertime conditions as well, but there are also other areas with milder conditions, a choice that we won't have to the same degree with small states like VT and NH. And again, there are also urban areas and open countryside, making it possible for a larger number of FSPer's to find more acceptable and desirable places to live than states where most of the population is concentrated in one certain part of the state.

Wyoming – the Best State for Liberty?

All of these elements working together, and combined with the fact that Wyoming allows the FSP a chance at the maximum possible saturation of activists to residents, places Wyoming head-and-shoulders above the other nine candidate states. Nowhere else do we have this number of benefits and liberty-friendly elements along with so low of a burden for each FSP activist. Nowhere else could we have so great an impact so very quickly – simply by being there and voting. And nowhere else will our natural opposition be as weak (the NEA, and other unions and special interests – both in sheer numbers and political machinery). Wyoming is also located farther away from the statist media and political elements (including special interest groups) that could damage us so badly if we were located closer to statist enclaves like Boston and New York.

Again, consider the notion that the FSP could fall short of 20,000 participants; or even if it gets all 20,000 that they might not be as activist as necessary for one of the larger states. Even 20,000 libertarians who confined their activism to voting could make an impact of some sort in any of these states, or gather together and hold influence over a few towns or counties, but could they achieve a free state? And when you consider that 8,000 to 10,000 in Wyoming could accomplish as much if not more than 20,000 in Idaho or New Hampshire, consider what 20,000 in Wyoming could do!

As has been pointed out in our discussions already, a few libertarians forming a township or gaining a majority influence in a county might be able to enact a number of reforms; however, the extent of what they could accomplish could be severely curtailed by the state government. States simply have much more political power than town and county governments. They also have representation in the United States Congress. Thus, if it is at all possible, we should try our best to go somewhere that would allow us a greater voice in the state government.

Wyoming presents us with a very real chance at achieving a majority representation in a state legislature and thus a very real chance at "liberty in our lifetime." Overall, it makes us less reliant upon the various unknown elements that we face in other states such as: "will we have enough?" or "will they really move?" or "will they do the work that's necessary to succeed?" Any of these elements could be fatal to our efforts in the higher population states. In Wyoming, they hurt us the least because our numbers count for so much more even before anything else is considered.

---

Thank you for considering this perspective on what may be the most important decision that we ever make.

In particular, my thanks go out to Joe Swyers, Keith Carlsen, and Paul Bonneau for the time and effort they have expended in gathering and posting much of this data.

See the thread on the FSP forum for a compilation of various threads relating to the state decision.

State Report NH 3: Welcome to New Hampshire

Welcome to New Hampshire

by Howard S. Katz

Greetings from the White Mountains where the winters are cold and the women are beautiful. I want to tell members of the Free State Project a bit about our state to help you make a more informed choice.

Previously I have lived in three statist areas (Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New York) but moved to New Hampshire in 1999. New Hampshire is a conservative state, in the good sense of that word (referring to conservative Americans of the 1950s, not to European conservatives). The credit for this belongs to William Loeb, publisher of The Union Leader. Loeb turned his paper into a fierce enemy of the welfare state, and it remains so today. It is the dominant paper in the state and, while not completely libertarian, manifests a lot of good common sense.

Crime is very low. In 1999, our total crime rate was the lowest in the nation. The first winter I was here I was startled to find motorists leaving their engines idling (key in ignition) while they ran into the donut shop for coffee. In the small town of Brookline, in which I resided for a while (population 4,000), there was no case of murder in the 20th century. The right to keep and bear arms is specifically protected by the state constitution.

Using the SATs to measure education (not good, but at least objective), New Hampshire can claim to be the best in the country. There are states which score higher, but these states have a much smaller percentage of their population taking the test (hence only the smarter kids). Among states where more than 60% of the students take the SAT, New Hampshire regularly gets the highest scores.

New Hampshire is alive with small-business people. Almost everywhere you look there are small plazas, or shopping malls, or little alleys, peppered with small businesses. There is the same hustle and bustle that characterized most of America in the 1950s. You can pretty much go into any major city in the state without seeing loiterers. New Hampshire goes year after year with the lowest unemployment rate in New England. In 2001, our unemployment rate was 43rd nationally. And our personal income per capita ranks 6th ($34,334 in 2002).

Americans are fleeing most Northeastern states. The more statist ones are losing native population and only grow at all due to foreign immigrants. But New Hampshire is gaining population at a rate of about 18% per decade, and has more than doubled in size over the past half century. There is no specific economic or technological event (such as oil vis-à-vis Texas, gold discoveries vis-à-vis California, or air conditioning vis-à-vis Florida) to explain this population movement.

The state's motto was coined by General John Stark during the Revolutionary War. Recruiting a militia unit to march to the aid of Massachusetts (in what later turned out to be the battle of Bunker Hill), he told his men, "Live free or die." Stark's unit also played an important role in the battle of Saratoga.

New Hampshire has the highest mountains in the East, and the pine trees make the air clean and sweet. We are tied with Rhode Island for the second safest state (1.0 fatalities per 100,000,000 vehicle miles, in 2001). And the people here have a passionate interest in politics. There are many small newspapers of different views. There are only about 2,500 citizens per state legislator, and the latter are paid $100 per year. As a result, anybody can run for the state House of Representatives (two-year residency requirement). You can win election in many districts with just 2,000 votes, and in some places 1,000 votes will make you a state rep. You can reach voters by standing in the center of town or at the town dump and handing out leaflets; or for a small cost you can do a mailing. Although the state is clearly Republican, any given election can go either way.

New Hampshire has neither an income tax nor a sales tax. There are some minor exceptions to this but nothing significant. In 1999, New Hampshire ranked lowest in general revenue going to the state government on a per capita basis (Statistical Abstract 2001, p. 279)

There are a great many businesses located right on the Massachusetts border to attract Bay Staters trying to avoid their state's sales tax. These businesses employ a lot of people and pay a lot of municipal property tax. So there is an enormous vested interest against a state sales tax. On those rare occasions when the idea is floated, it dies a miserable death. A campaign was recently made for a state income tax (to obey the Supreme Court's very bad educational funding decision). The Democrat who led the fight was at first repudiated by his own party. When he was finally given the nomination, he suffered a dismal defeat. I expect that this was the death knell for the state income tax in New Hampshire as a practical political issue for the foreseeable future.

Statists from Massachusetts have tried to argue that New Hampshire's low state taxes are offset by high (municipal) property taxes. This is not true. Municipalities in New Hampshire have pretty much the same functions as anywhere in the country: education and police. Tax rates in New Hampshire are a little higher than in Massachusetts (which is limited by state law to 2.5%). In my town the rate is 2.8% on assessed valuation. But this is offset by the fact that land values in New Hampshire are much lower (for a Northeastern state close to a major job center); thus the amount of property tax the average person pays is probably lower than in Massachusetts (although I have not done the statistical work on this point).

If the Free State Project does choose New Hampshire, then the first order of business should be to start a newspaper in the southern part of the state (where there is minimal competition with The Union Leader). The Nashua Telegraph is a juicy target.

By the way, we New Englanders do not drop our "r"s. We do have a broad "A". And we do not talk the way JFK talked. (He was Irish and made a bad imitation of a Boston Yankee accent.)

So, if you want to come, we would love to have you.

NH for Porcupines?

New Hampshire for Porcupines?

Tim Condon, FSP Member Services Director
Speech at Lancaster, NH FSP Gathering
6/22/2003

 

Before we get started, I just want to ask all of you: Have all of you been having as much fun looking through this (hold up atlas) as I have? I mean, I'm lying around reading this thing like a 12-year-old boy reading a secret copy of Playboy. Checking every little twist and turn (hold up a state like a Playboy centerfold). Woo WWOOOO! It's a book of *maps*! We must be crazy!

Okay, okay. First, "What am I doing here?" I'm the guy who wrote an article for the Free State Project saying that North Dakota would be the best state to choose for the Freestate (!). THEN I wrote another article changing my mind, and saying "Mea culpa! *Wyoming* would be the best state for us to choose! And here I am giving a speech saying, "No, no, let's choose New Hampshire!"

Actually, I'm here because I got in trouble with all the rest of the Free State Project leadership. Every one of the rest of them has been scrupulous and I mean *scrupulous* about being evenhanded and secretive about what state or states they favor. I mean, *I* don't even know what states Jason likes...or Elizabeth...or Debra Ricketts...or any of the rest of the FSP leadership.

Of course, it wasn't an *announced* policy...it was just sort of agreed upon among everyone else. But...as you may have noticed...I love to get out there in the middle of the fray, and flail away (and haven't we been doing some *flailing* lately...). So I couldn't resist writing about what state *I* thought we should choose. The problem was, I didn't know all about the previous history where the FSP leadership had first been accused of being "pro-eastern." And then later on they got loudly condemned for being pro- *western*. And then back to the East. And then the West again. Once I found out about it, it was like watching a ping pong match. East, West, East, West.

And so into that mess I threw my hat. Then Whoa! Here comes the rest of the leadership at me! "You blew it Condon! You were supposed to keep your opinions to yourself! We're supposed to be publicly neutral!" Blah, blah, blah. Of course I'm saying "I'm sorry! I'm sorry! I'm sorry!" Hell, I didn't know the conspiracy-nuts were going to say "AHA! That *proves* it, for once and for all! They're Pro-West!" Oh sheesh. I offered to remove my Wyoming mea culpa article, but Elizabeth said, "It's too late, you've already let the cat out of the bag."

And even *that* remark was seized upon: "AHA! That proves that the whole leadership is pro-Wyoming! Condon let the cat out of the bag!" Oh man...I felt terrible.

But then I had an idea. Jason and Debra went to the Grand Western Conference. Why not have me go to the New Hampshire Conference along with Elizabeth? Not only could I visit, but I could and would talk about what a great choice New Hampshire would be! Easy for me to do, too! Because I've been very public that I will move to *any* state that is chosen. I like them *all*! And not because they are "equal" in desirability, but because I cannot imagine a better place to live than the Free State. No matter *where* it turns out to be, it will be a place where people are left alone to pursue their own happiness.

What, I ask you, is so hard about that? There must be *something* hard about it...because it seems so...*radical*.

So that's what I'm doing here. I want to talk to you about just how *great* a choice New Hampshire would be for the Free State! And in saying that, I thank Rich Tomasso, Michele Dumas, and *all* your activists who have been so tireless in promoting New Hampshire. Remember, the *national* libertarian executive committee refused to endorse the Free State Project after a full presentation by Jason Sorens. You all, by contrast, have stepped right up to the plate, and I am both impressed and thankful for what you're doing.

So onward. The first thing I thought of when I discovered I was reeeeally going to talk about New Hampshire was to re-examine my own thoughts and prejudices. What I found was that my whole position was based upon giving overwhelming weight to population. Anyone who has read my North Dakota and Wyoming articles is aware of that.

Well then, I thought, what better thing to do than tear off my population-centric blinders, and take *another* look *without* thinking about population first, last, and always. A very interesting thing happened. I found myself looking at New Hampshire through new eyes. My new view related more toward "Niceness," whereas my former view had been concentrating almost solely on population numbers. "Niceness versus numbers." I like that. All of a sudden, New Hampshire starts looking better, and better, and *better*.

There's another reason it was pretty easy to get rid of my population- centric view. As I realized, really *all* the 10 Free State Project candidate states are "low population." Including New Hampshire! Only when we look at New Hampshire in relation to the other 9 candidate states does it become "high population." But in relation to the other *40* states in the U.S., it's *low* population. And that is why I say that *any* of the 10 states will be a good choice, and I'll move to whichever one is chosen.

 

So let's take a look at New Hampshire now without an emphasis on population. How does it stack up then? Quite well, as it turns out, especially when given the weights of characteristics that *I* think are important. Let's talk about them now.

The Free State Project "state data lists" are divided into two parts:

1. The "General Data" which includes stuff like population, land area, geography, crime rates, urbanization information, etc. We've all pored over all the variables forever, so I don't need to list them all.

2. The *second* data list is labeled "Economic and Political Data." To my mind it includes much more important variables such as federal, state and local government spending; dependency on federal monies flowing back into the state, taxes as a percentage of income, levels of 2nd amendment freedom, etc. Again, we've all seen them all.

In total, there are 24 separate variables, and that doesn't count the constant drumbeat of debate and further information supplied through the forums and email lists. No matter which state wins, this is going to be an extremely well *informed* vote.

 

Now let's take a look at some of those variables individually. First the general information list. Other than population, I don't think most of those variables are very important. Big state? Little state? Who cares, as long as we're free? Many people argue that a small state gives freedom-fighters an upper hand, I know; but socialists and other statists have the same advantages and disadvantages that we do, so we're all on pretty level ground. Out of these 12 variables, I'll only mention four that I think are important other than population:

1. Many people argue that a coastline and/or an international border are extremely important features. I do not, although I will say that they're both nice to have. New Hampshire is the only state other than Maine that has both, other than Alaska, which is just. Too. Far. Away. So that's a nice feature of New Hampshire, but not dispositive in my mind.

2. Insularity is another piece of data that I think is more important than most of the other variables. We try to measure this by looking at how many people living in a state were *born* in the state. If the percentage is high, they're probably not going to welcome "outsiders" with open arms. If there's a large non-native population, they'll probably be more welcoming. New Hampshire comes out nicely on this measure: It has the third lowest percentage of native-born residents, after Alaska and Wyoming, so it's definitely in the running.

3. Another somewhat important variable is the "livability" rating. New Hampshire comes in first out of all the 10 candidate states.

4. Crime statistics. *Again* New Hampshire comes in first. Not bad! In the general data specifics that I regard as most important, New Hampshire shows as very strong; it's either solidly in the running, or is first among the 10.

But let's take our leave of the General Data list and go over to the Economic and Political Data list. To my mind these variables are far more important. And BOY! does New Hampshire *shine*! Out of 12 variables, it comes in #1 five times (tied for first place in two of them), #2 three times, and #3 in two more. That means that out of 12 variables New Hampshire comes in in first, second, or third place TEN times, or 83.3% of the time! NO other state racks up a score like that.

 

Let's just stroll through a few of these, often the ones I think are the most important, and see how New Hampshire scores on each one. Remember, these are the variables that *I* think are most important, after we put aside the population and voting population variables:

1. Federal, state, and local government spending as a percentage of gross state product: First place.

2. State and local government spending as a percentage of gross state product: First place.

3. Dependence on federal monies; that is, the amount of money that comes back into the state for every dollar sent to Washington: First place. (This is a variable that I originally didn't think was that important; but now I see that it can have a huge effect on Liberty in our Lifetime.)

4. State and local taxes as a percentage of income: Second place, and that only behind Alaska, which is too far *out* there. So *really* we can call New Hampshire first in this variable also.

5. New jobs generated. Lots of people argue that this is a crucial dataset; I'm not so sure, because I believe it's a sword that cuts both ways. However, it's worth noting that New Hampshire comes in #2.

6. Gun freedom. Okay. I admit it. I'm a "single issue voter." I'm not a big hunter, and I don't even shoot that much for fun. I haven't been to a shooting range for *years*. And yet...I will never under any circumstances vote for a candidate who doesn't support the 2nd amendment..no matter *how* good they are on other issues. New Hampshire comes in #2 in this measure, and only behind its next-door neighbor Vermont. Not bad!

7. Percentage of state population employed by state and local government. Well, I don't think that this is one of the more important measures, because there are going to be Porcupines who work for government; gotta make a living, and there's got to be *some* government, with good people working in it. Nevertheless...New Hampshire is #1 along with Delaware, of all places.

8. And finally, NEA and AFT membership. Teachers unions are a huge mainstay of socialist political candidates in America. Along with other public employee unions, they are one of the most important constituencies of the Democratic Party. And I am proud to say that I'm married to a public school teacher in Florida, who is a flaming conservative Republican...and she refuses to join the teachers union. New Hampshire? #1 along with Idaho.

 

There are two other variables that don't show up on the state data lists, but they're worth mentioning here. One is the incredible energy and dynamism of the libertarians and Porcupines already in this state. My hat is off to you all. And the second is the "political angle," that is things like fusion voting, small legislative districts, part-time representatives, etc. As a result, New Hampshire has far more libertarians who have already been voted into office than any of the other candidate states. Hats off to you again!

Only in government land control schemes and presidential voting does New Hampshire fall back in the pack. We'll just have to work on those.

All in all, I must say that New Hampshire has great advantages to offer a movement seeking Liberty in our Lifetime. As someone wrote recently on one of the FSP email lists, "What's not to like about a state that has Live Free or Die as its state motto?" I can only echo that feeling.

The state motto may be part of what we might call "intangibles." People "feel" better about one state or another, and often plan to vote accordingly. I must say, after driving through some of the state yesterday, it's one of the most beautiful states in the country, bar none.

 

Summing up...New Hampshire has got a real shot at it. No question about that. But it's not a slam-dunk either. Keep that in mind. I think it's clearly "the choice" on the east coast of the U.S. In the meantime, Montana and Wyoming are fighting it out in the west. And that brings me to the last part of my talk. I want to talk to you all about unity. I want to repeat the mantra here, "united we stand, divided we fall." I have been preaching that for several weeks now on the FSP email lists, and I am gratified to see that at least Ben Irvin has piped down, and even extended an olive branch by saying that he would be here if he could be, and he wishes he could attend.

In the meantime, it seems like many of the Porcupines are just going crazy on the email lists and forums. All of us in the leadership have noted how touchy and explosive people are getting. It's obvious that people are getting itchy as "The Vote" approaches. Possibly the most important vote in the history of America.

As I have written, the state chosen as the Free State is going to be the luckiest state in the history of our country. It is going to be a beacon. It is going to be a model. I like to refer to it as "America's little Hong Kong." It will foster an explosion of human potential, creativity, economic energy, and entrepreneurial activity such as has never before been seen in the world. It is going to be extraordinary.

But in order for it to happen, we must unite under the banner of the Free State Project. Not a Free State east. Or a Free State west. But THE Free State. We have to do it together. Why? Because lots and lots of people don't think it can be done. Even libertarians, as we have seen, are pooh-poohing the idea. And if we split our forces now, if we weaken ourselves by dividing our numbers...we. may. *not* succeed.

For those of you who don't want to move out of the east, I say that's fine. I say the same thing to those who won't move out of the west. But listen to me, Porcupines: "There will be a second Free State." But there will only be a *second* Free State if we are successful in the *first* Free State! If New Hampshire is chosen, give us five or six years to start the transformation, to show some results, and *then* we can look west, to start the second Free State, probably either in Montana or Wyoming. If a western state is chosen, give us five or six years to make some changes, win some elections, and show what can be done, and *then* we can cast out eyes east, and look to starting up a second, eastern Free State.

But today we must all unite in the Cause to ensure our success in the *first* Free State. I wasn't able to get Ben Irvin to commit to moving east if an eastern state wins. More's the pity, even though I got in his face online about it. And I'm sure there is a core of eastern state supporters who have opted out of all the western states. They will not move west no matter what. And that is within the rules; that's why we allow you to opt out of whatever states you want, as long as you don't opt out of them all. All I can say, to those who won't move east, and those who won't move west is, at least keep on supporting the Free State Project. At least don't fracture and divide us at this crucial juncture. At least be supportive of those pioneers who *are* moving to the Free State. For if we do all of us---then our movement for freedom, human dignity, and Liberty in our Lifetimes can spread everywhere...from the mountains...to the prairies...to the oceans...and from sea to shining sea.

Thank you all.

State Report NH 1: New Hampshire Report 1

New Hampshire Report

by Amy Day

(See also New Hampshire Report #2 and the New Hampshire Libertarians' Welcome to the Granite State Committee.)

My parents moved to New Hampshire from Massachusetts when I was 10, so I've lived here all my adult life (I'm 27). Coincidentally 2 other families in our Massachusetts neighborhood also moved to New Hampshire around the same time, but my family and these 2 others moved to northern New Hampshire. Currently Massachusetts immigrants are moving into the southern region, while continuing to work in Massachusetts. My husband currently works in Massachusetts because he can get paid more working there than in New Hampshire. Thus we pay Massachusetts income tax, plus the high New Hampshire property tax so we get the worst of both worlds. But the reason people are doing this is that housing in the Boston area is so high as to make the high prices in New Hampshire affordable. The housing market has been pushed out of the reach of many low income New Hampshire residents. They are exasperated by town zoning and building rules that are keeping the number of new houses down and keeping the cost of new housing high.

New Hampshire is a beautiful state. Our 18 miles of seacoast are enough room for beaches (public and private), harbors, and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, though the PNS has been claimed by Maine and the powers that be have said it is Maine's. This is unsurprising given the tax issue. If it were in New Hampshire, the New Hampshire residents who work there wouldn't be paying the income tax Maine currently collects.

A couple of hours drive from the seacoast and you are in the White Mountains. They are not as high as the Rocky Mountains but they are beautiful. You can camp, hike, and hunt in them, and in the winter you can ski them. We have Mount Washington, the highest peak in the northeast.

The climate in NH includes a lot more precipitation than many western states. Average precipitation is around 40 inches, depending on the area. In the southern part of the state the average temperature in July is 70 and in Jan it is 22. In the northern part of the state the summer temperature is a few degrees less, and the winter temperature is 7-12 degrees less.

In the northern counties, temperature is not the only thing that is lower. The income of the average person is less. In Coos County, the northernmost county, the HUD Median Income Estimate for 2001 was $39,200. In Hillsborough County, one of the southern counties that border the state of Massachusetts, the HUD Median Income Estimate for 2001 was $58,000. The national HUD Median Income Estimate for 2001 was $52,500.

Our state has been pushing recently for the government to buy land and conservation easements on land. Currently Senator Gregg is working on getting the state $8 million in federal money to purchase a conservation easement on 171,500 acres, this would be 1/3 of the total cost. My town of Exeter has been purchasing conservation easements on land in town. Part of the money comes from the state and part from the town budget. This is happening statewide.

The government in our state has different ways to control development. On the state level there is current use taxing. An undeveloped piece of land is taxed at a lesser rate. When it is developed, one must pay a tax of 10% of the value. My own town has an impact fee. This is a fee one must pay to the town when you get the permit to build a housing unit. The amount is based on the impact a new residence will have on the town-provided facilities.

Towns also have restrictive zoning. They make lot requirements of 1 or more acres. With the limited product and high demand, prices are very high. Current prices in my town are: for a 1.25-2 acre building lot, it is from $125,000-$150,000. They also are very restrictive on building multi-unit houses. An example would be an 11-acre piece of land we looked at. Due to zoning restrictions we would only be allowed to build one single-family house on the land (definitely no multi-units), and we could not subdivide it. It is almost impossible to find a piece of land that allows multi-unit homes. Nationwide in 2001, 25% of housing permits were for multi-unit housing. In New Hampshire in 2001, only 9% of permits were for multi-unit housing. This has helped cause apartment rents to increase. In two southern counties, median rents for a 2 bedroom apartment (not including utilities) are $880 in Rockingham county and $860 in Hillsborough county.

In the city of Manchester, rental property is inspected every 3 years. You are required to give the inspector access to the entire house. This process is fraught with bribery and corruption. We had bought a building less than a year before its next inspection date. The inspection showed thousands of dollars in repairs were needed. Granted the building was old and we had planned on doing some updating, but most of the things that needed repairs had been that way for years. There were two long-term tenants, and they told us these problems had existed since they started renting there, and there had been an inspector in that building 3 years ago and he didn't cite the previous owner. In talking to other landlords and tenants in the city I have come to believe that if you get the right inspector and you give him some money, he won't find anything wrong with your apartment. In another building, a tenant had taken batteries out of a smoke detector, so since it wasn't working we were not grandfathered in, so we had to meet the new standard that there had to be built in smoke detectors. That was a few years ago, I believe that all must meet the new standard now.

There is an education-funding problem going on in our state right now. In 1997 the New Hampshire Supreme Court declared that the traditional method of using local property taxes to pay for schooling was unconstitutional. Not that it was unconstitutional for the towns to steal from its property owners. But that it was the state's responsibility to provide an adequate education. They based this decision on article 83 of our constitution which says "Knowledge and learning, generally diffused through a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government; and spreading the opportunities and advantages of education through the various parts of the country, being highly conducive to promote this end; it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools, to encourage private and public institutions, rewards, and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and economy, honesty and punctuality, sincerity, sobriety, and all social affections, and generous sentiments, among the people. . . ." Now did you get the part where it says the state has to pay for education? I didn't. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has learned from the federal Supreme Court how to twist the constitution to say what they want it to say.

This decision by the court has caused educational funding unrest that continues to today. The state instituted a statewide property tax, but the court doesn't like it, so the state needs to come up with another way. I believe the goal of the courts is to force the legislature (which is cowering before the power of the court) to enact an income tax.

The current method of a statewide property tax consists of the state imposing a $5.80 per $1000 of assessed value. This is collected by the state and distributed to the towns based on the number of students. The result is that some towns send in more than they receive and other towns receive more than they pay in (just like all government wealth distribution methods). So the state has been divided into donor towns and receiver towns. The different towns have banded together to enhance their voice in Concord. The donor towns to abolish this mess, and the receiver towns, to make sure they keep getting money. And as usually happens, the receiver towns out number the donor towns, and since this is a democracy the majority rules.

Another point in all these shenanigans is that the poorer towns were complaining that they needed more money to provide a better education. But when they received the extra money, they used it to offset their education spending thus reducing the amount the town needed to raise, allowing the town to spend more of its own money on other things, and not increasing their education spending. This education funding mess has the whole state in turmoil and I believe it doesn't bode well for our freedoms.

August 6, 2002

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of the Free State Project, its Officers, or Directors.

New Hampshire Report 4: Examining Population and Political Accessibility

Examining Population and Political Accessibility

By Keith Murphy
Baltimore, MD

The author has directly managed nine campaigns for state legislative office in Maryland, resulting in six victories. In addition, he has consulted for numerous local races in Baltimore City. These services have included all aspects of campaign management, from analyzing district demographics and voter files to fundraising to production of literature and signs to organizing volunteers and door-to-door. He is eagerly awaiting the opportunity to put this experience to work for those who share his political viewpoints, in the free state.

Introduction

Boosters of small population states, such as Wyoming, Montana, Vermont, and Delaware, will be happy to tell you that the population factor is crucial to the success of the project. It is a cornerstone of the FSP.

But why? Why does population matter?

The typical answer is that the more people are in a given state, the more difficult it will be to reach a required saturation point, a tipping point, in order to achieve the political power it will take to put the state on a course to liberty. Thus, small-state boosters claim, 20,000 activists in New Hampshire are equivalent to only 7,500 in Wyoming.

This is an extremely simplistic way of measuring the states against each other, and could lead to an uninformed vote. It assumes that all other things are equal. But the states are not equal, and there are real and distinct differences between them. For example, isn't it logical that population is only a concern to the degree that the native population leans against us? Would the FSP have a better chance in a state with low taxes and a live-and-let-live attitude, with a population of a million, or in a state of 600,000 with high taxes and onerous infringements on personal liberty? While there inarguably is not yet a fully libertarian state, some are clearly closer to the ideal than others. The closer a state comes to that ideal, the more irrelevant the population factor becomes. This is why members spend so much time weighing and arguing about tax rates, gun laws, drug arrests, and other rough indicators of a state's "libertarian-ness."

But when considering the impact of population on the state choice, there may be another factor that's even more important than political culture. From the FSP site:

The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S., where they may work within the political system to reduce the size and scope of government.

Even more than population, this whole project is dependent on the accessibility of the political system of the chosen state! Even if the given state has a small population, and leans libertarian politically, if the doors to power are closed to us by stifling election laws, all of our efforts will have been in vain. Many of these election laws are directly related to the population issue.

• Each state has different district sizes for their legislature.
• Some states allow multi-member districts, and some do not.
• Some have fusion, and some do not.
• Some have nonpartisan local races, and some do not.
• The ballot access requirement varies widely from one state to the next.
• From a logistical viewpoint, campaigns are more difficult in some states than others, due to geographic features.
• The form of local government is very different from state to state.
• Finally, one state offers an executive council.

A brief overview of these features is provided here.

District Size

Population is only relevant to the state-choice issue for the effect that it has upon our ability to influence the political reality of the chosen state. But each state has very different systems, producing varying districts of very different sizes. District size for each office is one of the key components of understanding the relevance of population, as it provides some measure of the work to be done to begin to take power from the existing political structure.

Even if you ignore differences in political culture, the overall population number is only relevant for those select offices that have the entire state as its district. For example, if you assume that Wyoming and New Hampshire are equally libertarian, then it should be easier to win the governorship of Wyoming than that of New Hampshire, as the number of votes required is substantially less. The same would apply to other statewide offices, such as state's attorney, treasurer, etc. Given the tremendous undertaking of running a credible campaign for these statewide offices, in any of the ten states, it is inevitable that our initial efforts will be concentrated on offices with many less constituents, such as state legislative office and local offices.

The district size is (per the US Supreme Court's disastrous decision in Baker v. Carr) decided by dividing the state's population by the number of seats. This gives the "ideal" district size. Every ten years, following the census, state legislators pore over voter demographic data, and (being careful to include their major campaign contributors in their district and making it as hard as possible for opposing parties) redraw the district lines to account for shifts in population. Each district must be within 5% of the ideal district size, a measure the Supreme Court apparently found under the sofa cushions. As noted above, in general it is true that the smaller the district size the easier it is to win, as the fewer voters that must be courted to achieve victory. The smallest house districts in the nation can be found in New Hampshire, beginning at 2,987 citizens. Vermont comes in next, with 4,059 citizens for its single-member districts. Wyoming can boast the smallest uniform districts, with an ideal district population of 8,230.

State Legislative Districts

State	Ideal House	Multi- Member	Ideal Senate
Alaska	15,673	No	31,346
Delaware	19,112	No	37,314
Idaho	36,962	Yes	36,962
Maine	8,443	No	36,426
Montana	9,022	No	18,044
New Hampshire	3,089	Yes	51,491
North Dakota	13,106	Yes	13,106
South Dakota	21,567	Yes	21,567
Vermont	4,059	Yes	20,294
Wyoming	8,230	No	16,460

Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota all have two-member districts. Vermont has a mix of single-member and two-member districts. New Hampshire is a peculiar case, because of a state constitutional provision that prohibits splitting towns without their permission. This results in multi-member districts of varying size, as detailed below.

Multi-Member Districts

Multi-member districts may be "at large", meaning that all members represent all constituents, or they may be broken into sub-districts. Multi-member districts that are broken into sub-districts (A, B, etc.) usually cover large geographic areas, the given rationale usually being that legislators should live reasonably close to their constituents. Sub-districts usually operate just like single-member districts, in that constituents go into the booth and cast just one vote for that office. In comparison, in at-large districts voters go into the booth and cast as many votes as there are seats. Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota all have two-member house districts, some of which are broken into sub-districts and some of which are not. In New England, the unit of political power is not counties but towns, and districts are drawn in such as way so as to avoid splitting towns wherever possible. The New Hampshire Constitution actually forbids splitting towns without their concurrence, resulting in a wide variety of district sizes. Where Vermont's house consists entirely of one-member and two-member districts, New Hampshire's house districts each have between one and fourteen seats, with the majority of districts having between three and five seats. New Hampshire and Vermont have no sub-districts, as do some of the larger western states.

The practical effect of at-large multi-member districts is that voters get as many votes as there are seats. The major parties sometimes have difficulty finding candidates to run for all the seats in a large district, and it is easy to court the "extra" votes of a constituent. If a Republican has ten votes, and only has eight Republicans to vote for, he is much more likely to give one or both of his extra votes to a Libertarian than a Democrat. Of course, the same is true of a Democrat. Party loyalists are much more likely to vote for a third-party member than they are for "that other party." For example, in 2002 the Wyoming LP ran Marie Brossman for Secretary of State against an incumbent Republican. The Democrats did not field a candidate. It was a brilliant move that paid off handsomely, as Ms. Brossman received 17% of the vote and gave the LP major party status in Wyoming until 2006.

Those states with at-large multi-member districts offer an electoral advantage over those that don't. New Hampshire – with its wide variety of district sizes, offering constituents up to 14 votes each – is particularly attractive in this category.

Fusion

Fusion allows a candidate to run for office under two or more parties simultaneously. In the nineteenth century, fusion was a regular occurrence throughout the nation, but it was such an opportunity for third parties that the major parties worked in concert to ban it in most states. Of the ten candidate states, it is only possible (with slight variances in application) in Vermont, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, South Dakota, and New Hampshire. Of these six states, it would appear that fusion only regularly occurs in Vermont and New Hampshire. The other states could require an attorney general's opinion and a court case to establish a modern precedent, and the first successful use of fusion could trigger a belated effort by the major two parties to ban it.

When a third-party candidate runs under a major party banner, several important things are accomplished. First, the major party includes the nominee on all campaign literature, effectively paying to get the third-party's word out. Second, the nominee benefits from straight-ticket voters in the general election, that distinct subset of voters who don't even bother to look at the candidates' names. Third, the very act of cross-nominating winners gives the third-party credibility.

Fusion is always an electoral advantage, but when combined with multi-member districts, especially large multi-member districts, it produces real opportunity. This is explored in greater detail in the companion report Towards Victory: A Strategy for Achieving a Libertarian Caucus.

Nonpartisan Local Races

Delaware, Vermont, and New Hampshire have predominantly nonpartisan local races. This is an important advantage, because most members who desire to run for office will be cutting their teeth in the local races first. This is an important way to build both name recognition for future political ambition and, in a bigger sense, to build the political machine that elects party members year in and year out. When the race is nonpartisan, the candidates cannot rely on a party label. Instead, the focus is on the candidate's message and arguments. This can only benefit those of us who wish to run as Libertarians.

To clarify, there may be other candidate states that possess this advantage, but the supporters of those states have not brought that information forward. To the best of the author's knowledge, only Delaware, Vermont, and New Hampshire offer nonpartisan local elections.

Ballot Access

Some members have advocated that we subvert one or both of the existing major party structures in the free state, while others have said that a new party or the Libertarian Party is the way to go. If you find yourself in the former group, then there is no advantage or disadvantage to the various states in this regard. If you find yourself in the latter group, then this has a tremendous impact on which state is the best choice.

• Alaska – For major party status, a political party must either have nominated a candidate for governor that received at least 3% of the vote in the last general election or have registered voters equal to at least 3% of the votes cast for governor in the last general election. There are no provisions allowing nomination by petition.

• Delaware – For major party status, a political party must register at least 5% of the total number of voters in the state. A minor party may nominate by convention as long as it has registered at least .05% of the voters in the state. Alternatively, anyone may be placed on the ballot upon submitting a number of petitions equal to 1% of the voters to be served by the objective office.

• Idaho – Any party may qualify for major party status in one of three ways:
  1. Having three or more candidates for state or national office at a general election,
  2. A candidate receiving at least 3% of the votes cast for state or national office, or
  3. Submitting a number of petitions equal to 2% of the number of votes cast for president.

  Anyone may file as an Independent by submitting the relevant number of petitions: 1,000 for statewide office, 500 for congress, 50 for the state legislature, or 5 for county office.

• Maine – "Major parties" are defined as the two parties polling the highest vote totals for governor in the most recent general election. Third parties are blatantly shut out on this score. However, minor parties are still qualified to take part in a primary if they hold municipal caucuses in at least one municipality in each county of the state, if a state convention is held, if the party's candidate for governor or President polled at least 5% of the total in either of the last two general elections, AND if it was on the ballot for either of the last two general elections.

• New Hampshire – For major party status, a political party must nominate a candidate for governor or United States Senator that obtains at least 4% of the vote in a general election. A political organization (minor party) may still have its name on the ballot for the general election by submitting a number of petitions equal to 3% of the votes cast in the last general election. Anyone can be nominated by submitting 3,000 petitions for governor, 750 for state senator, or 150 for state representative.

• North Dakota – A political organization may not nominate anyone for statewide or legislative office unless it:
  1. Holds a caucus meeting in every voting precinct throughout the state by May 15th immediately following a general election,
  2. Had a candidate for president or governor receive at least 5% of the vote at the most recent general election, OR
  3. Submits 7,000 petitions to the secretary of state.

  Independents must be nominated at the primary election, with a different ballot clearly marked "No-Party." The number of people nominated for each office through the no-party process is twice the number of seats. In other words, as there can only be one governor, no more than two "no-party" candidates can be nominated.

• South Dakota – For major party status, a party must submit a number of petitions equal to 2.5% of the votes cast for governor in the last preceding election. A minor party may have its designation on the general ballot by submitting 250 petitions for statewide or federal office, or 5 petitions for legislative or county office. Independents may be placed on the general ballot by submitting a number of petitions equal to 1% of the total votes for the office of governor in the relevant district or subdivision in the most recent general election.

• Vermont – For major party status, a party must have received at least 5% of the vote for any statewide office in the most recent general election. Minor parties may not nominate someone for statewide office unless town committees are set up in at least ten different towns. Anyone may be nominated to be on the general election ballot by submitting 250 signatures for statewide offices, 100 for state senator, or 50 for state representative.

• Wyoming – For major party status, a political party must nominate a candidate for statewide office that obtains at least 10% of the vote in a general election. To nominate via petitions, the party must submit a number of petitions equal to 2% of the votes cast in the relevant jurisdiction for the office of United States Representative in the preceding general election.

Geographic Features

The area of the candidate states, and their districts, is a factor that deserves serious consideration. Some states have a larger rural population, while the residents of some states prefer living in denser areas, mostly due to climate issues. There are two primary reasons why the area of the state should be a concern. First, the logistical difficulty of operating a campaign is directly proportional to the distance that must be covered. Campaigns in denser districts may be done on foot, whereas larger districts require hours to canvass in a vehicle. Second, larger areas make influencing the political process more difficult. There is much to be done in this regard, such as testifying before senate and house committees and visiting legislators to discuss issues. This is much easier when the state house is within easy commuting distance.

Geographic Rural/Urban Characteristics

State	Area1	Avg. House Area2	% Urban Areas3	Pop. Center to Capital4
Alaska	571,951	14,299	44.3	821.5
Delaware	1,954	48	67.8	25.8
Idaho	82,747	1,182	46.7	129.9
Maine	30,862	204	24.6	2.7
Montana	145,552	1,456	25.9	90.1
New Hampshire	8,968	102	44.6	7.3
North Dakota	68,976	1,468	35.8	116.4
South Dakota	75,885	2,168	25.8	126.7
Vermont	9,250	20	17.3	37.7
Wyoming	97,100	1,618	25.5	206.6

1	The area of the states in square miles.
2	The area divided by the number of state house districts. This is merely an average; it is important to remember that urban districts are quite small while rural districts are much larger.
3	The percentage of the population of the state that lives in urban areas, as defined by the United States Census Bureau.
4	The distance from the state capital to the population center of a given state. This measure represents spatially where the capital is in regards to the population of the state. (See here and here).

Local Government

In the western states and in Delaware, the primary form of local government is based on county jurisdictions. Within each county there may be incorporated areas that may enact their own ordinances, as long as they are in compliance with the laws of the state and county. The end result of this system is to have all citizens under a tiered system, with those living in municipalities suffering from an additional level.

The three New England states are different. While they have counties, they exist mostly as lines on the map. Most of the functions of local government are performed at the town level, and the majority of the land area in the states is incorporated. In general, courts are operated at the county level, but all other functions, from roads to police to fire service to schools, are administered at the town level. Issues are discussed at town meetings, giving each citizen an opportunity to speak his mind.

This form of government has several important advantages. First, it is the closest to the people, assuring that everyone in each town knows their elected town officials personally. Remember, most power rests in the hands of town officials instead of county officials administering vastly larger areas. Second, it provides citizens amazing control over the town budget. In New Hampshire, fifteen signatures is enough to place a budget item, called a "warrant," on the ballot for referendum. If you don't want that new high school, get fifteen signatures and vote it down. If you don't want the town to get a new garbage truck because you think trash collection should be privatized, get fifteen signatures and put it on the ballot. Many towns have less than 1,000 people, and some have less than 100. Hart's Location, NH, only has 37 residents. Each town is in control of all of its spending.

This brings me to the final advantage of the town-centered form of local government. There are some areas of the New England states that are not incorporated. These are very lightly populated, and residents contract with the nearest town to provide those services that they do not provide for themselves, such as schools. There is no constitutional provision in New Hampshire requiring public schools, but there is a constitutional prohibition against the state issuing unfunded mandates to the towns. Thus, there is no reason why a small group of FSP members could not simply move to an unincorporated area and incorporate as a new town. For this town, they could write their own charter, prohibiting public schools, taxes, zoning, and anything else they wish. They could even decide to not have a police department.

For that matter, there are even some low-population towns that a few dozen FSP members would quickly overwhelm from sheer numbers. The current ordinances could be repealed and the charter altered. The degree to which this opportunity exists varies throughout the New England states. Vermont's constitution does not protect towns from unfunded state mandates, while Maine's constitution requires public schools to be maintained. New Hampshire offers both advantages.

Executive Council

As noted earlier, population – as a factor in the state choice – is only relevant because of the implications it holds for our ability to influence the process and work within the political system. For elections, the population of the entire state only matters when the entire state is your district; that is to say, for statewide offices. There are very few statewide offices. In most states only the governor, attorney general, and treasurer come under the heading of "statewide," and these are the only offices for which the state's population is an issue. As we will likely begin in local and state legislative races, it is the size of those districts that should most concern us.

New Hampshire possesses an advantage in this regard: the ability to influence the executive branch without winning a statewide office. The governor works with an elected "Executive Council," which must approve any expenditure over $5,000. They help the governor craft the budget, approve the placement of roads, and otherwise direct the day-to-day operation of government. The council has five members, elected from districts of roughly 247,157 persons each. These districts are, then, each almost exactly half the population of Wyoming, and would allow us to influence the executive branch earlier than is possible in any other state.

Conclusion

It is extremely simplistic to measure the candidate states against each other simply on the basis of overall population, as doing so assumes all other things are equal, which is assuredly not the case. There are two primary complicating factors that must be taken into consideration when weighing population. The first is the degree to which the native population leans with or against us. It is far better for the project to be in a state of a million people who lean libertarian than in a state of a half-million that leans socialist.

The second factor, which is even more important, is the accessibility of the given state's political system. There are many measures of accessibility, some of which can be quantified and some of which cannot. They include such measures as district size, whether the state has multi-member districts or fusion, or both, ballot access, and other unique features.

Considering population as a factor through these lenses provides a much more accurate picture of our chances of actually effecting change in the candidate states. One state, in particular, leaps to the top of the pile, both in terms of the libertarian leanings of the native population and, most importantly, in openness of the political system. On every measure here reviewed, New Hampshire comes out at, or near, the top. Of critical importance is the fact that New Hampshire offers that which no other state can: fusion combined with large multi-member districts. This crucial advantage is explored further in a companion report, Towards Victory: A Strategy for Achieving a Libertarian Caucus.