Cited by

to review whether laws passed by the legislature are constitutional,” Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 129 (2005), we see no separation of powers issue.

If a question is not justiciable, it is not ours to review.

“Courts lack jurisdiction to decide political questions.” Richard v. Speaker of the House of Representatives, 175 N.H. 262, 267 (2022); see Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 128 (2005) (explaining that “[i]f a question is not justiciable, it is not ours to review”).

In re Guardianship of K.B., 172 N.H. 646, 648 (2019) (explaining that we may “raise subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte”); Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 128 (2005) (reviewing the argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that the appellate questions constitute nonjusticiable political questions because “justiciability is essentially a jurisdictional issue” and, “[a]s with other kinds of jurisdictional questions,.

We are also aware of the conflict that ruling in favor of the plaintiff’s standing would present with Part I, Article 37, which espouses the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

“By reviewing the history of the constitution and its amendments, the court endeavors to place itself as nearly as possible in the situation of the parties at the time the instrument was made, that it may gather their intention from the language used, viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances.” Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 133 (2005) (quotation omitted).

“While it is appropriate to give due deference to a co-equal 3 branch of government as long as it is functioning within constitutional constraints, it would be a serious dereliction on our part to deliberately ignore a clear constitutional violation.” Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 129 (2005) (quotation omitted).

“The authority to adopt procedural rules for passing legislation is demonstrably committed to the legislative branch by Part II, Articles 22 and 37 of the State Constitution.” Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 130 (2005).

“In reviewing a legislative act, we presume it to be constitutional and will not declare it invalid except upon inescapable grounds.” Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 133 (2005) (quotation omitted).

Ordinarily, we will not review arguments that were not timely raised before the trial court, Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 128 (2005), because “trial forums should have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court,” Petition of Guardarramos- Cepeda, 154 N.H. 7, 9 (2006) (quotation omitted).

Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 128 (2005) (we will review subject matter jurisdiction claims, even if raised for the first time on appeal); In re Guardianship of Williams, 159 N.H. 318, 323 (2009) (whether party has standing presents question of subject matter jurisdiction).

“By reviewing the history of the constitution and its amendments, the court endeavors to place itself as nearly as possible in the situation of the parties at the time the instrument was made, that it may gather their intention from the language used, viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances.” Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 133 (2005) (quotation omitted).

*735 “In reviewing a legislative act, we presume it to be constitutional and will not declare it invalid except upon inescapable grounds.” Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 133 (2005) (quotation omitted).

Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 133, 876 A.2d 768 (2005) (quotation omitted).

“In reviewing a legislative act, we presume it to be constitutional and will not declare it invalid except upon inescapable grounds.” Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 133 (2005) (quotation omitted).

“In reviewing a legislative act, we presume it to be constitutional and will not declare it invalid except upon inescapable grounds.” Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 133 (2005) (quotation omitted).

We review the constitutionality of the statutes de novo.

We review the constitutionality of the statutes de novo.

A statute’s constitutionality is a question of law which we decide de novo.

“In reviewing a legislative act, we presume it to be constitutional and will not declare it invalid except upon inescapable grounds.” Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 133 (2005) (quotation omitted).

*268 I. Part I, Article 11 Part I, Article 11 of the New Hampshire Constitution provides, in pertinent part: “All elections are to be free, and every inhabitant of the state of 18 years of age and upwards shall have an equal right to vote in any election.” To interpret the meaning of this provision, we examine its purpose and intent.

We are also guided in our analysis by the principle that “[i]n reviewing a legislative act, we presume it to be constitutional and will not declare it invalid except upon inescapable grounds.” Baines v. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 133 (2005) (quotation omitted).

“In reviewing a legislative act, we presume it to be constitutional and will not declare it invalid except upon inescapable grounds.” Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 133 (2005) (quotation omitted).

When interpreting a constitutional provision, we examine its purpose and intent.

We are the final arbiter of state constitutional disputes.

We are the final arbiter of state constitutional disputes.

n sentence was disproportionate; rather, he vaguely asserts, without support, that the lack of objective criteria “foster[s] a system of arbitrary and disproportionate sentencing decisions that essentially end run the requirements of existing sentencing statutes.” We must presume that the sentencing scheme is constitutional and we cannot declare it unconstitutional except upon inescapable grounds.

However, statutes are presumed constitutional, and they will only be declared invalid “upon inescapable grounds.” Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 133 (2005) (quotation omitted).

“The political question doctrine is essentially a function of the separation of powers, existing to restrain courts from inappropriate interference in the business of the other branches of Government, and deriving in large part from prudential concerns about the respect we owe the political departments.” Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 128 (2005) (quotation omitted).

Thus, we may address jurisdictional issues even if they are raised for the first time on appeal, Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124,128 (2005), and even if they are not raised by the parties, see Burgess v. Burgess, 71 N.H. 293,293 (1902).

This rule, however, is not absolute.

ights of potential third party claimants by requiring them to choose between filing a claim in liquidation and pursuing their cause of action against the insured without allowing them “to obtain enough information to make a reasoned, intelligent and voluntary choice.” *524 In reviewing a statute, we presume it to be constitutional and we will not declare it invalid except upon inescapable grounds.

In order to determine whether RSA 458:15-b is a reasonable restriction under Part I, Article 8, we must examine the history and purpose of the provision.

We incorporate by reference the more detailed history set forth in Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 126-27 (2005).