CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-Cv-00623(JCH) Plaintiffs : : V

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-Cv-00623(JCH) Plaintiffs : : V Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-cv-00623(JCH) Plaintiffs : : v. : : NED LAMONT, : GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT, : DENISE MERRILL, : SECRETARY OF THE STATE, : Defendants : JUNE 2, 2020 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF I. INTRODUCTION The State of Connecticut has a compelling state interest in conducting orderly, fair, and transparent elections. Eu v. San Francisco Democratic Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 233 (1989). To achieve this state interest it may craft regulations that maintain electoral integrity, minimize voter confusion at the ballot box, maintain the integrity of petition circulation, maintain the stability of its political parties, discourage party splintering and factionalism, discourage cross party raiding and manipulation, and ensure electoral finality. Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974) (noting “substantial regulation” of elections is necessary to ensure they are fair, honest, and orderly); see also Castine v. Zurlo, 756 F.3d 171, 177 (2d Cir. 2014); Lerman v. Bd. of Elections of City of New York, 232 F.3d 135, 151 (2d Cir. 2000). Notwithstanding these compelling state interests, the State’s ability to advance its interests is not limitless and must balance against the rights of individuals and political organizations. When the State seeks to regulate the internal operations of a political party, as, for Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 33 example, Connecticut regulates the Connecticut state branches of the Democratic and Republican parties by, inter alia, requiring those parties hold primary elections, it must do so in a manner that respects their First Amendment associational rights and that of its individual members. This is because political parties are comprised of like-minded individuals who seek to associate to advance political speech and policy goals and, therefore, have their own independent First Amendment rights. Eu, 489 U.S. at 224. The party’s selection of its preferred standard bearer is at the core of these associational rights. Id., at 223-225 (ban on party endorsements affects speech at the core of the electoral process). Thus, states’ regulation of a party’s nomination of candidates cannot exceed what is necessary to ensure “fair and orderly” elections. Id., at 233. Moreover, the state need not, and ought not, seek to protect the political parties from themselves, including by making their party selection process more open. The membership of a political party is fully capable of reaching those decisions on their own terms. Here, the State of Connecticut has sought to advance its interest in a fair and orderly major party candidate selection process by permitting no less than three opportunities for a candidate to gain the party’s nomination. Exhibit 1, Bromley Decl. ¶11. This process has the approval of the parties themselves and, in the case of the Democratic Party, is a direct reflection of the party’s own written party rules. Bromley Decl. ¶8, Exhibit A (Democratic Party Rules). Plaintiffs — three current or former Democratic candidates for office Andy Gottlieb, Jason W. Bartlett, and Richard Lacourciere (collectively “Plaintiff Candidates”) and the former campaign treasurer for Mr. Gottlieb, Lorna Chand — seek the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction mandating further State encroachment upon the parties’ First Amendment rights to select their candidate in the manner they prefer and control. See ECF No. 8, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory & Injunctive Relief (“Compl.”), pp.16-17, 2 Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 3 of 33 ECF No. 9, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary or Permanent Injunctive & Declaratory Relief as to First Claim (Ballot Access) (“Motion for PI”), p.3. Such relief, even if available over the objection of the political parties, one of whom has sought intervention, ECF No. 26, Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee’s Motion to Intervene as Defendant (“Democrats’ Motion to Intervene”), is both foreclosed by controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent, New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008) (“Lopez Torres”) and not even required under any measure of fairness. Major party challengers in Connecticut have a fair opportunity to become the major party standard bearer in the November general election under the current system; indeed, they have ample opportunity. The State’s overall statutory scheme, which is the proper context in which to assess this third petitioning option, LaRouche v. Kezer, 990 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. 1993), provides candidates several paths to the party’s nomination. First, a candidate can seek the endorsement at the convention, and if they cannot achieve that goal they have two more chances to override the party endorsement through a showing of 15% support among delegates at the convention or garnering signatures of as few as 9 enrolled party members in a district. Bromley Decl. ¶¶10-11, 34-36. That these Plaintiffs fail to capitalize on these multiple avenues to ballot access, or build the requisite support among their fellow party members, does not render Connecticut’s primary system unconstitutional and certainly does not satisfy the extremely high bar for mandatory injunction relief in the midst of an election cycle. Connecticut’s three paths to the major party’s nomination: 1) win the endorsement at the convention; 2) win the support of at least 15% of the delegates at the convention; 3) petition on the ballot with the signatures of only 5% of the enrolled party members in the candidate’s district, Bromley Decl. ¶10-11, is so generous that it alone could be dispositive of any constitutional inquiry. However, the constitutional inquiry is made even simpler by Supreme 3 Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 4 of 33 Court precedent directly on point. The Supreme Court has held that the State is not required to treat a challenger candidate as favorably as Connecticut does. Neither the State nor the parties are constitutionally required to provide a candidate with the fullest opportunity to win a party’s nomination or even a “realistic chance,” Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. at 204–205, these matters are largely within the purview of the parties and the individuals who set their internal rules, often by vote. See Kozin Decl. ¶12. Although perhaps Connecticut could mandate the system Plaintiffs seek, and that is hardly a given considering the objection of the political parties, ECF No. 26, Democrats’ Motion to Intervene, that “is a far cry from saying that the Constitution demands it.” Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. at 204-205. Even though a “fair shot” at winning the party’s nomination is not constitutionally required, id., Connecticut’s overall electoral scheme nonetheless provides it. It even, for many candidates, including Mr. Bartlett, Bromley Decl. ¶22, funds their political speech with taxpayer money once they have attained ballot access for the primary. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-700 to 9-759 (Citizens’ Election Program). The COVID-19 public health crisis does not alter the analysis and it certainly does not compel this Court to step in to impose a primary ballot access requirement more lenient than that approved by the parties or required by the State. Having already considered the burden imposed on candidates by the public health crisis, the State determined that it was appropriate to reduce the number of signatures required for primary ballot access by 30% and permit electronic circulation, collection, and submission of petitions by candidates, which it accomplished by executive order. The parties have not objected to this relaxation of the rules applicable to them. Kozin Decl. ¶15. Indeed, they have sought intervention to defend Connecticut’s electoral scheme and the Executive Order. ECF No. 26, Democrats’ Motion to Intervene. 4 Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 5 of 33 Even if the State were required to facilitate a candidate’s “fair shot” at winning the party’s nomination, which it is not, any assertion that the accommodations provided by the State in the Executive Order are insufficient is speculative at this point. Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence to this Court that they have attempted to gather a single signature using the additional methods now permitted or of their efforts at the convention to gain the endorsement or the support of 15% of the delegates. Plaintiffs bear the burden in this case and on this motion. Even if Lopez Torres did not foreclose Plaintiffs’ claims, they would still have to meet the high bar of a clear and substantial showing that the overall electoral scheme severely burdens their ability to gain access to the ballot. Their incomplete and speculative factual record renders such a conclusion inappropriate. The petitioning process is not a stand-alone path to the ballot but is part of an integrated statutory scheme. See LaRouche v. Kezer, 990 F.2d at 39. As noted, the major parties in Connecticut afford candidates three avenues to appear on the ballot. Prior to even ascertaining whether any of the Plaintiff Candidates would be able to attain ballot access via the more direct avenues, Plaintiffs brought this action challenging the validity of the third, and final, avenue to primary ballot access- petitioning. Indeed, candidates for state and district office could not even request primary petitioning forms until May 26, 2020 — two weeks after Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief with this Court. Bromley Decl. ¶12. As such, the Court has no basis to conclude that a candidate could not successfully attain primary ballot access in Connecticut in 2020.
Recommended publications
  • Appropriations Subcommittee Assignments 2021 (Revised – February 24, 2021)
    Appropriations Subcommittee Assignments 2021 (Revised – February 24, 2021) 1 - Legislative Senate Democrats House Democrats Senate Republicans House Republicans Sen. Cathy Osten Rep. Peter Tercyak Sen. Paul Cicarella Rep. David Wilson Co-Chair Co-Chair Ranking Member Ranking Member Sen. Mary Abrams Rep. Lucy Dathan Rep. Mike France Rep. Anthony Nolan Rep. Rick Hayes Rep. Manny Sanchez Rep. Kathy Kennedy Rep. Gary Turco Rep. Kathleen McCarty 2 - General Government A Senate Democrats House Democrats Senate Republicans House Republicans Sen. Saud Anwar Rep. Kevin Ryan Sen. Craig Miner Rep. David Wilson Co-Chair Co-Chair Ranking Member Ranking Member Sen. Julie Kushner Rep. Jeff Currey Rep. Charles Ferraro Rep. Lucy Dathan Rep. Mike France Rep. Michael DiMassa Rep. Greg Howard Rep. Anthony Nolan Rep. Tami Zawistowski 3 - General Government B Senate Republicans Senate Democrats House Democrats House Republicans Sen. Matt Lesser Rep. Andre Baker Sen. Craig Miner Rep. Mitch Bolinsky Co-Chair Co-Chair Ranking Member Ranking Member Sen. Mary Abrams Rep. Jeff Currey Rep. Mike France Sen. Joan Hartley Rep. Lucy Dathan Rep. Cindy Harrison Rep. Michael DiMassa Rep. Kathleen McCarty Rep. Antonio Felipe Rep. Tami Zawistowski Rep. Gregg Haddad 4 - Regulation and Protection Senate Republicans Senate Democrats House Democrats House Republicans Sen. Matt Lesser Rep. Michael DiMassa Sen. Craig Miner Rep. Rick Hayes Co-Chair Co-Chair Ranking Member Ranking Member Sen. Rick Lopes Rep. Joshua Hall Rep. Mitch Bolinsky Sen. Douglas McCrory Rep. Anthony Nolan Rep. Mike France Rep. Christopher Rosario Rep. Carol Hall Rep. Kevin Ryan Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato Rep. Travis Simms 5 - Conservation and Development Senate Democrats House Democrats Senate Republicans House Republicans Sen.
    [Show full text]
  • 18 Primary Election Endrsmnts
    ! 2018 Primary Election Candidate Endorsements * Current or former union member. US Senate Chris Murphy 19 Catherine Osten* Columbia, Franklin, Hebron, Lebanon, Ledyard, Lisbon, Marlborough, Norwich, US House of Representatives Sprague, Montville 1 John Larson * 24 Julie Kushner * Greater Hartford Bethel, Danbury, New Fairfield, Sherman 2 Joe Courtney 25 Bob Duff North Central & Eastern CT Darien and Norwalk 3 Rosa DeLauro 29 Mae Flexer Greater New Haven Brooklyn, Canterbury, Killingly, Mansfield, 5 Jahana Hayes * Putnam, Scotland, Thompson, Windham Western CT 34 David Lawson Brookfield, Canaan, Cornwall, Goshen, Kent, CT Constitutional Office Litchfield, Morris, New Milford, North Canaan, Salisbury, Sharon, Torrington, Warren Governor Ned Lamont Lt. Governor Eva Bermudez-Zimmerman* CT House of Representatives Attorney General William Tong 1 Matt Ritter Hartford Secretary of the State Denise Merrill 6 Ed Vargas* Comptroller Kevin Lembo Hartford 7 Josh Hall* CT Senate Hartford 5 Beth Bye 10 Henry Genga* Bloomfield, Burlington, Farmington, West East Hartford Hartford 18 Andrew Fleischmann 6 Terry Gerratana West Hartford Berlin, Farmington, New Britain 21 Mike Demicco 9 Matt Lesser Farmington Cromwell, Middletown, Newington, Rocky Hill, Wethersfield 24 Rick Lopes New Britain and Newington 10 Gary Winfield* New Haven and West Haven 25 Robert Sanchez New Britain 11 Martin Looney Hamden, New Haven, North Haven 26 Peter Tercyak * New Britain 28 Russ Morin* 99 James Albis Wethersfield East Haven 30 Joe Aresimowicz* 109 David Arconti Berlin and Southington
    [Show full text]
  • Capitol Place, Suite 500 21 Oak Street Hartford, CT 06106 860-525-5641
    Cong. Assembly Senate Cong. Assembly Senate Distric Town District District District Town District District t Andover 55 4 2 Monroe 112 21, 22 4 Ansonia 104 17 3 Montville 38, 42, 139 19, 20 2 Ashford 53 35 2 Morris 66 30 5 2021-2022 Avon 17, 19 8 5 Naugatuck 70, 131 15, 17 3 Barkhams 62 8 1 22, 24, 25, BeaconFated 105 17 3 NewBritain 26 6 5 lls Berlin 30, 83 6 1 NewCanaan 125, 142 26, 36 4 Bethany 89 17 3 NewFairfield 108, 138 24 5 NewHartford 62 8 1 Bethel 2, 107 24, 26 5 92, 93, 94, Bethlehe 66 32 5 95, 96, 97, Bloomfielm NewHaven 116 10, 11 3 15 2, 5 1 Boltond 55 4 2 Newington 24, 27, 29 9 1 Bozrah 139 20 2 NewLondon 39, 41 20 2 Branford 98, 102 12 3 NewMilford 67, 108 30 5 124, 126, 127, Newtown 2, 106, 112 28 5 Bridgepor Norfolk 64 8 5 128, 129, 130 22, 23 4 Bridgewatt 69 32 5 NorthBranford er 86 12 3 Bristol 77, 78, 79 31 1 Brookfield 107 30 5 NorthCanaan Brooklyn 50 29 2 64 30 5 Burlington 76 5 5 NorthHaven 87 11, 34 3 Canaan 64 30 5 NorthStonington 43 18 2 Canterbur 47 29 2 137, 140, Cantony 17 8 5 141, 142, Chaplin 47 35 2 Norwalk 143 25 4 Cheshire 89, 90, 103 13, 16 5 Norwich 46, 47, 139 19 2 Chester 36 33 2 OldLyme 23 20 2 Clinton 35 33 2 OldSaybrook Colcheste 34, 48 33 2 23 20, 33 2 r Colebrook 63 8 1 114, 117, Columbia 8 19 2 Orange 119 14 3 Cornwall 64 30 5 Oxford 131 32 4 Coventry 8 35 2 Plainfield 44, 45 18 2 Cromwell 32 9 1 Plainville 22 31 5 2, 107, 108, Plymouth 78 31 5 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTORY Pomfret 50 35 2 Danbury 109, 110, 138 24 5 Darien 141, 147 25, 27 4 Portland 32 33 1 DeepRive 36 33 2 Preston 42 18 2 Derbyr 104,
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut State Senate 2020 Election Results
    Connecticut State Senate 2020 election results DISTRICT 1 John Fonfara* (D) 72% 20,583 Barbara Ruhe (R) 25% 7,141 Mary Sanders (G) 3% 953 DISTRICT 2 Doug McCrory* (D) 100% 33,840 DISTRICT 3 Saud Anwar* (D) 100% 35,263 DISTRICT 4 Steve Cassano* (D) 58% 31,714 Matthew Corey (R) 38% 20,737 Harold Harris (I) 2% 830 Kelly Green (U) 2% 823 Connecticut State Senate 2020 election results DISTRICT 5 Derek Slap* (D) 65% 37,360 Phillip Chabot (R) 31% 17,964 Joelle Nawrocki (I) 3% 1,780 DISTRICT 6 Rick Lopes (D) 56% 20,621 Gennaro Bizzarro* (R) 44% 16,372 DISTRICT 7 John Kissel* (R) 54% 28,327 Frederick Moffa (D) 46% 24,144 DISTRICT 8 Kevin Witkos* (R) 52% 29,694 Melissa Osborne (D) 46% 26,811 Connecticut State Senate 2020 election results Keith McConnell (I) 2% 1,111 DISTRICT 9 Matt Lesser* (D) 58% 30,982 Richard Ruglio (R) 42% 22,714 DISTRICT 10 Gary Winfield* (D) 82% 24,411 Carlos Alvarado (R) 14% 4,081 Jason Bartlett (PC) 4% 1,246 DISTRICT 11 Martin Looney* (D) 75% 27,336 Jameson White (R) 23% 8,462 Alex Taubes (PC) 2% 795 DISTRICT 12 Connecticut State Senate 2020 election results Christine Cohen* (D) 57% 34,350 Joseph LaPorta (R) 43% 25,900 DISTRICT 13 Mary Abrams* (D) 53% 24,933 Len Suzio (R) 47% 22,331 DISTRICT 14 James Maroney* (D) 57% 30,670 Michael Southworth (R) 43% 22,830 DISTRICT 15 Joan Hartley* (D) 100% 24,840 DISTRICT 16 Rob Sampson* (R) 54% 29,209 Jack Perry (D) 46% 25,093 Connecticut State Senate 2020 election results DISTRICT 17 Jorge Cabrera (D) 52% 25,034 George Logan* (R) 48% 22,958 DISTRICT 18 Heather Somers* (R) 52% 26,377
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Connecticut Elected Federal and State Officials
    2020 CONNECTICUT FEDERAL AND STATE ELECTION CANDIDATES Non-official Results as of November 4th at 10:00am Gaffney, Bennett & Associates Index – By Town • Andover – pp. S-15, H-103 • Branford – pp. S-23, H-146, H- • Clinton – pp. S-44, H-83 • East Haddam – pp. S-44, H-82 150 • Ansonia – pp. S-28, H-152 • Colchester – pp. S-44, H-82, H-96 • East Hampton – pp. S-44, H-82 • Bridgeport – pp. S-33, S-34 H- Colebrook – pp. S-19, H-111 • East Haven – pp. S-45, H-144, H- • Ashford – pp. S-46, H-101 172, H-174, H-175, H-176, H- • 147 177, H-178 • Avon – pp. S-19, H-65, H-67 • Columbia – pp. S-30, H-56 • East Lyme – pp. S-31, H-85 • Bridgewater – pp. S-43, H-117 • Barkhamsted – pp. S-19, H- • Cornwall – pp. S-41, H-112 • East Windsor – pp. S-14, H-105, 110 • Bristol – pp. S-42, H-125, H-126, • Coventry – pp. S-46, H-56 H-107 H-127 • Beacon Falls – pp. S-28, H- • Cromwell – pp. S-20, H-80 • Eastford – pp. S-46, H-98 153 • Brookfield – pp. S-41, H-155 • Danbury – pp. S-35, H-50, H-155, • Berlin – pp. S-17, H-78, H-131 • Easton – pp. S-39, H-183 • Brooklyn – pp. S-40, H-98 H-156, H-157, H-158, H-186 • Bethany – pp. S-28, H-137 • Ellington – pp. S-14, S-46, H-105 • Burlington – pp. S-16, H-124 • Darien – pp. S-36, S-38, H-189, H- 195 • Enfield – pp.
    [Show full text]
  • March 9, 2021
    No. 42 Tuesday, March 9, 2021 THE BULLETIN CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY www.cga.ct.gov 2021 Regular Session Published Under the Direction of the Clerks of the Senate and House CONNECTICUT STATE OFFICERS GOVERNOR Ned Lamont Room 202 - Capitol - 566-4840 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Susan Bysiewicz Room 304 - Capitol - 524-7384 SECRETARY OF THE STATE Denise W. Merrill Room 104 - Capitol - 509-6200 TREASURER Shawn Wooden 165 Capitol Avenue-702-3010165 COMPTROLLER Kevin P. Lembo 165 Capitol Avenue- 702-3301 ATTORNEY GENERAL William Tong 165 Capitol Avenue - 808-5318 OFFICERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY – SENATE SENATE DEMOCRATS - ROOM 3300 - 240-8600 SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE Martin M. Looney SENATE MAJORITY LEADER Bob Duff CHIEF DEPUTY PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE Joan Hartley DEPUTY PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE & FEDERAL RELATIONS LIAISON Mae Flexer SENATE DEPUTY PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE Mary Daugherty Abrams Saud Anwar Jorge Cabrera Steven Cassano Christine Cohen John Fonfara William Haskell Julie Kushner Douglas McCrory Marilyn Moore Norm Needleman Cathy Osten CHIEF DEPUTY MAJORITY LEADER Gary Winfield SENATE DEPUTY MAJORITY LEADERS Alexandra Kasser Dennis Bradley Matt Lesser Rick Lopes James Maroney Derek Slap SENATE REPUBLICANS - ROOM 3400 - 240-8800 SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADER Kevin Kelly SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADER PRO TEMPORE Paul Formica CHIEF DEPUTY SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADERS John Kissel Craig Miner (Screening Chair) Kevin Witkos DEPUTY SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADERS Eric Berthel Tony Hwang Henri Martin Heather Somers ASSISTANT SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADERS Dan Champagne Rob Sampson SENATE REPUBLICAN WHIPS Paul Cicarella CLERK OF THE SENATE Michael A. Jefferson ASSISTANT CLERK OF THE SENATE Americo Carchia PERMANENT ASSISTANT CLERK OF THE SENATE Timothy B. Kehoe SENATE CHAPLAIN AND DEPUTIES Rev.
    [Show full text]
  • June 22, 2020 the Honorable Joe Aresimowicz Speaker of the House
    June 22, 2020 The Honorable Joe Aresimowicz Speaker of the House of Representatives The Honorable Matt Ritter House Majority Leader The Honorable Themis Klarides House Minority Leader The Honorable Martin Looney Senate President Pro Tempore The Honorable Bob Duff Senate Majority Leader The Honorable Len Fasano Senate Minority Leader Connecticut General Assembly Legislative Office Building 210 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 Sent via Email Dear Speaker Aresimowicz, Majority Leader Ritter, Minority Leader Klarides, Senate President Looney, Majority Leader Duff and Minority Leader Fasano: As the state’s mental health care provider community, we are writing to request that you pass legislation to codify the tele-health provisions implemented in the Governor’s Executive Orders for behavioral health care in the wake of the public health crisis with the emergence of the COVID-19 virus. The virus and the declaration of the public health emergency by Governor Lamont has greatly altered the state’s mental health care system. As you consider policies to implement in statute when you convene a special session, we ask that you codify the use of tele-health for behavioral health in the public and private insurance markets included in the Governor’s Executive Orders 7G, 7F, 7DD. We request payment parity for tele-health visits at the same rate if the services were delivered in-person. We also request that you specifically include the telephonic-only provision within covered behavioral health tele-health services. Tele-health has become a very important tool for mental health providers during the declared public health emergency. It has been used to continue to provide access to care for patients and engage new patients who have not received care in the past, many of which are new enrollees to the Medicaid program.
    [Show full text]
  • February 22, 2021 RE: TESTIMONY in SUPPORT of HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 58-- a RESOLUTION PROPOSING a STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to ALLOW NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING
    February 22, 2021 RE: TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 58-- A RESOLUTION PROPOSING A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING Senator Flexer, Representative Fox, Senator Sampson, Representative Mastrofrancesco and distinguished members of the Government Administration & Elections Committee: We are here to testify in support of caucus priority House Joint Resolution 58—A RESOLUTION PROPOSING A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING because although all eligible voters in Connecticut have the right to vote in-person on Election Day, not all may have the ability to do so. It is incumbent upon us to provide flexible, accessible and convenient voting options to all residents of our state. Connecticut is one of only sixteen states where no-excuse absentee voting is not available. Here, a state-approved excuse is required to request an absentee ballot. The remaining two-thirds of the states allow any qualified voter to vote absentee without offering an excuse, allowing millions of Americans to cast their vote at their convenience by absentee ballot. Offering no-excuse absentee ballots will not only result in increased voter access and participation but can also result in increased voter satisfaction and financial savings. In states where no-excuse absentee ballots are permitted, voters have expressed more enthusiasm about the electoral process and have appreciated being able to study the issues and review the ballots at home. Jurisdictions with no- excuse absentee ballots have also seen financial savings in the need to reduce staffing at polling locations. Of greatest significance, however, is that permitting no-excuse absentee ballots would permit more residents to vote in the manner most convenient to them.
    [Show full text]
  • Directory of Connecticut's Federal and State
    Directory of Connecticut’s Federal and State Elected Officials 2019 - 2020 League of Women Voters© of Connecticut Education Fund, Inc. LWVCT Education Fund, Inc. Directory of Connecticut’s Federal and State Elected Officials 2019 – 2020 Table of Contents Communicating with Your Elected Officials 3 Political Districts by Town 4 United States Congress 7 State Officials: Executive Branch 9 State Officials: Legislative Branch 10 Senators by District 11 Senators, Alphabetical Listing 13 Representatives by District 14 Representatives, Alphabetical Listing 21 Legislative Committees 22 Capitol Information and Tours 25 Additional Sources of Information 26 About The League of Women Voters of Connecticut 27 Updates available online: www.lwvct.org For online access to Connecticut state government: www.ct.gov Communicating With Your Elected Officials Your opinion is important to elected officials and can influence their votes. You can communicate with them by letter, email, telephone, FAX, or a personal visit. • Be brief; discuss only one or two issues. • Write to each legislator individually and use your own words. • Identify legislation by number or title, if possible. If you know the number, author or subject of a bill, a phone call to Hartford (860) 240-0555, will get you information on bill status in minutes or visit the CT General Assembly website at www.cga.ct.gov and click on Search. • Make your communications timely. Remember, the Connecticut General Assembly is a part-time legislature that begins its sessions early in the year and does not meet in the summer or fall. • Influence legislative committees by testifying at their public hearings on proposed bills.
    [Show full text]
  • New Haven and Middlesex Counties Legislative Delegation 2015
    New Haven and Middlesex Counties Legislative Delegation 2015 Regular Session of the Connecticut General Assembly Source of Bios: www.cga.ct.gov Legislators & Towns they represent 1. Abercrombie, Catherine: Meriden, Berlin 2. Adinolfi, Al: Cheshire, Southington & Wallingford 3. Albis, James: East Haven 4. Altobello, Emil “Buddy: Meriden, Middlefield, Rockfall 5. Aresimowicz, Joe: Berlin, Southington 6. Bartolomeo, Danté: Cheshire, Meriden, Middlefield & Middletown 7. Candelaria, Juan: New Haven 8. Candelora, Vincent: Durham, Guilford, North Branford & Wallingford 9. Carney, Devin: Lyme, Old Lyme, Old Saybrook & 10. Carpino, Christie: Cromwell & Portland Westbrook 11. Crisco Jr., Joseph: Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Bethany, 12. D’Agostino, Mike: Hamden Derby, Hamden, Naugatuck & Woodbridge 13. Dargan, Stephen: West Haven 14. Dillon, Patricia: New Haven 15. Doyle, Paul: Cromwell, Middletown, Newington, 16. Esposito Jr., Louis: West Haven Rocky Hill & Wethersfield 17. Fasano, Len: Durham, East Haven, North Haven & 18. Ferraro, Charles: Milford, Orange & West Haven Wallingford 19. Formica, Paul: Bozrah, East Lyme, Montville, New 20. Fritz, Mary: Cheshire & Wallingford London, Old Lyme, Old Saybrook, Salem & Waterford 21. Kennedy Jr., Ted: Branford, Durham, Guilford, 22. Klarides, Themis: Woodbridge, Orange & Derby Killingworth, Madison & North Branford 23. Kokoruda, Noreen: Durham & Madison 24. Lemar, Roland: New Haven, East Haven 25. Lesser, Matthew: Middletown 26. Linares, Art: Chester, Clinton, Colchester, Deep River, East Haddam, East Hampton, Essex, Haddam, Lyme, Old Saybrook, Portland & Westbrook 27. Looney, Martin: New Haven, Hamden & North Haven 28. MacLachlan, Jesse: Clinton, Killingworth & Westbrook 29. Markley, Joe: Milford, Orange, West Haven & 30. Megna, Robert: New Haven Woodbridge 31. Miller, Philip: Chester, Deep River, Essex & Haddam 32. Mushinsky, Mary: Wallingford 33. Porter, Robyn: Hamden, New Haven 34.
    [Show full text]
  • Call to Governor Lamont for Anti-Racist Rent Relief Program
    June 16, 2020 Governor Ned Lamont VIA EMAIL State Capitol 210 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 Re: Proposed Temporary Rental Assistance Program Reinforces Segregation Dear Governor Lamont: Hundreds of years of government sponsored policies, neglect, and inaction against explicit racism has built and maintained hyper-segregation in Connecticut. As a result, Black people, Indigenous people, and People of Color are locked into under-resourced neighborhoods. This is because federal and state policies creating pathways to middle-class security through access to affordable homeownership historically excluded these groups. This legacy shapes the pandemic- related housing crisis we have today and demands an anti-racist response that will protect Black renters and other People of Color. The response must not widen an ever expanding racial wealth gap or perpetuate further segregation. The legacy of these governmental policies has already caused the brunt of the COVID pandemic to be borne by the very people harmed most by segregationist policies. In Connecticut 60.5% of Black families and 65.8% of Latino families rent their homes compared to only 23.9% of white families. In addition, nearly 60% of Black renters and 55% of Latino renters spend more than 30% of their income on rent compared to 43% of white renters. Connecticut has received approximately $1.4 billion in coronavirus relief funds. The State’s credit ratings and rainy-day fund allow it to tap the bond market at historically low rates. Yet it has allocated 1% of funds received to assist tenants and stabilize the housing market, a miniscule commitment towards preventing the humanitarian crises that will result from a wave of evictions disproportionately affecting Black and brown tenants.
    [Show full text]
  • Elections 2018 Update
    2018 CONNECTICUT ELECTION OVERVIEW November 7, 2018 Democrats in Connecticut rode a blue wave during Tuesday’s election – winning the biggest prize of the night – Ned Lamont as the next Governor of the state. In a sweep, the party also will continue to control all the state-wide elected offices – Secretary of the State, Comptroller, Treasurer and Attorney General. Democrats also won significant legislative majorities in the Connecticut Senate and House and again carried every US Congressional District and the US Senate seat. Democratic new-comer Jahana Hayes, a former National Teacher of the Year, won the open 5th Congressional District seat becoming the first Afro-American person to be sent to Congress from Connecticut. Bob Stefanowski, the Republican gubernatorial candidate, conceded early Wednesday morning after waiting for final results to trickle in from some cities and towns. Ned Lamont trailed Bob Stefanowski into the early morning when returns from the major Connecticut cities including Hartford and New Haven gave Lamont the race. With the lead expanding to over 10,000, it became unlikely that Stefanowski would be able to catch up. Lamont will squeak by after a record midterm turnout. Unsurprisingly, Senator Chris Murphy won a second term with a substantial margin over Republican Matt Corey. Democrats were largely fueled by female voters who supported Lamont but also provided new pickups for Democrats in the Connecticut Legislature especially in towns in Fairfield Country The biggest surprise of the night was Democratic legislative victories. In the State Senate Republicans had seen recent gains bring them to parity with Democrats at an 18-18 breakdown and the Lieutenant Governor breaking ties.
    [Show full text]