· The League of Women Voters believes in representative government and in the individual liberties established in the Constitution of the United States.
· The League of Women Voters believes that democratic government depends upon the informed and active participation of its citizens and requires that governmental bodies protect the citizens’ right to know by giving adequate notice of proposed actions, holding open meetings and making public records accessible.
· The League of Women Voters believes that every citizen should be protected in the right to vote; that every person should have access to free public education which provides equal opportunity for all; and that no person or group should suffer legal, economic or administrative discrimination.
· The League of Women Voters believes that efficient and economical government requires competent personnel, the clear assignment of responsibility, adequate financing and coordination among the different agencies and levels of government.
· The League of Women Voters believes that responsible government should be responsive to the will of the people; that government should maintain an equitable and flexible system of taxation, promote the conservation and development of natural resources in the public interest, share in the solution of economic and social problems which affect the general welfare, promote a sound economy and adopt domestic policies that facilitate the solution of international problems.
· The League of Women Voters believes that cooperation with other nations is essential in the search for solutions to world problems, and that the development of international organization and international law is imperative in the promotion of world peace.
LWVCT IMPACT ON ISSUES is a guide for League leaders on the LWVCT program. It provides information that is the basis for community and governmental action on issues of importance to League members at the state and local levels.
LWVCT program, chosen at biennial conventions, includes both study and action. Member agreement on issues, adopted either by consensus or concurrence, is developed into the formal positions presented in this book. These positions are the basis for action. Action is also taken in support of the League “Principles” (shown on the preceding page).
The format of this edition provides the positions in brief, the full position statements, and the background and action that have been taken in the last several years. Each major issue area has an “Action Taken on National Positions” section, which represents LWVCT action only. This guide is intended to be used both for LWVCT positions and as a companion book to the LWVUS IMPACT ON ISSUES when deciding what action can be taken on an issue. For your information, sections are included to record LWVCT positions dropped by Convention delegates and LWVUS positions upon which we’ve taken prior action.
Local Leagues are encouraged to use the LWVCT positions at their own level to influence public policy. It is the responsibility of the local League board to determine whether member understanding and agreement exist and whether the action on the local level makes sense in terms of timing, need and effectiveness. If a local League wants to take action on the state level, it must first inform the LWVCT Public Issues Vice President to ensure that all levels of the League speak with one voice.
PRINCIPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FOREWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2009-20011 LWVCT POSITIONS IN BRIEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
GOVERNMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Campaign Finance Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Election Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Fiscal Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
General Assembly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Initiative and Referendum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Internet and Media. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Primaries and Parties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
LWVCT Action on LWVUS Government Positions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Redistricting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Citizen’s Right To Know/Citizen Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
NATURAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
LWVCT Action on LWVUS Natural Resources Positions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Environmental Protection and Energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
SOCIAL POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Death Penalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Gambling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Mental Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Quality Integrated Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
School Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
School Start Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
School Vouchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
Teen Pregnancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
LWVCT Action on LWVUS Social Policy Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
Gun Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Health Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
Income Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Reproductive Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Child Care, Children’s Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Children at Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
POSITIONS DROPPED BY LWVCT CONVENTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
PUBLIC ISSUES TEAM as of Sept 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
Campaign Finance Reform (1975; affirmed 2005)
Support: limitations on campaign contributions and expenditures, full disclosure, and partial public funding of campaigns.
Election Laws (1983; amended and affirmed 2007)
Support: political process open to all citizens; right to vote with confidence in the election process; availability of adequate information to make informed voting decisions; expanded registration processes, including Election Day Registration; voting systems that are secure, accurate, recountable and accessible; adequate funding and support for state agencies responsible for supervising elections, enforcing election laws, and assuring the integrity of voting technology.
Ethics (2004)
Support actions to: reform, strengthen, and clarify Connecticut’s codes of ethics as they apply to public officials, public employees, and lobbyists; require a transparent, competitive, and clearly defined state contract selection process; and Promote the establishment of municipal ethics commissions and municipal ethics codes as applied to municipal public officials, municipal public employees, and municipal lobbyists.
Fiscal Policy; (1981; amended and affirmed 2003)
Support: state budget that is an effective policy-making tool with stated goals and priorities with financial data on past performance in meeting goals, economic impact data and program costs. The Spending Cap should be made more responsive to fiscal realities.
Oppose: bonding for current expenditures; increased tax burden on business.
General Assembly (1982; affirmed 2003)
Support: measures to improve the effectiveness of the General Assembly, legislative committees, public hearings, and staff.
Position in Brief: Support government policies that promote broadband, wireless, and other means of high speed Internet deployment throughout the state; state efforts to protect the open, neutral, nondiscriminatory nature of the Internet; adequate protection, promotion, and funding of community access television channels regardless of the provider of TV/video services to Connecticut residents; government provision of opportunities for citizen participation in decisions regarding community access TV.
Initiative and Referendum (1984; affirmed 2003)
Support: ratification of Constitutional amendments by referendum; improved voter information and ballot questions.
Oppose: proposal of Constitutional amendments by initiative; direct initiative to propose laws.
Primaries, Procedures and Parties (1983; amended and affirmed 2003) Support: participation in party’s nominating process for party members only; increased participation by party members.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Land Use (1975; affirmed 2005)
Support: comprehensive long-range planning for conservation and development.
Transportation (1975; affirmed 2005)
Support: the planning and development of a balanced multi-modal transportation system in Connecticut.
Water Resources (1967; affirmed 2005)
Support: measures to improve water quality and preserve wetlands; regional, long-range approach to planning.
SOCIAL POLICY
Death Penalty (2006)
Support: abolition of the death penalty. Capital punishment should not be a sentencing option for murder or any other crime. Until the death penalty in Connecticut is abolished, support an immediate moratorium on executions.
Gambling (1994; amended and affirmed 2003)
Support: the 2003 repeal of the so-called Las Vegas Nights legislation; inclusion of safeguards in any bills that are considered by the legislature.
Oppose: legalization of additional forms of gambling, especially the expansion of casino gambling and all legislation that enables such expansion.
Mental Health (2003)
Support: comprehensive community-based mental health systems for children and adults to include early detection, intervention and a range of services, and a public health initiative on mental health.
Quality Integrated Education in Connecticut Schools (1991; affirmed in 2001)
Support: quality education that reflects the diversity of our society; collective responsibility; alternative means of school assignment; state responsibility for funding; local responsibility for the initiation and implementation; and shared responsibility for planning, monitoring and assessment of programs.
School Finance (1990; amended and affirmed 2000)
Support: a system that: makes available to each community sufficient financial resources to provide a suitable program of educational experiences for every child; removes the cap on the ECS grant, and sets the Foundation in the state’s biennial budget.
School Start Time (2006)
Support: policies and practices that delay school start times in Connecticut high schools, middle schools, and junior high schools in order to facilitate the alignment of instructional time with adolescent sleep patterns.
School Vouchers (1996, amended and affirmed 2008)
Support: system of elementary and secondary education that is fiscally and educationally accountable to citizens.
Oppose: the use of public funds through vouchers, state tax credits or any other state incentives or payments, direct or indirect, to provide tuition support for students attending non-public schools.
Teen Pregnancy (1989; affirmed 1999;amended and affirmed 2009)
Support: Measures to ensure that all school-aged children have access to age-appropriate sex education programs; school-based health clinics with services including reproductive health; programs and services designed to help adolescents delay parenthood and to enable adolescent parents to finish high school.
Oppose: restrictions on adolescents’ rights to obtain a full range of reproductive health services.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
(Adopted 1975; affirmed 2005)
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut believes that the goals of a campaign finance system should:
· ensure the public's right to know;
· combat corruption and undue influence;
· enable candidates to compete more equitably for public office.
To achieve these goals, we support the following measures for campaign reform:
Limitations
The League believes that there should be limitations on the size of individual contributions and on overall expenditures by a candidate. These limits should be realistic and reasonable; high enough to be enforceable, but not so low as to affect candidates adversely. Cash contributions should be limited to small amounts.
Disclosure
We support full and timely disclosure of all contributions prior to elections and of expenditures by a stated deadline. We realize that provisions must be made for campaign deficits, but there must be safeguards against contributions pledged orally in advance, to be fulfilled after the election in order to circumvent prior disclosure.
Enforcement
No system, however complete or well-meaning, is effective if it is unenforceable. The establishment of a bipartisan elections commission with investigatory and subpoena powers is essential to any campaign reform. Strong penalties should be provided for violators.
Length of Campaigns
The length of campaigns should be shortened, but enough time should be provided to allow full discussion of the issues and for adequate visibility of all candidates.
Funding
The League believes that partial public financing of campaigns for qualified State offices — Constitutional, Senate and House — will enable candidates to run for office regardless of personal financial resources. It can also aid in removing the undue influence of large-scale money. The League also recognizes the need for new sources of state funds to provide for such financing.
This position applies to all state elections including primaries.
Background and Action
For over a decade, the LWVCT has worked in coalition with many other groups supporting bills establishing a comprehensive public financing system with spending limits for state-wide campaigns. The 2004 session was an extremely difficult one for the legislature, preoccupied with the ethics hearing on Governor Rowland and several key members of his staff. The coalition championed a bill to tighten laws concerning contributions from political committees, lobbyists and large contractors. It included provisions to treat purchases of ads in ad books as contributions and prohibited political committees from funding communications identifying or advocating for or against candidates in the last thirty days of campaigning. The House debated a bill authorizing municipalities to establish programs for public financing of local campaigns. After an intense debate, the bill was referred to the Finance Committee and died at the end of the session.
Immediately after being sworn in, Governor Rell convened a meeting of organizations supporting campaign finance reform. She requested attending organizations to present her with proposals for a legislative package that would be likely to pass in the next session. The LWVCT sent a detailed proposal including reforms debated during the 2004 session (limits on contributions from political committees, lobbyists, large state contractors, limits on issue advocacy and promotional ads, ad books advertising, more timely reporting requirements and adequate funding for the enforcement agencies) and support for partial or full public funding of campaigns.
At the beginning of the 2005 session, this proposal was forwarded to the leadership and chairs of the Government Administration and Elections Committee and copies were sent to the entire legislature. The LWVCT joined forces with a grass-roots organization, Citizens for Election Reforms (CFER). The coalition of Common Cause, CCAG, Democracy Works and others adopted a strong platform of reforms centered around the public financing of campaigns. The Governor’s Fairness Proposal did not include public financing of campaigns. The House and Senate each proposed campaign finance reform bills, each containing some elements of public financing of campaigns. The coalition lobbied both chambers and the leadership in the hope of consolidating the two versions into an omnibus bill. Just before the end of the session, the Governor abandoned her opposition to public financing and urged the legislature to take action during the session. The LWVCT and the coalition lobbied strenuously for passage of a consolidated bill that would reconcile the elements of the House and Senate versions. At the end of the session, each chamber passed its own version of the bill and there was no agreement before the session adjourned. No campaign finance legislation emerged from the 2005 regular session.
As several critical bills did not pass during the regular session, a special session was called for June 21, but the agenda did not include CFR. The LWVCT and the coalition lobbied the leadership and the Governor to include CFR. Instead, the Governor formed a bi-partisan working group to deal with the issue of campaign finance. The LWVCT lobbied the Governor and the leadership to include civic groups such as the LWVCT as members of the working group. This did not happen, but the LWVCT specialist attended all working group sessions.
Work on a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill that included public financing of campaigns continued throughout the fall of 2005 following the report of the bi-partisan working group. LWVCT members actively lobbied for CFR, writing letters and responding to action alerts with e-mails and phone calls. LWVUS president Kay Maxwell joined the President, Public Issues Vice-President, and Election Laws Specialist at the Capitol to lobby legislative leaders and the Governor’s staff during the month of November. Shortly thereafter, legislative leadership, surrounded by good government advocates including the President of the LWVCT, announced plans to call a special session to pass a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill. Some LWVCT members came to the Capitol on the date of the vote to lobby their representatives in person; others responded to last minute requests to lobby recalcitrant representatives by phone and e-mail shortly before the vote. In the end, a comprehensive bill that bans lobbyist and state contractor contributions and provides a voluntary system of public financing of campaigns (the Citizens’ Election Program) was passed and signed into law by the Governor in early December, 2005.
Like all landmark legislation that begins with a rejection of the status quo and then improves over time, the campaign finance law passed in December was not perfect. The LWVCT identified three areas for concern and advocacy in 2006: the “non-severability” clause, the “organization expenditure” provision and the limitations on minor party and petitioning candidates. The “non-severability” clause was the major concern since a successful court challenge on any provision would have invalidated the entire law. In dramatic fashion, the legislature passed a “fix” for the non-severability clause minutes before the end of the legislative session. The law, PA 06-137, also limits organization expenditures in certain situations and provides more favorable terms for minor party and petitioning candidates seeking public financing.
Throughout the CFR “fight,” the LWVCT worked closely with its lobbyists, Judith Blei & Associates, and its coalition partners. One partner credited the LWVCT with providing the “extra muscle” necessary to win the 30-year fight for public financing.
The focus in the campaign finance reform area has now shifted to implementation of the new law. During the early part of the 2007 session, a law was passed that made several changes to the state contractor bans and administrative requirements. The State Elections Enforcement Commission, which is responsible for implementation of the law, requested several other changes designed to ease the administrative burden, clarify the requirements and help the SEEC in its enforcement activities. The LWVCT testified in favor of some of the proposed changes and against other suggested changes. The SEEC’s requested changes did not pass. A coalition partner attributed the lack of success to conflicts among legislators and general fatigue with the subject of campaign finance reform.
Several lawsuits have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the lobbyist bans and the limitations on minor parties and candidates. In 2008, the bans were upheld by a federal district court. The court’s decision has been appealed. Following a bench trial in March 2009, the district court ruled on August 27, 2009 that the Citizens’ Election Program unconstitutionally burden the First Amendment rights of minor parties and issued an injunction enjoining the State Elections Enforcement Commission and the Attorney General from operating and enforcing the Citizens’ Election Program. The court granted the state a 2 week stay in order to give the Attorney General time to file an emergency appeal.
During the 2008 and 2009 regular sessions, the LWVCT supported and testified on a number of bills designed to expand the enforcement powers of the State Elections Enforcement Commission and to “tweak” the rules and procedures related to the Citizens’ Election Program, which provides public financing for campaigns. In 2008, a bill passed and was signed into law which expands the State Elections Enforcement Commission’s authority to issue cease and desist orders, makes changes to the registration forms for PACs, expands the law granting individuals the right to incur legal expenses to contest/maintain the results of an elections, subjects party candidate listings to attribution laws, repeals a requirement for certain mailings to bear a photograph of the candidate, “tweaks” the contractor and lobbyist bans, establishes grant application deadlines and a corresponding schedule of payments from the Citizens’ Election Fund, and allows participating candidates to spend supplemental grant money immediately upon receiving it. Bills introduced in 2009 to further “tweak” the system and expand the enforcement powers of the SEEC died, as the legislature focused its efforts on the budget crisis.
The November 2008 general election witnessed the first statewide rollout of the Citizens’ Election Program. Approximately 75% of the candidates running for the General Assembly in November elected to participate in the public financing program. Despite this success, the Citizens’ Election Program came under serious attack during the 2009 regular session. Several bills were introduced to significantly reduce the public financing grants available to eligible candidates under the program and a bill was introduced to eliminate the program in its entirety and to reverse the bans on lobbyist and state contractor contributions. The LWVCT opposed these bills, none of which were successful.
Given the state’s dire fiscal situation, the Citizens’ Election Fund, which holds money to be used for public financing during election years, proved to be a tempting target for legislators looking for money to fill the budget shortfall. Through budget cuts, transfers and recissions, the Citizens’ Election Program was reduced by approximately $21 million. In light of the dire fiscal situation, the LWVCT recognized that all state programs likely would require reductions, but opposes any further cuts or transfers from the Fund. The LWVCT has defended this program vigorously by actions such as testifying at public hearings, sending letters to the Governor, the Appropriations Committee and legislative leadership, participating in press conferences and writing letters to the editor. As of August 2009, budget negotiations were ongoing.
In spring 09, the LWVCT also participated in a press conference introducing the federal Fair Elections Now Act, which would allow federal candidates to run for office using small donations and limited public financing. The bill, which was introduced in the House of Representatives by Connecticut Representative John Larsen, has the support of the entire 2009 Connecticut congressional delegation.
ELECTION LAWS
(Adopted in 1983;amended 2005; amended 2007)
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut believes that the political process must be open to all citizens and that the right to vote with confidence in the election process and with adequate information with which to make informed decisions must be guaranteed for all. To achieve these goals, the LWVCT supports the following:
· expanded opportunities for the registration of potential voters via the Internet and through use of off-site, off-hour registration sessions, increased use of Mail-in applications and applications submitted through various state agencies;
· instruction by state and local officials on proper voter registration procedures for those distributing voter registration applications;
· implementation of Election Day Registration (EDR) for all federal, state and local elections with adequate safeguards to protect against fraud;
· maintenance of an accurate, reliable, state-wide electronic, centralized voter registration system and accurate local voter lists;
· adequate training, compensation, and assistance for registrars and adequate training for their designees;
· outreach to potential voters, such as high school students and new citizens, by town and state elections officials.
· sufficient funding and adequate personnel for state agencies to supervise and enforce election laws;
· expanded and unbiased public education in voting machine use, and expanded opportunity for unbiased ballot information at the polls;
· assistance to voters for whom English is not their primary language;
· mandatory training and supervision of all election workers to assure uniform compliance with federal and state laws;
· adoption of procedures to minimize voter inconvenience;
· identification of voters at polls to prevent fraud;
· instruction from the Office of the Secretary of the State to all election workers regarding the use of Presidential and Provisional ballots, ballot questions and referenda on Constitutional Amendments;
· impartial voter education by the Office of the Secretary of the State and local elections officials, where appropriate, regarding ballot questions and referenda;
· assurance that absentee voting privileges are available to all;
· stronger measures to protect the absentee ballot from fraud and undue influence.
Voting Technology (based on the LWVUS position)
· implementation of voting systems that are secure, accurate, recountable and accessible (SARA) in order to ensure the integrity of, and voter confidence in, elections;
· consideration of a broad range of options that meet SARA criteria and keep pace with evolving technology;
· use of voting systems and procedures that provide fairness to all voters, including the disabled and those who do not speak English as their primary language.
Adequate funding and support for state agencies responsible for supervising elections, enforcing election laws, and assuring the integrity of voting technology are fundamental to protecting citizens’ right to vote and having their votes counted.
Reviewing Connecticut’s election laws must be a continuing activity, in light of the evolving technology in voting systems, new legislation and regulations, and the needs of the public.
Background and Action
In 2004, the LWVCT testified in support of a re-submitted Election Day Registration bill which would also mandate training of registrars and town clerks. The LWVCT also worked in coalition to support other reform bills, such as an expanded Voter’s Bill of Rights, a bill for permanent funding of the “good government” commissions and compliance with HAVA. The Voter Bill of Rights and the permanent funding bill passed; the EDR bill passed all committees, but at the end of the session, it was referred to the GAE committee again and died at the end of the session. A bill requiring that all electronic voting machines have a voter-verified paper trail was debated during the session but died.
In December 2004, the GAE Committee held public hearings on voter registration and voting procedures during the presidential election. The LWVCT submitted a report on the compliance with the existing voter registration procedures and problems encountered during the presidential election including lack of training of election workers and uneven application of election laws. This was followed by a presentation to the leadership of the LWVCT Election Laws reform agenda. These initiatives included EDR, mandatory voter registration at all naturalization ceremonies, improved training of all registrars and poll workers, and a requirement that the Secretary of the State certify electronic voting equipment that is secure, accurate, recountable and accessible. The LWVCT expressed its concern about the Request for Proposal (RFP) by the Secretary of the State, urging the broadening of the eligibility to companies that developed a direct recording electronic (DRE) technology. The LWVCT was represented at the five regional GAE committee hearings on CFR, Ethics and Election Reform, especially as it concerned EDR. Testimony was repeated as the bill made its way through the various committees. Calls to Action were also issued. The LWVCT and the coalition supported the substitute language to the omnibus elections reform bill, responding to the concerns of registrars of voters. Ultimately, despite intensive efforts by the coalition, EDR did not pass. It had the support of all relevant committees, the Secretary of the State and the leadership of ROVAC (Registrars of Voters Association of CT). It was left to die because of the opposition of the rank-and-file registrars. Enacted into law were certain provisions setting the standards for DREs (including a voter-verified paper audit trail) and creating new voting and campaign procedures, mandating the preparation of an on-line voters’ guide, requiring the Secretary of the State to provide voter registration services at certain naturalization ceremonies and a new study on push polling Thus, despite the hard work by the LWVCT and coalition partners, EDR did not pass in the 2004 session.
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires the state to use voting machines which meet certain requirements regarding accessibility and reliability during all federal elections. During the fall of 2005, League members from around the state attended the voting machine demonstrations put on by the Secretary of the State’s office. The LWVCT conducted an informal survey of their reactions, sent a letter to the Secretary of the State, Governor and GAE leadership regarding our concerns, and issued a press statement on the matter. Among other things, the LWVCT called for the Voting Technology Standards Board to be convened immediately and for the SOTS to lease, not purchase, the voting machines required to meet the HAVA requirements for the 2006 elections.
The Voting Technology Standards Board was convened in December 2005, quickly issued a report and disbanded. During the 2006 session, the LWVCT advocated for the re-authorization of the Voting Technology Standards Board. The bill fell victim to the clock, as time ran out on the legislative session. Also during the 2006 session, the LWVCT opposed a bill that would have required full-faced ballots for direct recording electronic voting machines. After heavy lobbying by the LWVCT, the bill’s sponsor agreed not to bring the bill up for a vote before the full legislature during that session.
The SOTS initially selected a direct recording electronic machine for the HAVA mandate. However, after problems surfaced with the vendor and certification, the SOTS reversed herself. Ultimately, the SOTS chose optical scan machines to replace the state’s lever machines, which do not meet the HAVA requirements. Twenty-five communities were selected to pilot the machines during the 2006 elections. Audits of the new machines were conducted in 17 randomly selected districts.
In 2007, passing some form of Election Day Registration was again a LWVCT priority.. The LWVCT worked closely with DemocracyWorks on education efforts (focus groups, a public forum and presentations at the Convention of the Registrars of Voters Association of Connecticut) and with legislative leaders and the Secretary of the State’s office on crafting a bill. The initial bill called for full EDR. When it became apparent that there would be stiff resistance to passage of full EDR, a voluntary pilot program was suggested. Although a number of towns were willing to participate in the pilot, concerns were raised about the constitutionality of the program. Neither the SOTS nor the Attorney General were willing to give assurances in that regard. Finally, a statewide demonstration project was suggested for the 2008 presidential preference primary. The bill passed the Senate, but was never called in the House. On a positive note, the LWVCT and its coalition partners were successful in defeating several amendments that would have required voters to produce a photo ID at the polls in order to exercise the right to vote.
Photo ID amendments were also placed on various bills during the 2008 regular session. The LWVCT lobbied actively against the amendments. The sponsors did not call the photo ID amendment on the one bill that passed; time ran out before the other bills could be called. Consequently, there was no debate on photo ID requirements in either chamber in 2008.
The LWVCT, together with other good government groups, again advocated for the passage of Election Day Registration during the 2009 regular session. A bill was introduced and passed in the House. However, despite agreement on the language of the bill among the various stakeholders (e.g. registrars, town clerks, good government groups, the State Elections Enforcement Commission and the Secretary of the State), the bill was never brought up for a vote in the Senate, ostensibly because of the number of hostile amendments that had been filed on it.
The LWVCT will continue to push for passage of an EDR bill in future years.
All municipalities were required to use the new optical scan voting machines during the 2007 elections. The LWVCT believes that manual, random audits are essential to ensuring the integrity of the machines and instilling voter confidence in the new machines. During the 2007 session, the LWVCT worked closely and successfully with the Secretary of the State’s office on the passage of a law which requires random, manual audits of voting machines after each election. The LWVCT was also proactive in the rollout of the new voting technology. Prior to the 2007 elections, the LWVCT created “Stop, Look and Listen,” a statewide voter education program regarding the new machines. The LWVCT conducted a series of regional training sessions for local league volunteers on effective voter outreach on the new voting machines. About 60 local League volunteers reached approximately 2,400 people at scheduled informational meetings with countless others informed by LWV cable access broadcasts, community events and voter registration drives and via our newsletter. The LWVCT was also a founding member of the Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition. The Coalition was formed to organize citizens to observe the audits. The purpose of the observations is to demonstrate citizen interest in the process, increase citizen involvement in elections, provide feedback to the Secretary of the State and the legislature on the process and its contribution to confidence in our elections, and provide the public with information necessary to determine their confidence in our elections. To date, LWVCT has participated in three audit observations. Following each audit observation, the Coalition issues a report detailing its observations and recommendations. The reports are posted on the LWVCT website.
The LWVCT’s participation in the “Stop, Look and Listen” program and the audit coalition has helped inform its advocacy efforts. The LWVCT’s primary concern regarding both the rollout of the new voting technology and the audits was the lack of consistency exhibited across the state. To address these concerns, the LWVCT supports the creation of an independent audit board, “professionalization” of registrars, the adoption of clear statutory and regulatory guidelines, and expansion of the investigatory and enforcement powers of the State Elections Enforcement Commission. During the 2008 and 2009 regular sessions, bills were introduced to establish an independent audit board, require separate entities to program and test election hardware, address privacy in the voting process, amend the Voter’s Bill of Rights, require the Secretary of the State to establish/refine audit procedures, require the Secretary of the State to establish a certification program for registrars, and expand the powers of the State Elections Enforcement Commission, among other things. The LWVCT was generally supportive of these bills and testified in favor of many of the provisions. Most of these bills made it out of committee; however, all of them ultimately died.
In 2005, Public Act 05-235 was passed and signed into law, creating new requirements for the distribution of applications for absentee ballots. The LWVCT believes that this law has had a chilling effect on the distribution of absentee ballots. During the 2007 regular session, a bill was introduced that would have eliminated the pre-registration requirement for distributors of applications for absentee ballots. The LWVCT testified in favor of the bill, but felt that the changes to the law should go even further. The bill died in the GAE Committee. During the 2009 session, a bill was again introduced that would have repealed the requirement of pre-registering with the town clerk, as well as have eliminated the requirement of maintaining and filing a list of the people who receive absentee ballot applications. The LWVCT testified in favor of the bill. An amended version of the bill (minus the provisions dealing with the distribution of absentee ballots) passed the House, but died on the Senate calendar.
A resolution proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to remove restrictions on the categories of citizens who can vote by absentee ballot was also introduced in 2007. The resolution died on the Senate calendar. During the 2009 session, resolutions were introduced to remove the restrictions on absentee voting from the State Constitution, thereby permitting so-called “no excuse” absentee voting, a form of early voting. The LWVCT testified in favor of these amendments. Two resolutions were voted out of the GAE Committee, but died on House and Senate calendars, respectively.
Concerned about voter disenfranchisement, the LWVCT submitted a statutory proposal in 2008 to create a “permanent absentee ballot status” for voters unable to get to the polls. Although the LWVCT’s proposal died in committee, a more limited proposal was included in the 2008 Secretary of the State’s bill. That bill passed the Senate, but was never called in the House. A bill to establish a system for the automatic mailing of absentee ballots to persons who are permanently disabled and unable to go to the polls was again introduced in 2009. The bill, which the LWVCT supported, passed the Senate as time ran out in the regular session.
In terms of voter registration, LWVCT in 2008 spoke at a press conference in strong support for federal legislation that would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to permit VA offices and facilities to be designated as voter registration agencies in accordance with the National Voter Registration Act and to allow nonpartisan organizations to provide voter registration assistance. The legislation was sponsored by Connecticut Congressman Chris Murphy and quickly passed the House of Representatives. The ban on non-partisan voter registration drives was ultimately lifted by the VA.
In 2009, the Pew Center on the States issued a report, entitled No Time To Vote: Challenges Facing America’s Overseas Military Voters, which found that overseas military voters from Connecticut did not have enough time to vote under current Connecticut law. The report noted that “[o]verseas military voters from Connecticut can fax their ballot request—but the state requires the ballots to be transmitted to and from voters by postal mail. Because the time needed for ballots to travel by mail takes longer than the time Connecticut provides in its process, the state’s military voters abroad would need 13 additional days to have enough time to vote.”
The report suggested a number of steps that Connecticut could take to remedy this situation including sending out blank ballots earlier and accepting completed ballots later, allowing electronic transmission of blank ballots, and expanding the use of federal write-in absentee ballots for state and local elections. A bill was introduced during the 2009 regular session to remedy the overseas ballot situation by requiring the Secretary of the State to work with the State Elections Enforcement Commission and the United States Department of Defense to ensure that overseas military voters can use a secure fax, email or other electronic transmission to receive and submit (1) the official postcard form that contains an absentee voter registration application and absentee ballot application for voting in federal elections and (2) a state absentee ballot. The Secretary of the State also included a provision in her bill to allow active duty members of the military to apply for absentee ballots in January of an election year.
The LWVCT believes that Connecticut must take immediate steps to prevent the disenfranchisement of our military voters who are serving overseas. The LWVCT, which supports secure electronic transmission of the federal postcard application form (both ways) and any absentee ballot to the voter, testified in favor of the 2009 bill. At the same time, LWVCT raised concerns about issues related to privacy, voter fraud and undue influence in connection with the transmission of a completed ballot from the overseas voter to the town clerk’s office and called upon the Secretary of the State to look carefully and thoughtfully at measures which can ease the transmission of the completed ballot while preserving privacy and preventing fraud and undue influence. Regretfully, both the 2009 bill and the Secretary of the State’s bill died. The LWVCT will continue to look for ways to ensure that overseas military voters are not disenfranchised.
In 2008, the General Assembly adopted a resolution to amend the State Constitution to allow 17 year old citizens who will turn 18 on or before the day of a regular election to vote in its primary. The LWVCT supported the amendment. The question was placed on the November ballot and passed.
During the 2007 session, two “bills” were introduced that would have provided for election of the president by popular vote rather than by the Electoral College. Neither bill passed. In 2008 and 2009, bills were introduced to make Connecticut a signatory to “The Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.” The LWVCT did not testify on these bills due to a lack of position at the national level. At the 2008 LWVUS Convention, delegates adopted a study of the National Popular Vote Compact, which was completed in 2009. The LWVUS Board determined that no consensus was reached. Consequently, the LWVCT must continue to remain silent on the issued of the National Popular Vote Compact.
Election reform has been an area of intense activity over the past several years. The LWVCT has been aided in this area by the efforts of our lobbyists, Judith Blei and Associates, and by the unflagging dedication of our members to these issues. The Election Laws Specialist testifies on relevant bills, works with legislators and executive branch personnel on issues of importance to the LWVCT and provides a presence at the Capitol. Members have answered action alerts, written letters and personally lobbied their representatives. At the 2007 Convention, the delegates approved updates to the position and again voted to make Election Laws a LWVCT priority. At the 2009 Convention, the delegates again voted to make Election Laws a LWVCT priority and to undertake a study regarding election law timelines, ballot access procedures and United States Senate vacancies.
Action has also been taken on LWVUS Action Alerts related to election reform, as requested by LWVUS.
(Adopted 2004)
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut believes that the public should have confidence in the integrity of its government. Government officials and employees should be held accountable for carrying out their duties in both an effective and an ethically responsible manner.
To these ends, the LWVCT supports actions to:
1. Reform, strengthen, and clarify Connecticut’s codes of ethics as they apply to public officials, public employees, and lobbyists.
2. Ensure the existence of strong, effective, independent watchdog agencies, such as the State Ethics Commission, Freedom of Information Commission, and the State Elections Enforcement Commission; support the allocation of resources necessary for these commissions to fulfill their responsibilities.
3. Require a transparent, competitive, and clearly defined state contract selection process.
4. Promote the establishment of municipal ethics commissions and municipal ethics codes as applied to municipal public officials, municipal public employees, and municipal lobbyists.
Background and Action
The 2004 session was dominated by concerns over ethics lapses in Hartford, Bridgeport and Waterbury. The Government Administration and Elections (GAE) Committee held early meetings requesting input on several ethics bills, including the composition and funding of the State Ethics Commission, its investigatory and penalty assessment powers, campaign contributions by state contractors, municipal ethics boards and codes, and corrupt officials. Several passed: funding of the Ethics Commission and expansion of its membership passed as did bills strengthening laws concerning gifts by state contractors. The LWVCT recommended and the leadership appointed Helen Pearl as the community representative on the Ethics Commission as of July 1, 2004.
In August 2004, at Governor Rell’s invitation, the LWVCT presented proposals for additional campaign finance reform and ethics legislative package, making a strong connection between ethics and campaign finance reform.
During the 2005 session, the LWVCT supported the bills reforming the state contracting process, and several other bills concerning the recovery of funds by the Attorney General, revocation of state pension benefits for those found guilty of ethics transgressions, and confidentiality of municipal ethics complaints. We supported, in principle only, the reorganization of the Ethics Commission and to have it receive all necessary resources. The proposed reorganization of the Ethics Commission was opposed by the Commission members and several articles in the press criticized the LWVCT as being inactive on ethics reform. A strongly-worded explanation of our support for “a strong, effective, independent watchdog agency” and for increasing citizen involvement in the process was published in the Hartford Courant. Ultimately, the legislature acted to replace the current Ethics Commission with a new Office of State Ethics, effective October 1, 2005. The legislature passed an omnibus bill to reform corrupt contracting practices by large majorities and the Governor was on record as strongly supporting this bill, but she unexpectedly vetoed the legislation after the July special session. At the same time, the Governor issued an executive order mandating many of the reforms included in the vetoed bill. The legislature decided against an attempt to override the veto.
In 2006, two ethics provisions, a “revolving door” provision which prohibits the Governor from accepting employment from any state contractor for a period of one year after he/she leaves office and a prohibition on accepting honorariums to the Governor’s spouse, were included in PA 06-137. State contracting reform and municipal ethics bills died.
During the 2007 session, a bill passed that requires certain public officials and state employees to identify their outside employers in their annual statements of financial interests. The bill also establishes a task force to study the Office of State Ethics’ recommendations regarding a municipal code of ethics. Another bill, which would have established a municipal code of ethics and regulated municipal lobbyists, died on the House calendar.
At the beginning of the regular session, the LWVCT was hopeful that 2008 would be the year of significant ethics reforms at the state level. The LWVCT testified in favor of several different ethics bills. During the regular session, the House and Senate passed competing versions of an ethics bill. The bill died in the House as time ran out on the last day of the session.
During a June 2008 special session, the legislature finally passed an ethics bill that the Governor signed into law. Among other things, the new law (P.A. 08-3) requires legislators to undergo mandatory ethics training and permits state courts to reduce or revoke pensions of state and municipal officials and employees who commit certain crimes related to their employment.
During the 2009 regular session, the LWVCT testified in favor of a bill that would have established a model code of ethics and required each municipality to adopt a code of ethics containing certain minimum standards. The bill was favorably voted out of two committees, but never taken up by the full legislature. A bill that would have required municipal lobbyists to register with the Office of State Ethics and wear badges while lobbying died in committee.
In the absence of a specialist dedicated to this area, the LWVCT monitored and testified, but otherwise did not actively advocate, on ethics issues. Action was also taken on LWVUS Calls to Action, as requested.
(Adopted 1981; amended and affirmed 2003)
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut supports the following components of the state’s fiscal policy:
1. The state budget should be an effective policy-making tool of the state government. The budget should be based on uniform accounting and reporting procedures and should identify all money available to the state. Such budget should contain:
· clearly stated goals accompanied by enough detail to enable priority setting among programs; financial data on past performance in meeting goals;
· economic impact data and program costs.
2. The Spending Cap authorized by the 1992 Constitutional Amendment should be made more responsive to the fiscal realities of the state by enacting the following changes:
· require capped expenditures to grow only by the increase in personal income, inflation or Connecticut adjusted gross income, whichever of the three options is the greatest;
· reduce income growth factor from five to three years;
· re-base by adding that portion of surplus spending used for on-going expenses to the base going forward each year;
· exempt federal funds for those programs growing at a rate exceeding the income growth rate and whose federal matching grants are large compared to the state portion of funding; particularly Medicaid;
· exempt new federal funds the first year.
3. Bonds should be used only for long-term capital projects and never for current expenditures.
4. The state should fund at least 50% of the Educational Cost Share grant, increased state funding for special education costs, and fully fund the PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) for state-owned properties.
5. The “circuit breaker” program of property relief for the elderly should be extended to all low-income families regardless of age, and should apply to renters as well as owners of property. These complex programs should be well publicized and assistance with the application process should be available to all who are applying. Any relief granted under this program should be funded by the state government, to avoid further burden on other property taxpayers in the municipalities.
6. Should inadequate revenues be generated by the current state tax system to fund the budget, additional revenues should come from increasing the progressivity of the income tax.
Background and Action
In 2004, several property tax reform and education funding bills were proposed, including a bill that would have eliminated the ECS funding cap and raised the foundation element of the ECS formula. The bill eliminating the ECS cap passed. The LWVCT provided testimony in favor of a bill providing for the maximization of federal funds and supported changes in the state revenue reporting. The bills did not pass. The 2004 budget produced a very modest surplus; therefore no proposals for additional taxes were presented.
In 2005, the legislature was again facing a significant budget deficit and various tax increases were proposed. It appeared that the spending cap would be exceeded in this fiscal year, resulting in a call for a review of the legislation. The LWVCT submitted comments on various bills concerning the spending cap, maximization of federal funds and use of unappropriated surplus. The bills did not pass.
In 2008 and 2009, the state again faced significant budget deficits. Various spending cuts, tax increases and transfers from different funds were proposed, with several deficit mitigation bills passing to deal with the 2008 shortfall. As of this August 09 writing, the Governor and legislature remain at odds and the state does not have a budget for the 2009-’10 biennium. Negotiations are ongoing.
The LWVCT currently has no specialist in the areas of the Spending Cap or budgets. As a result, the LWVCT testified and advocated against budget cuts to specific programs under its various positions (e.g. cuts to the Citizens’ Election Program which provides public financing for campaigns), but provided only limited comments on the overall budget process.
(Adopted 1982, affirmed in 2003)
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut supports continued improvement in the structure and procedures of the General Assembly in order to maintain its effectiveness as an independent and responsive branch of the state government. It should have the means to make independent judgments in fiscal and budgetary matters and to insure that the intent of its adopted legislation is pursued efficiently by agencies of the executive branch. To these ends, we support the following objectives:
· annual sessions of limited length; increased use of the interim between sessions for preliminary consideration of legislation and for oversight to evaluate existing legislation and its implementation;
· four-year staggered terms for state senators;
· compensation for legislators commensurate with the requirements of legislative service and sufficient to insure that any eligible citizen may serve without undue regard to his/her financial status. The League would emphasize the need for fiscal responsibility as well.
· continued improvement in the organization and procedures of the General Assembly to provide an orderly flow of legislation with full and open consideration by committees and on the floor of the General Assembly and a public hearing scheduling plan to promote full participation of committee members by minimizing conflicts. We encourage each legislator to use discretion regarding the number of bills he/she proposes and to seek opportunities to co-sponsor bills;
· uniform adherence to public hearing procedures that give priority to the public's convenience, allow for ample public comment on any legislation which will later go before the General Assembly, and assure such comments an adequate audience by committee members.
Background and Action
In advance of the 2004 legislative session, the LWVCT contacted all legislators to urge support for a proposal to streamline legislative operations and to request appointment of a League representative to a committee to propose procedural changes. Issues under consideration were: improvements to the procedures at committee hearings, legislation debated at closed meetings or caucuses, scheduling of committee hearings and of votes on legislation passed by committees, and lack of public parking. A subcommittee under the Joint Committee of Legislative Management was formed to look at a variety of procedural and access issues. The LWVCT was not granted a seat on the committee but our specialist attended the various meetings and presented a written proposal for changes to the committee. Kevin Sullivan was the principal proponent of the revisions; when he became Lt. Governor, the impetus for the reforms was gone.
Ultimately, the committee recommended minor changes; a minority (Republican) report pushed for further improvements but that report was not implemented. However, access by the public to the LOB parking garage has been much improved.
Other activity included action on several bills designed to strengthen the Ethics laws concerning gifts, financial disclosures, contracting procedures, funding of the “good government” agencies and whistleblower complaints. Most of these bills passed. With the investigations of Governor Rowland, Ethics became a major issue. Lacking a specific position on Ethics, the LWVCT board authorized a committee to develop a position statement on Ethics for approval at Council 2004. Hence, many of the activities previously reported under this position have been transferred to the Ethics section.
From 2005 to the present, we have seen a slight improvement in the scheduling of committee and public hearings, and somewhat better parking availability. The LWVCT supported a trial expansion of public parking by converting an existing government employee lot into a public lot; although the trial period worked well for the public, it reverted back to government use. However, the basement of the LOB parking garage was made available to the public.
Hoping to capitalize on the legislature’s concern regarding ethics in 2008, the LWVCT submitted statutory proposals intended to foster transparency in government by requiring (1) a public hearing whenever a bill or amendment creates an exception to an existing statute and (2) printing of “strike all amendments” at least 2 days in advance of passage. A bill containing these proposals was voted out of the GAE Committee, but died in the Judiciary Committee. In 2009, the LWVCT submitted these proposals both as statutory and potential rule changes to the House and Senate leadership but neither approach succeeded.
In 2009, the LWVCT also testified in support of a constitutional amendment to extend the terms of senators from two years to four years. The text of the amendment was substantially revised during the committee process; the amendment was never taken up by the full legislature.
(Adopted in 1984; affirmed in 2003)
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut supports the current method of amending the State Constitution, with amendments proposed by the General Assembly and ratified by referendum and then the General Assembly. The League of Women Voters of Connecticut opposes the adoption of the initiative device to propose Constitutional amendments, direct initiative to propose laws, and the initiative and referendum device as a non-binding expression of public opinion.
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut believes that the incorporation of the following controls into any initiative and referendum plan is essential:
● A provision for legal review of the initiative proposal;
● A time limit for the collection of signatures and a ban on payment for solicitation of signatures;
● Definitions of the qualifications of sponsors, circulators, and signers of petitions and a determination of a method for legal verification of signatures.
● Geographical distribution of signatures and a signature requirement high enough to discourage frivolous use.
● Full disclosure of contributions to initiative campaigns and limits on contributions if constitutional means can be found.
● Provision for statewide dissemination of printed material on ballot questions, including full text, explanatory information, pros and cons, and an estimate of the cost of the proposed change.
● Specification of the size of the vote necessary for passage.
The League feels strongly that these requirements should be addressed through the statutes, while the constitutional amendment itself should contain only the broad outlines of an initiative and referendum proposal.
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut believes that a measure proposed by initiative and adopted by referendum should not be subject to gubernatorial veto, and that the voters should have the power, through a subsequent referendum, to amend or repeal such measures. We believe that ballot questions should be placed before the voters only at general elections, not at special elections. We feel strongly that improvements need to be made in the content and dissemination of information on ballot questions, and that the cost of printing and distributing such information be borne by the government.
Background and Action
(Adopted 2008)
A Neutral Internet: "Net Neutrality"
The LWVCT believes that a free and open Internet is increasingly important to the protection of individual liberties – freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association – guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and by the Connecticut Constitution. The League also believes that net neutrality protections are essential for political discourse, dissemination of news, and democratic participation. Therefore, the League of Women Voters of Connecticut supports the LWVUS position to protect the open, neutral, nondiscriminatory nature of the Internet. To further this position, the LWVCT supports efforts by the State of Connecticut to protect the open, neutral, nondiscriminatory nature of the Internet.
Universal High Speed Internet Access for Connecticut
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut supports making high speed Internet access available to all Connecticut residents, without charge, through schools, libraries, and other secure public buildings. High speed affordable Internet access is an essential service that should be readily available to all Connecticut residents and businesses. State and local government policies should support broadband, wireless, and other means of high speed Internet deployment throughout the state.
Efficient, high speed access to the Internet for all Connecticut residents-regardless of geographic location or neighborhood demographics-is a necessity for assuring equal access to local and state government, for maintaining openness and transparency in government activities, for communicating with legislative leaders, for engaging in political discourse, for competing in the global marketplace, and for assuring that voters receive the information they need to participate in our democracy.
Community Access and Public Affairs TV:
Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) TV & the Connecticut Network (CT-N)
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut believes that community access television channels – for public, educational, and governmental programming – must be adequately protected, promoted, and funded, regardless of the provider of TV/video services to Connecticut residents. Statewide public affairs programming, such as provided by The Connecticut Network (CT-N), must be adequately protected, promoted, and funded by the state legislature and available to all Connecticut residents, regardless of the provider of TV/video services. Government should provide opportunities for citizen participation in decisions regarding community access, or PEG, TV.
Access to the public airwaves through modem TV/video communication is essential to the public interest and to League of Women Voters’ mission and purpose- to protect civil liberties, to ensure open, transparent government, and to promote the public’s right to know. To protect the public interest, high quality PEG transmission and PEG availability on basic service tiers are essential.
Background and Action
At the 2006 LWVUS Convention in Minneapolis, LWVCT proposed and caucused for a resolution to recognize a Net Neutrality position as based on League Principles. The Convention delegates adopted the Net Neutrality resolution but rejected another (also introduced by LWVCT) in support of community access television. Meanwhile, the Connecticut Dept of Public Utility Control (DPUC) ruled that Internet Protocol Television (IPTV), such as AT&T’s U-verse service, is technically different from cable television (CATV) and so should be regulated differently. A federal judge ruled in contradiction to DPUC, that IPTV is just like CATV. There is an ongoing appeal to the last ruling.
In 2006-07, while LWVCT studied media issues, the General Assembly passed legislation which established the Connecticut Broadband Internet Coordinating Council (CBICC), consisting of academics, public officials and industry representatives, to study and advise the legislature on ways to increase high speed Internet availability in the state. Another bill, PA 07‑253, revised statutes to incorporate IPTV in the same regulatory area (under DPUC) as CATV. It also established a special fund to help cover capital costs for PEG TV programming and production.
In 2008, the LWVCT concurrence was still in process. Some unintended consequences of PA 07-253 had come to light. Delivery of PEG programs by an IPTV service provider was found wanting in most states where it was introduced; however, changes in the regulatory landscape made the problems difficult to address. PEG entities tried to push legislation during the 2008 legislative session to correct this, but the bill failed.
In April, 2008, LWVCT achieved concurrence on its “media study” positions dealing with net neutrality, universal access to high speed Internet, and community access television. LWVCT monitored legislative initiatives in this area including the bill favored by PEG entities.
In 2009, budget deficits impeded action in any other area of legislative activity. Nevertheless, in coalition with several PEG organizations, LWVCT testified and advocated for a bill, which reintroduced many of the concepts in the failed 2008 bill, primarily addressing signal quality of PEG programming and a DPUC performance review of all parties in the industry. LWVCT and partners met with industry representatives three times during the session to negotiate amendments. The bill died on the House calendar.
(Adopted 1983; affirmed in 2003)
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut urges all political parties to make their process more accessible to the public.
We believe that:
� only enrolled party members should be eligible to participate in their party's nominating processes and urge the parties to take action which will promote greater participation by members;
� requirements for the placement of petitioning or minor party candidates on the ballot should not be made more restrictive than at present.
Background and Action
In 2004 the General Assembly adopted a new primary system. The LWVCT did not participate in the discussions as we felt our position did not adequately cover the proposals. During the 2008 regular session, a bill was introduced at the LWVCT’s urging to allow voters who switch parties to retain the rights of the old party until new party privileges attach. During the 2009 session, a bill was introduced, again at the LWVCT’s urging, to reduce the time of attachment of party privileges for electors who change parties from three months to one month. Both bills died.
Also, in 2008, the General Assembly passed a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment allowing 17 year olds who turn 18 before the next election to vote in the primary. The question was placed on the November ballot and passed. The LWVCT supported the amendment.
At the 2009 Convention, the delegates approved a study of 1) Connecticut’s procedures for certifying candidates for inclusion on the ballot, 2) the state election calendar timelines and 3) the examination of the methods for filling US senate vacancies. The outcome of this study will inform our future advocacy efforts in this area.
Support apportionment of congressional districts and elected legislative bodies at all levels of government based substantially on population and fairness.
LWVCT Redistricting Guidelines:
· The LWVCT goal is to reapportion the state legislature on the basis of population and fairness.
· The League supports contiguity and compactness of districts; districts substantially equal in population; integrity of political subdivisions; and preservation of community interests.
Background and Action
Based on the 2000 census, the Reapportionment Committee re-drew Connecticut’s six US Congressional districts into five, and state election districts were also re-districted.
There has been no activity in this area since the most recent reapportionment. The LWVCT continues to monitor this important program area.
Protect the citizen’s right to know and facilitate citizen participation in government decision making.
Background and Action
During the 2008 regular session, the League testified in favor of two “good government” bills that would have made it easier for citizens to stay active and informed about their government. These bills would have required state agencies to publish their regulations on their websites and would have created an online citizen’s forum to receive suggestions about ways to improve state services. The bill dealing with publication of state agency regulations passed the Appropriations Committee, but was tabled for the House calendar where it died, presumably because of the deteriorating fiscal condition of the state. The electronic citizen’s forum bill died in the Appropriations Committee.
Also in 2008, as part of the Ethics bill passed during the special session, a provision was included requiring public agencies to post minutes of their meetings on available websites within 7 days. In response to an outcry from many local municipalities that the 7 day requirement was too onerous, bill SB 772 was introduced in 2009 to extend the amount of time that agencies have to comply with the law from 7 days to 14 days; that bill, which the LWVCT supported, died on the Senate calendar.
(Adopted 1975; affirmed 2005)
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut supports policies and procedures which promote comprehensive long-range planning for conservation and development of land and water resources.
These include measures to preserve and protect:
· inland wetlands and water courses
· tidal wetlands
· flood hazard areas
· watershed lands
· agricultural lands, including pasture and forest lands
· open space, ridges
The League believes that the state, with provision of technical assistance, should have a major role in land use planning in cooperation with other levels of government. We recommend a regional long-range approach to planning for land and water resources. Opportunities for citizen participation in decisions concerning land and water resources should be provided.
The LWVCT believes that land use planning at all levels of government should reflect the need to conserve energy by coordinating the planning for housing, employment and mass transportation, and by zoning to encourage multi-family housing where such facilities could be served by city water and sewers.
The League supports our present system of regulating wetlands, both inland and tidal, under state law with municipalities having the option of regulating their own inland wetlands. We feel that ridges should be regulated in a similar manner.
Transportation routes should be designed by a coordinated effort on all levels.
Strong state involvement in the siting of oil refineries, power facilities, and airports with attention paid to regional and local concerns should be provided.
Primary responsibility for other industrial facilities and regional shopping complexes should be at the local level with some regional input.
In general, local people should have control over land use decisions of purely local concern, and regional and state governments over those of regional and statewide impact: since most decisions have implications at all levels, a mechanism for input and decision-making by all levels is highly desirable. For those areas of the state still lacking local controls, the state should require the adoption of local zoning regulations.
The League believes that Connecticut’s existing agricultural land, (tilled, pasture, forest lots, etc.) should be protected from development and supports more state technical, legal and financial aid to preserve farmland. We strongly endorse the state’s purchase of development rights for agricultural land.
The LWVCT supports the Connecticut Plan of Conservation and Development, which provides a planning process to guide the future conservation and development of Connecticut and to insure efficient use of the state’s financial and natural resources. It establishes a growth policy to balance economic, environmental and social needs.
The overall Plan strategy is to reinforce and conserve existing urban areas, to promote staged growth, and to preserve areas of significant environmental value.
Background and Action
In 2004, the LWVCT worked to broaden the Endangered Land Coalition and contacted legislators to urge support for a change in statutes giving the Commissioner of Public Health the power to place reservoirs and protect the surrounding land from development and to change the DPUC rule to award water company shareholders the majority of the benefits for conservation land sales instead of for sales that allow development. The LWVCT and the Coalition also testified in support of Aquifer Protection regulations and for safeguards against water reservoir abandonment. After constant prodding, the Reservoir Land Protection bill passed the various committees of cognizance and the coalition worked hard to assure action before the end of the session. The bill passed the Senate but had to return for a House vote. It passed on the last day of the session after an all-out Action Alert. Even more dramatic was the progress of the reservoir abandonment bill. An inconsistency was discovered in the language of the bill the House was ready to vote on in the last moments of the session; this required it to go back to the Senate and thus would kill the bill. After frantic negotiations, the leadership agreed to place the bill onto the “budget implementer bill.” It was passed and signed into law.
The LWVCT sent comments to the Planning and Development Committee’s meetings on ”smart growth” initiatives and property tax burdens and expressed strong support for the strengthened State Plan of Conservation and Development 2004-2009. The legislature did not act on the Plan as it wanted additional time to consider public comment. Fall Conference 2004 dealt with ”sustainable growth” and other related topics. The LWVCT re-submitted its comments on the Plan of Conservation and Development and reiterated its strong support for the document.
Before the start of the 2005 session, the LWVCT and coalition partners urged the Governor to place additional funds in her budget for various land preservation programs. A bill was drafted and eventually signed into law by the Governor providing funding for farm land preservation, land protection, affordable housing and historic preservation.
A Clean Water Investment bill that would establish a $1 per month drinking water surcharge to pay for conserving the lands that surround water supplies died in the Energy and Technology Committee. The LWVCT testified in favor of a bill expanding previous legislation that would require notification of the Public Health Commissioner when development projects are proposed on land within water supply watersheds. Although the bill was sent to the Senate, it was not brought up and died.
The LWVCT also lobbied for the adoption of the re-submitted State Plan of Conservation and Development. It was passed and signed into law.
In 2006, the League, working in partnership with the Endangered Lands Coalition, supported legislation giving the Commissioner of Public Health notification of any development application in a public drinking water watershed. This passed and was signed into law.
In 2007, the League, in partnership with the Endangered Lands Coalition, advocated on two proposals. The League supported a provision in a bill to restore incentives for the conservation of surplus water company lands. Unfortunately, a law passed in 2005 created unintended consequences by jeopardizing our state’s proven incentives law for the preservation of water company lands. The 2005 law required utilities to sell assets, such as land holdings, at public auction. For nonprofit organizations and/or government agencies working to preserve land, conservation sales cannot be achieved at a public auction but require months of careful analysis, multiple approvals, and funding partnerships. This “technical fix” provision passed as part of a larger bill and was signed into law. Alternatively, the League vehemently opposed an amendment attached to a bill in the final 2 days of the session thwarting due process which would allow mining on New Britain Water Company Class I and Class II lands. Current law forbids such a use for water supply watershed lands. The League believes that allowing mining to occur on critical water supply lands sets a regulatory-busting precedent for the most critical of our resources. The legislature passed the bill and the Governor, despite much opposition, signed the bill into law. As a result of continued advocacy over the summer by Endangered Lands Coalition members and others, key legislators ultimately agreed that it would be best to repeal the law and the repeal passed in special session.
Also in 2007, the Governor’s initiative for “Responsible Growth” was supported by the League. Coordination between the LWVCT Land Use and Affordable Housing portfolios took place in this session. The League supported a bill which passed in special session providing a Massachusetts-style proposal for overlay zones in areas with infrastructure suitable for transit-oriented development that included affordably priced housing at specified densities.
In 2008, the League opposed a bill that would have set state standards for conservation development overlays and conservation subdivisions and the League supported a bill that defined “responsible growth,” stressed comprehensive long-range planning for conservation and development and stated that not less than 2 per cent of the cost of development would be used to develop pedestrian and other non-motorized transportation improvements. Neither bill passed.
In 2009, numerous “smart growth” bills were considered by the Legislature. The economic downturn encouraged regional planning and cooperation all by itself. The lack of planning and/or funds to do planning in FY2010 and beyond are the significant problems facing the state.
Over the years, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has been decimated by years of budget neglect. The lack of adequate funding has harmed our environment and the quality of life for Connecticut residents.
In 2008, a large group of environmental organizations lobbied for a restoration of funds for DEP in the amount of $5 million for staffing. Thanks to strong leadership and public support, the Appropriations Committee restored $4.5 million to the DEP’s operating budget. Three million dollars would be used for additional staff to put the DEP on the path to provide consistent enforcement of environmental laws that protect our health, air, water and lands; reduce polluted runoff; help local wetlands commissions respond to growing development pressure; and maintain and protect our public parks, wildlife and forests. With the economic situation worsening as the session progressed, the Governor and legislative leaders agreed not to “open up” the approved FY09 budget. Therefore, any legislation having a fiscal note was not approved by the Legislature. The group of concerned environmental organizations met prior to the 2009 legislative session, but it was felt that the large state budget deficit precluded an increase in DEP operating funds at this point in time. However, discussions were held on other revenue sources available to the DEP and how they could best be used to improve DEP service to the public.
(1975; affirmed 2007)
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut supports the planning and development of a balanced transportation system for Connecticut. The goals of such a system are to maintain air quality standards, conserve energy and land, and give all citizens freedom to move about regardless of age, income, or physical capacity. Connecticut's transportation system must be coordinated, interlocking, and multi-modal, able to respond to changing needs. Citizens must be included at all levels of planning.
Background and Action
In 2004, the LWVCT joined the Citizens Transportation Lobby, a group of Fairfield County residents dedicated to improving the safety of I-95 and other transportation improvements. A letter was sent to the leadership urging priority for transportation issues. A request for a progress report regarding the implementation of projects approved under the 2003 special session bill was sent to the Department of Transportation (DOT). In April, the DOT held regional meetings to publicize its 2005 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The LWVCT responded to the plan by urging more emphasis on reducing the traffic congestion on the state’s highways and on development of a coordinated, interlocking and multi-modal transportation system.
A new DOT Commissioner was appointed in late April 2004 and the LWVCT re-sent its comments on the STIP plan. This was followed by a Transportation Initiatives paper, sent to the Bureau of Policy and Planning of the DOT.
An expanded Transportation Initiatives paper was written and sent to the DOT and the Governor before the 2005 session. A broad coalition of statewide organizations held a very successful transportation rally at the Capitol to lobby for a variety of transportation initiatives, including approval of and funding for replacement railroad cars for the Metro-North line, an increase in barge and freight rail service to reduce traffic on highways, improved station parking, feeder bus service to rail stations, faster replacement of overhead wires and adequate state police to ensure safer conditions on the state’s highways.
The Governor included many of these initiatives in her budget. The LWVCT supported the transportation part of the budget by attending a variety of public hearings, writing letters to the editor and op-ed pieces, attending rallies, issuing calls to action. The LWVCT is on record as supporting the Governor’s proposal for a gradual increase in the gasoline tax and user fees (high speed tolls) and using traffic fines to pay for some of the mass transit projects. Towards the end of the 2005 session, the Governor modified the gasoline increase proposal to increase the tax at the wholesale level. Despite all the pressure, the bill did not pass in the regular session.
The Governor immediately called for a special session to include debate on the transportation package. The bonding was approved and the transportation package was enacted into law.
In January 2006, the LWVCT transmitted a list of its legislative priorities to the General Assembly’s Transportation Committee: reducing all vehicular traffic on the state’s roads by funding new railroad equipment and facilities, increasing barge transportation of goods and passengers, improving bus service between and within communities, and providing government subsidies for users of mass transit and incentives for employees/employers for usage of mass transit. An additional concern related to safety on the highways. The LWVCT proposed to fund these improvements by increasing fines for safety, speed and other violations, introduction of gateway user fees on all interstates and aggressive pursuit of federal funds. Several bills were debated and the LWVCT provided testimony on all; eventually, a comprehensive bill was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor that included restoring commuter rail service between New Haven and New London as well as numerous improvements to the state’s transportation system including rail station improvements on three lines, implementing New Britain-Hartford busway (subject to the availability of federal funds), a new commuter rail station between New Haven and Milford, dredging of New Haven port and establishing a railroad link to this port as well as planning for numerous highway improvements to be financed by the sale of bonds. The Transportation Strategy Board (TSB) was placed under the administrative aegis of the Office of Policy and Management. Transportation fared extremely well in 2006; thank-you letters were sent to the leadership and the Governor for their support of the initiatives.
The TSB, charged with developing, revising and implementing a Transportation Strategy for the state, held a series of public hearings in July and August 2006. The League presented testimony urging further expansion of the railroad branch system to allow freight access to port facilities and planning for a new rail freight connection across the Hudson River in New York City; increased bus service within and between communities and incentives for the use of mass transit. We urged the DOT to adopt a “Fix-it-First” policy in order to improve the infrastructure maintenance.
In coalition with the Citizens Transportation Lobby and other organizations, the LWVCT once again planned a Transportation Lobby Day in Hartford in January 2007. Many legislators attended and promised support for various initiatives to improve mass transit and reduce congestion on Connecticut’s highways.
During the 2007 legislative session, the LWVCT testified on numerous bills proposing a study of user fees on Connecticut’s highways, a bill to increase the hours of operation of the weigh stations, expansion of rail and bus service, new railroad cars for the various commuter rail lines, incentives for mass transit use and senior transportation. All the bills were eventually combined into an omnibus bill that passed all committees but was never brought up for a vote in the House.
The legislature approved a bonding package that included $20 million for bus transit which included, among other appropriations, $5 million to buy and install clean diesel bus retrofits and $1 million for elderly and disabled transportation programs.
Following the resignation of the Commissioner of Transportation in December 2007, the LWVCT urged the governor to appoint a new Commissioner open to a departmental change from road-building to longer-term solutions to traffic congestion and increased emphasis on mass transit. Also, in the preliminary budget discussions, the LWVCT urged the Transit Administrator in the Bureau of Public Transportation to increase the operating and capital budgets for bus service in the state.
At the start of the 2008 legislative session, the LWVCT submitted to the legislature its 2008 Transportation Priorities, calling for the reduction of vehicular traffic on Connecticut highways, expanded schedules, capacity and incentives for intra-state mass transit users, expanded traffic on existing rail and barge lines, better coordinated transportation planning, priority of infrastructure maintenance over new construction, improved highway safety and increases in the dedicated funding for mass transit.
Transportation bills faired poorly during the 2008 session. During the 2008 regular session, HB 5734 was raised and, if approved, would have added $7 million in operating funds in FY09 and $15 million in capital funds in FY09 to increase bus service across the state. However, due to the economic downturn in Connecticut, the Governor and Democratic legislative leaders agreed not to “open” the approved FY09 budget and no new funding was approved. While no “new” funding was achieved, $5 million in capital funds from the 2007 bonding bill was reallocated to allow for the purchase of buses and equipment needed to increase transit in the state.
Regretfully, budget deficits caused the Governor to convene a special deficit-mitigating session on November 24, 2008. The LWVCT strongly opposed the proposed $5 million reduction in bus operating expenses that had been approved in 2007 to increase and expand bus service in the state. This reduction was approved by the legislature. Budget negotiations to fund the 2009 budget deficit are still not resolved.
The LWVCT also contacted federal and state officials and successfully urged the inclusion of mass transit funding in the federal Stimulus package and specifically the inclusion of “shovel-ready” bus transit projects in the request for Stimulus funding.
The 2009 legislative session was dominated by the budget shortfalls. No initiative requiring new funds fared well. The LWVCT once again submitted its 2009 Transportation Priorities to the legislators and the Governor, based on the 2008 version but urged careful priority-setting among programs due to the fiscal crisis.
The LWVCT submitted an early testimony to the Transportation Committee urging consideration of various concepts to improve the flow of traffic and to fund improvements to mass transit. These included congestion pricing, electronic tolling, expanded rail freight, light rail expansion, easier access to mass transit venues and increased parking at rail stations. We supported mass transit funding at the Appropriations hearings, wrote to the Governor and the Transportation Strategy Board in support of congestion pricing, advocated in favor funding the specialized transportation for the elderly (the Dial-a-Ride bill), and sent a message to the Connecticut Economic Recovery Working Group and Commissioner Marie to thank them for giving priority to infrastructure maintenance projects over new construction.
Our success was quite limited: the light rail, rail freight, increased parking at railroad station bills all died in committee. The electronic tolls/congestion pricing legislation only authorized the DOT to conduct another analysis of the project and report to the legislature on June 30, 2010.
In May, the LWVCT testified at a public hearing in front of the Transportation Strategy Board in support of electronic tolling and congestion pricing.
In late May, as part of a budget deficit mitigation strategy , the governor proposed a 40% increase in bus fares and 10% increase in rail fares. The LWVCT strongly advocated against such increases, lobbying the governor, the legislative leadership and the rank and file. No budget exists as of this writing, but the Governor’s latest budget proposal indicates a reduction in bus operating expenses that may necessitate a 20% increase in bus fares.
The only bill passed and signed into law is the Improved Pedestrian and Bicycle Access bill to enhance non-motorized transportation alternatives, promote healthy lifestyles, encourage smart growth and reduce congestion by adopting a complete streets policy, establishing a permanent bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee, devoting a minimum percentage of funds to programs that improve bicycle and pedestrian access and authorizing the issuance of “Share the Road” number plates.
(1967; affirmed 2005)
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut supports state policies and programs which promote comprehensive long-range planning for conservation and development of land and water resources. Such planning should consider the interaction of our natural resources with each other as well as their relation to the needs of our growing population. Specific measures which the League supports include:
· enforcement of regulations to improve water quality;
· provision for an adequate staff to implement programs;
· acquisition and preservation of open space land, including inland wetlands and tidal marshes;
· a regional approach to planning;
· adequate and equitable financing of state programs;
· establishment of clear lines of authority and coordination of policy among state agencies.
Background and Action
During the 2004 and 2005 sessions, several clean water initiatives were proposed and debated. These included various Long Island Sound initiatives, extension of the Clean Water Fund grants to local municipalities (the bill passed), the Water Diversions Act, and Marine Sanctuaries. In 2005, a bill to mandate a Minimum Stream Flow Regulation and a bill authorizing the formation of a Bi-State Long Island Sound Committee passed. Much of the LWVCT action was concentrated in the area of drinking water and drinking watershed preservation, as described under Land Use.
In December 2005, the LWVCT co-sponsored the conference Water Law in Connecticut: Balancing Needs for Fish and Faucet.
In the 2006 session, the LWVCT opposed proposed changes to the state’s organizational structure of water planning and recommended further discussion among stakeholders to refine proposals. This bill died. The LWVCT also urged support for authorizing seventy million dollars in bonding to fund the Clean Water Fund, but the bonding package was not approved. In 2003 and 2004, the Connecticut General Assembly rescinded Clean Water funding and in 2005 voted not to fund the Clean Water Fund. In recent years, it appears clear that Connecticut has turned its back on its commitment to clean water, despite the outstanding results we have achieved based upon Clean Water Fund investments in reducing sewer line overflows and upgrading sewerage treatment plants.
At the 2007 LWVCT Convention, delegates voted to form a committee to update the Water Resources position in light of current knowledge of impacts of non-point-source pollution. However, no volunteers stepped forward to form a committee by the December 1, 2007, deadline, so the position is retained as is.
During the 2008 legislative session, LWVCT and coalition partners actively lobbied against an amendment to a bill pertaining to protecting small public water supply wells that could have been interpreted as weakening the Class I and II statutory protections on the lease and sale of water company land. Due to alarm raised by opponents, the co-chair of the Public Health Committee read a clear legislative intent statement into the record that this bill, which passed, does not affect in any way the laws pertaining to the protections of Class I and II lands.
LWVCT also worked in coalition to enhance wetlands protections by supporting a bill that would have aided our local volunteer boards by 1) clarifying that protecting wetlands is the primary purpose of the Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Act and 2) allowing local boards to rely on comments provided by state agencies, expert environmental review team reports, and local water companies in reaching decisions about wetlands. The bill died on the House calendar on the last night of the legislative session, largely because of a major backlog of bills.
LWVCT also supported a bill to protect a 100-foot wide strip of naturally vegetated riverfront area. This is critically important for rivers and streams that flow into our drinking water reservoirs, because, on average, only one mile out of five of these rivers and streams is owned by a water company and protected by statute. The bill passed Environment and Appropriations Committees, but failed narrowly in the Planning and Development Committee.
During the 2009 session, with the failing economy as a backdrop, advocates were required to spend precious time and energy to stop bills that would undermine basic environmental laws. LWVCT and coalition partners lobbied to defend the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA) from bills exempting an airport expansion and federally funded construction projects from standard environmental review; Clean Water Act against a bill exempting wastewater washed off boat hulls from regulation and from bills overriding the authority of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to regulate construction in a floodplain. Bills introduced to address the issues raised during 2008 session regarding enhancing wetland protections and establishing a uniform vegetative buffer again died.
The League supports measures to promote an environment beneficial to life through the protection and wise management of Natural Resources in the public interest by recognizing the interrelationships of Air Quality, Energy, Land Use, Waste Management and Water Resources.
The League supports:
· measures to reduce vehicular pollution, including inspection and maintenance of emission controls, changes in engine design and fuel types and development of more efficient transportation systems;
· regulation and reduction of pollution from stationary sources;
· regulation and reduction of ambient toxic air pollutants;
· measures to reduce transboundary air pollutants, such as ozone and those that cause acid deposition.
Background and Action
In 2004, the LWVCT and the Connecticut Climate Coalition lobbied for legislation to mandate California-type emissions standards for cars by 2007. The bill passed. The LWVCT also testified on behalf of a bill to preserve the physical, chemical and biological integrity of our ecosystem by reducing of CO2 pollution. The Coalition, including the LWVCT, sent over 4,000 letters to the Governor to demand action on global warming. A Climate Change Dialogue was convened by the Governor to recommend policies; 38 of the 55 recommendations were accepted, including a plan for the state to purchase 20% of electricity from clean sources by 2010. A bill requiring a plan to reduce greenhouse gas pollution to the 1990 levels by 2010 passed and was signed into law.
During the 2005 session, the Clean Cars Alliance focused on cleaning up diesel fuel emissions, clean energy and energy conservation, and clean cars incentive programs. Bills to establish a plan to reduce particulates from diesel fuels and to provide incentives to purchasers of clean and energy efficient cars passed and were signed into law. Bills to further reduce the sulfur content of home heating oils and fuel for off-road vehicles, warning of mercury contents of fish, green building standards and others did not pass.
In the 2006 session, the LWVCT advocated for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) to reduce global warming in the northeast region by cutting power plant carbon dioxide pollution. This regional agreement was signed by Governor Rell. We opposed changes to the Toxic Release Inventory and urged the retention of current reporting requirements; our letter countered proposals to limit public access to critical information about toxic chemicals released by companies into local communities and raise the reporting thresholds of toxic chemicals released into the environment. We testified in favor of the Clean Car Incentive Program. This bill passed. It required the DEP commissioner to establish a greenhouse gas (GHG) labeling program for new motor vehicles sold or leased for the 2009 model year or later and established a mechanism for public education that would include information about the environmental impact of emissions from motor vehicles and the impact of vehicle choice on vehicle GHG emissions. It established a $5 greenhouse registration fee that must be deposited into the federal Clean Air Act account. Passenger cars using hybrid technology and with an EPA-estimated gasoline mileage rating of at least 40 mpg were exempted from the sales tax. We advocated for immediately reducing diesel emission from school buses, transit buses and state construction equipment. (Federal regulations require a reduction in pollution from new diesel trucks and buses sold after 2007. Unfortunately, older engines are not affected by these rules and they will be on the road for a long time.) Retrofit emission control systems can be installed on older engines, reducing diesel pollution by up to 90%. This bill was not voted on by the General Assembly during 2006.
In 2007, the LWVCT and our coalition partners were pleased that a number of our goals were achieved. Measures to reduce global warming, to extend sales tax exemptions to efficient motor vehicles and to support green building construction were included in a comprehensive energy bill that was passed by the General Assembly. We advocated for a comprehensive energy plan with our coalition partners and were one of the signers of the Environmental and Consumer Statement on CT Energy Bills. The comprehensive energy bill requires that the State to sell permits to emit global warming pollution to power-generating companies and that the proceeds from these permits be invested in energy efficiency and new clean energy generation. Two other measures that we strongly supported were included in this bill: 1) The sales tax exemption on hybrid vehicles was extended to all motor vehicles that achieve forty miles per gallon in either highway or city driving; and 2) The state’s “green building” requirements were increased and financial incentives were adopted to encourage the use of energy-efficient technology in state facilities, school construction and school renovation. The LWVCT believes that green buildings are not only more energy efficient, they are more likely to incorporate renewable energy sources and use grid power generated from renewable sources. We supported legislation that adopted Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification standards and provided for financial incentives for school construction projects so that students could learn in a more conducive and healthier environment. We continue to support regional measures to reduce global warming: We signed, as part of the New England Climate Coalition, a letter sent to New England governors urging them to take action on global warming.
Our continued effort to reduce diesel pollution in school buses was successful in 2007. We provided testimony and wrote numerous e-mails to legislators that supported the installation of equipment to reduce diesel emissions in school bus cabins by keeping harmful fumes out of the passenger compartment as well as tailpipe emission control retrofits. Provisions of this bill were incorporated into “An Act Implementing the Provisions of the Budget Concerning General Government.” This Act provides grants for equipping all school buses with closed crankcase filtration systems and other devices that will reduce emissions and pollution in school buses by September 1, 2010. A bill that did not pass that we supported was an enforcement mechanism for the prohibition of idling of motor vehicles. This bill died in the Public Safety Committee.
In 2008, the LWVCT supported a bill to provide an enforcement mechanism for existing anti-idling laws. Costly amendments were added to the bill and the bill was not voted on.
In 2009, bills were introduced that sought to prohibit motor vehicle idling for more than three minutes, with certain exceptions, to increase the authority of the Department of Environmental Protection and to allow for hybrid vehicles and alternative fuel vehicles to use the state’s High Occupancy Vehicle lanes if only one person was in the vehicle. None of the bills passed.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND POLLUTION CONTROL AND ENERGY
Preserve the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the ecosystem, with maximum protection of public health and the environment. Support environmentally sound policies that reduce energy growth rates, emphasize energy conservation and encourage the use of renewable resources. Additionally, support measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including cap and trade programs, carbon offsets, low-carbon fuels and green building standards.
Background and Action
In 2005, the LWVCT joined the Sound Alliance in opposition to a Broadwater Energy proposal. Broadwater Energy, a subsidiary of foreign-owned oil companies, proposed permanently anchoring a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) processing facility in Long Island Sound. Long Island Sound was designated as an Estuary of National Significance in 1987. The Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) indicates that the Sound provides an estimated $5.5 billion per year to the regional economy from boating, commercial and sport fishing, swimming, and sight-seeing. As large as the Queen Mary II, the LNG factory operations would harm this estuary of national significance and begin the industrialization of Long Island Sound.
LWVCT actively opposed this proposal and submitted testimony urging denial of the application to the US Coast Guard, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the State of Connecticut’s Long Island Sound Liquefied Natural Gas Task Force.
In March 2008, FERC gave conditional approval of the project, subject to the State of New York’s determination that the terminal would be consistent with New York's coastal management policies. Connecticut’s federal and state elected officials – including the entire congressional delegation, Governor Rell, Attorney General Blumenthal, Secretary of the State Bysiewicz, and the CT LIS Liquefied Natural Gas Task Force –strenuously opposed the facility. In April 2008, the New York State Secretary of the State determined that the Broadwater proposal was inconsistent with policies of the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program and denied the project. Broadwater Energy appealed the decision to the US Secretary of Commerce. In April 2009, the US Commerce Secretary sustained New York’s denial of the project. Given that the administrative process has been exhausted, the only option remaining for Broadwater Energy is court action. The Coalition views the chances of success via the courts to be slim at best.
Legislatively, 2008 was a good year for global warming legislation. HB 5600 “AAC Connecticut Global Warming Solutions” was approved by the Connecticut Legislature and signed by the Governor. The bill caps emissions of global warming pollution and requires emissions cuts to 10% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% emissions reductions from 2001 levels by 2050. Connecticut is the fifth state after California, New Jersey, Hawaii and Washington to adopt mandatory limits for global warming pollution.
However, during the 2008 Legislative session, two bills of note did not pass. The first would have required a study of the creation of a new department of clean energy and the department’s impact on energy shortages, price increases, opportunities for clean energy industries, reductions in carbon emissions, increases in renewable energy, and energy conservation. The study would have been funded from the renewable energy investment fund. The second, HB 5798, “AA Establishing a Tax Credit for Green Buildings” that would have provided for a tax credit for eligible projects rather than a direct rebate, passed the House on the last day of the session but was never called by the Senate, probably due to lack of time.
2009 brought disappointment, success and uncertainty. The “Right to Dry” bill that was intended to lower use of electric energy consumption by allowing residents to use clotheslines was not voted on and the bill to promote use of solar power was not approved by the Senate. Green Building Standards were approved and the bill signed by the Governor. While the LWVCT had advocated for higher standards, the bill requires the State Building Inspector and Codes and Standards Committee to revise state building codes and include a model energy code and green building standards for certain new construction and renovation. During the session, the LWVCT opposed legislation that would have transferred energy conservation funds to the General Fund to cover general operating expenses. As of this writing, the state does not have a budget for FY10 and FY11 and, therefore, the status of the energy funds is not determined.
Of particular importance is the fact that SB 794 died in the Environment Committee. SB 794, “AAC RGGI and Ratepayer Relief,” was a proposal to legitimize the substitute language adopted by the Regulations Review Committee last August, allowing CO2 auction proceeds to be used for electric consumer rebates. The decision of the Regulations Review Committee to allow ratepayer rebates contradicted the Legislature’s stated intention to use proceeds from the quarterly auctions for “energy conservation, load management, and Class I renewable energy programs.”
The lack of a state budget is of concern to the LWVCT on many fronts, one being the continuation of the operations of the Council on Environmental Quality. The LWVCT supported the work of Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and did not support the elimination of funding for CEQ. CEQ serves as an independent watchdog agency that provides essential research, spotlights critical statewide environmental issues, recommends balanced public policy approaches, reviews the construction plans of state agencies and investigates citizen complaints.
The League supports:
· policies to reduce the generation and promote the reuse and recycling of solid and hazardous waste;
· policies to ensure safe treatment, transportation, storage and disposal of solid and hazardous waste in order to protect public health and air, water and land resources;
· planning and decision-making processes that recognize suitable solid and hazardous wastes as potential resources;
· policies for the management of civilian and military high- and low- level radioactive wastes to protect public health, and air, water and land resources;
· the establishment of processes for effective involvement of state and local governments and citizens in proposals for siting of treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation of radioactive wastes;
· full environmental review of treatment, storage and disposal facilities for radioactive wastes;
· safe transport, storage and disposal of radioactive wastes.
Background and Action
The LWVCT has consistently supported statewide recycling and environmentally sound waste disposal.
In 2004, a bill was introduced by the Planning and Development Committee to repeal the successful “bottle bill” deposit-redemption program.. The initiative was defeated by a coalition of organizations including the Audubon Society, ConnPIRG, and the LWVCT. Despite efforts, no expansion bill made it past the committees in that session.
In 2005, a bill was introduced to broaden the 1978 Connecticut deposit legislation to include bottled water containers. Although the proposal included only bottled water containers and not all non-carbonated beverages, the proposal was significant. The coalition which now also included the League of Conservation Voters and the Connecticut Fund for the Environment lobbied intensely to push passage through the various committees and to defeat a “poison pill” amendment, and organized a media advisory event to assure passage. A Call to Action was issued by the LWVCT. Unfortunately, despite all efforts, the effort to expand the deposit-redemption program did not pass in the 2005 session. In 2006, a bill was again introduced to include the now ubiquitous water bottle to the beverage container redemption-recycling program. The bill passed the Senate, only to languish and die on the House calendar. A different bill that added all non-carbonated beverages and increased the deposit to ten cents died in committee.
In 2007, a bill failed to pass again due to intense industry lobbying. In 2008, the LWVCT and many other environmental organizations supported a bill to expand the beverage container redemption provision to include water bottles, and as amended by the Senate, other non-carbonated beverages. The bill passed in the Senate but was not brought up for a vote in the House.
In 2009, as part of the Governor’s deficit mitigation plan for FY09, a 5 cent deposit-redemption program to include water bottles, with unclaimed deposits going to the state, was approved by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor.
The LWVCT has no Waste Management Specialist at this time, but work on this issue is undertaken by the LWVCT’s Drinking Water Specialist.
(2006)
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut believes that capital punishment should not be a sentencing option for murder or any other crime. A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release is punishment that ensures public safety without raising the many complex problems associated with the death penalty. Along with opposition to the death penalty, we support:
� Continued strong standards of competency and experience for attorneys, and appropriate compensation.
� Continued sufficient State funding for testing and preservation of biological evidence.
� Reforms to assure validity of testimony by eyewitnesses, codefendants, and jailhouse informants.
� Reforms, including collection of data, to address problems of proportionality in sentencing.
Until the death penalty in Connecticut is abolished, the League of Women Voters of Connecticut supports an immediate moratorium on executions.
In 2009 the LWVCT supported “An Act Concerning the Penalty for a Capital Felony,” which would have replaced the death penalty with a penalty of life imprisonment without the possibility of release. This Bill passed both houses but was vetoed by the Governor.
The LWVCT currently does not have a specialist in this area.
(1994; amended and affirmed 2003)
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut opposes legalizing additional forms of gambling, and especially the expansion of casino gambling in Connecticut. The LWVCT opposes all legislation that enables the expansion of casino-type gambling – including, but not limited to blackjack, poker, craps, high-stakes bingo, roulette, or slot machines – in Connecticut, regardless of the venue or the sponsor of such gambling. The LWVCT supports the 2003 repeal of Connecticut’s so-called Las Vegas Nights legislation because we recognize that this legislation has facilitated the expansion of casino gambling in Connecticut.
In working to influence public policies on gambling the League will:
� strongly oppose legalization of additional forms of gambling;
� advocate for the repeal of any legislation that facilitates the expansion of casino gambling in the state;
� advocate for the adoption of legislative/regulatory safeguards – legal, environmental, social, economic, land use – to curtail further expansion of gambling in the state.
Expanded gambling is not an acceptable method of enhancing state and local government revenue or stimulating economic development.
Background and Action
In August 2004, the Department of Interior, charged with reviewing the process by which it granted the recognition to the Schaghticoke Indian tribe, found no irregularity in the process. They found that no clear standard for granting federal recognition to tribes exists and that the regulations governing the Bureau of Indian Affairs are “permissive and inherently flexible.” Governor Rell strongly objected to this finding and requested that the Connecticut Congressional delegation take all the necessary steps to repair the “seriously flawed recognition process.” The LWVCT supported this initiative and thanked the Governor for her efforts. Eventually, the BIA reversed their recognition of the tribe.
In 2009, the Governor proposed generating revenue from online gambling (Keno). The LWVCT has no Gambling Specialist at this time but we included the gambling issue when expressing concerns to the Governor and Legislature about some proposed budget cuts and revenue enhancement measures.
(Adopted 2003)
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut supports comprehensive, community-based mental health systems for children and adults. These systems should include early detection and intervention with a range of services to facilitate care, treatment and recovery. The LWVCT supports a public initiative on mental health.
Background and Action
During the 2004 session, the LWVCT, as part of the Keep the Promise Coalition, testified on behalf of several bills to ease the plight of the mentally ill: an initiative for a new community mental health residential program for offenders with serious mental illnesses who are leaving correctional facilities, a budget initiative to add 180 supportive housing units for families, and a bill to mandate supportive housing for persons with mental disabilities. We have also opposed budget cuts in community-based and early-detection mental health systems for children. Some additional funds were appropriated in the budget, and the Medicaid co-payments enacted in the previous year were repealed, but the specific bills did not pass.
The LWVCT had no Mental Health Specialist from 2005 to 2007. However, together with the Keep the Promise Coalition, we advocated for various housing bills in 2005.
In 2008, we had a Mental Health Specialist. The LWVCT supported a number of bills to increase supportive housing for those with mental illness. These bills were merged and passed in the final moments of the session and increased the Connecticut Housing and Finance Authorities' bonding authorization by $35 million to support the current round of 150 supportive housing units. Another bill, “Supportive Housing as an Alternative to Incarceration Centers,” did not move out of the Appropriations Committee.
The LWVCT Mental Health Specialist stepped down at the conclusion of the 2009 session and consequently LWVCT has no specialist at this time.
(Adopted 1991; affirmed 2001)
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut believes that racial/ethnic and economic integration is essential to providing quality education in a pluralistic society. The entire population must be well educated to insure the economic future of our state. Schools educate and socialize the next generation. Youngsters can receive a complete education only in classrooms that reflect the diversity of the adult world they will enter.
Given the large number of towns in the state and the concentration of minorities in a few core cities, most desegregation plans must involve more than one community. Thus, the LWVCT supports the concept of collective responsibility. The responsibility for desegregation must be shared by all concerned; i.e., the state of Connecticut, racially imbalanced school districts, contiguous school districts and adjacent school districts.
The state of Connecticut and local Boards of Education must work together to achieve quality education throughout the state. Programs to reach this goal could include but not be limited to the following:
· Recruitment of minority teachers
· Magnet schools
· Schools with before- and after-school day care
· Schools with preschool programs
· School pairings
· Collaborative school construction between districts
· Expanded vocational/technical school programs
· Redrawing of school boundaries
Within the traditional educational structure, students are assigned to schools based on the students' places of residence. We believe that alternative means of school assignment, decided by parents and authorities together, can provide flexibility in achieving the goal of integration. Assignment based on parents' places of work, specific needs or special interests of students are examples of alternatives that could be used.
A working partnership between state and local authorities must exist to guarantee success. Ideally, the responsibility for initiation and implementation of programs should be local. When communities do not act or cannot work together, then the state must step in. The state must take the lead in developing funding mechanisms for programs, particularly at the initiation and implementation stages. There must be shared monitoring and assessment of programs by both the state and local authorities.
Background and Action
A committee was formed following the 2001 Convention, reflecting delegates’ desire to update this position, and recommended that the position be retained as written.
Various bills attempting to recruit and retain minority teachers, clarifying the charter school legislation and other initiatives were proposed in 2001. The LWVCT joined CAPE (Connecticut Association for Public Education) in a proposal to clarify the charter school legislation but the bill did not make it out of the session.
The LWVCT has had no QIE specialist since 2001.
(Adopted 1990; amended and affirmed 2000)
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut believes that fairness or equity in education means more than the spending of equal dollars or the provision of identical programs for the education of each public school child in our state. The League therefore supports a system of public elementary and secondary education in Connecticut which will provide a suitable program of educational experiences for each child and which will make available to each community sufficient financial resources to support that level of educational services.
The League believes that the state has the responsibility to define broad goals for an educational program and to establish minimum required levels of student achievement. There should be significant local participation. School districts should be encouraged to exceed the standards where possible.
1. The state should assure through state grants to communities that sufficient resources are available for the education of every child, regardless of where that child lives. The state should fund 50% of the statewide cost of K-12 public education. Every school district should receive a minimum per-pupil state aid.
2. Because of the wide differences in local wealth, greater equality of educational opportunity will require a greater average state share of local school costs. This means a considerably higher state percentage of school costs in poorer communities and a lower percentage in wealthier ones. State aid to any city or town should be free to rise each year by as much as the Educational Cost Share (ECS) formula requires.
3. In measuring the relative ability of different communities to finance schools from local resources and therefore the relative need of each for state financial assistance, the state should consider:
a. the community's property wealth as defined by its Grand List per Pupil or preferably per capita, compared to that in other communities in the state;
b. the income level of that community compared to that of other towns in the state; and
c. other demands on local tax revenues, such as police, fire and social services.
4. The state should recognize that spending equal dollars per child in the school assistance programs does not mean equal educational opportunity. Since certain children are more difficult to educate, it is more costly to educate them to a minimum achievement level. In determining the total amount of state assistance to a community, many factors should be considered. Among them:
a. the number of poorer families, possibly those on Aid to Dependent Children (in view of welfare reform legislation, a more accurate measure of children in poverty, such as eligibility for free or reduced cost school lunch should be substituted for Temporary Family Assistance);
b. the number of those failing state Mastery tests;
c. the graduation rates or drop-out rates;
d. the number of students not proficient in English; and
e. the Excess Cost Grant, which reimburses the district for the cost of the most expensive special education students, should be set lower than five times the local per-pupil costs.
5. In order to assure that increased state assistance for schools achieves an improvement in education, especially in poorer communities, the state should require a certain minimum expenditure per pupil for a community to be eligible for any state assistance for its schools. The state should also require that any increase in the school assistance be used for an equivalent rise in local school expenditures over that of previous years. The Minimum Expenditure Requirement (MER), the amount that a district is required to spend on education, should be equal to the Foundation times the number of Needs Students, as defined in the ECS formula.
6. Local communities should retain control of instructional programs and spending allocations and there should be no cap on spending per pupil.
7. If a substantial number of students in a district are failing to attain state-set achievement levels, the state should step in and work with the district to analyze the problem and to seek an improvement.
8. The acute problem, particularly in cities, created by the concentration of children who for various reasons are more costly to educate, requires that the state adopt extraordinary measures directed at raising the levels of achievement in these communities.
9. The programs and monies should, as much as possible, provide incentives for cities and towns to emphasize and execute effective educational programs.
10. The cap on the ECS grant should be removed within two years as specified in the 1999 ECS legislation.
The Foundation, the basic element of the ECS formula, should be set in the state’s biennial budget.
Background and Action
Each session, numerous bills are submitted proposing various changes to the ECS formula and to increase state support for special education. In 2004, the legislature abolished the ECS cap and appropriated money to begin phasing out its effects. Despite this legislation, towns are still receiving less that their full entitlement. The 2001 law, reducing the special education cost threshold from five to 4.5 times the district’s average per pupil expenditure for the preceding year, was delayed several times and was scheduled to take effect in 2005.
The passage of federal No Child Left Behind legislation is also affecting educational costs.
Due to a more favorable fiscal picture, the 2005-’06 budget included a 4% increase in the ECS grant above the 2004 budget, and implemented the re-imbursement threshold for the Excess Cost Grant for Special Education to 4.5 times the average expenditure, but granted an additional increase in the funding for this formula. The Governor also formed a task force to review unfunded state mandates. The LWVCT submitted no testimony in 2005.
During the 2006 session, the LWVCT submitted testimony in support of bills increasing the ECS Foundation by 3%, tying it in the future to increases in the Consumer Price Index, and changing the definition of per capita income so as to incorporate more current data. These measures failed. The sole change made to the formula for FY 2007 was a provision that no town would receive less than 60% of its formula grant, which affected only Simsbury. Total ECS funding increased .4% ($8 million) based on a town-by-town schedule that allocated proportionately more to towns receiving less than formula aid.
The LWVCT also testified on the following targeted measures: in support of $3.5 million in additional funding for preschool slots in ERG I towns, which passed; in favor of $250,000 competitive grants to establish all-day Kindergarten programs in Priority School Districts, which failed; for a requirement that the state provide assistance in the development of individualized education programs for diverse learners in regular education settings, which failed; for a measure requiring elementary schools in Priority School Districts to have Family Resource Centers, which failed; against a special levy on the state’s wealthiest towns, which would have funded increased aid to towns with high educational tax burdens, and which failed.
Overall, state education aid increased by 3% ($60 million) for FY ’07.
Also in 2006, the Governor convened a Commission on Education Finance, whose mission was to address disparities in aid to municipalities. The LWVCT monitored the commission’s meetings throughout the year and offered detailed testimony regarding our position on school finance at a public hearing in June.
The LWVCT also followed the activities of the CT Coalition for Justice in Education Funding (CCJEF), an organization representing municipalities, non-profits, and individuals interested in addressing the adequacy of school funding in the state. CCJEF was the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against the state in November 2005, alleging that existing funding was unconstitutionally inadequate and inequitable.
In addition, we worked with the Citizens Network of the Capital Region (CNCR), a grassroots organization advocating reduced dependence on the property tax to fund education, to present four interactive community conversations on education funding. Three of these were co-sponsored by local Leagues.
In early 2007, the Governor’s Commission on Education Finance published its findings, recommending overhaul of the ECS formula, modifications to other education grants, and implementation of a results-based school accountability system. The Commission’s recommendations were compatible overall with the LWVCT school finance position. The Governor adopted most of the Commission’s suggestions in her proposed budget for the 2008‑’09 biennium.
During the 2007 session, the LWVCT formulated a set of legislative priorities for school finance and communicated them to key legislators. We testified in general support of the Governor’s early childhood education, school accountability, and ECS initiatives, but suggested modifications to her definition of the ECS Foundation and the Minimum Expenditure Requirement (MER). We also advocated: higher funding for other targeted grants, particularly pupil transportation, adult and bilingual education, after-school programs, and family resource centers; funding and implementation of a pre-K data collection system; and reduction of the Special Education Excess Cost multiplier to 3.5. We testified against her proposed 2011-’12 phase-out of the Priority School District grant.
The budget compromise that emerged from the 2007 legislative special session contained the largest increases in ECS funding ($182 million for ‘08, $80 million for ‘09) since 1996. The accompanying ECS legislation makes major improvements in the formula and includes an acceptable MER. It does, however, contain a troublesome 4.4% minimum increase provision (i.e. hold-harmless) and does not include the type of Foundation definition LWVCT advocated. It phases in additional funding for the new formula: for ’08, 17.31% of the difference between the ’07 grant and the fully funded grant; for ’09, a disappointing 23.3%.
The adopted budget funded significant increases for early childhood education (including a preschool quality rating system) and implementation of a school accountability system. With respect to targeted grants: pupil transportation, bilingual education and family resource centers were flat funded; adult ed increased about 5% for ’08 only; after school programs received a 70% increase for ’08, a tiny one for ’09; the Special Education Excess Cost Multiplier remained at 4.5 and was fully funded. The Pre-K Data collection system was not funded. Phase-out of the Priority School District Grant was eliminated and instead a $150 per pupil minimum grant was enacted.
Overall, the budget increased education aid by 11.4% ($237 million) for ’08 and by 4.4% ($102 million) for ’09.
In February 2007, CCJEF released “A Framework for Adequately and Equitably Funding Connecticut’s Public Schools,” a policy study outlining its recommendations for a redesigned funding formula, school accountability, and revenue/tax restructuring. The $3.7 billion price tag attached to its funding proposal — about $1.5 billion higher than the governor’s 5-year plan for ECS — generated disbelief and dismissal among legislative leaders. As of July, its lawsuit against the state was still in pretrial motions.
The LWVCT continued to work with CNCR in 2007, co-sponsoring a “Connecticut Summit on School Funding Reform” in January and a Bloomfield community conversation in April.
In 2008, the LWVCT supported targeted grants and other funding but opposed the Governor’s proposed budget and lack of improvement in ECS funding. The Governor proposed a $1.8 million reduction for 2009 to the School Readiness grant. The Appropriations Committee raised the Governor’s proposal by $32.3 million. The LWVCT advocated for a higher phase-in percentage and 60% funding floor for ECS, increases for pupil transportation, bilingual education, family resource centers and adult education, and restoration of the $1.8 million for School Readiness and proposed reducing the Special Education Excess Cost multiplier from 4.5 to 3.0 and fully funding the grant. These bills died with agreement between legislative leaders and the governor to leave the adopted budget as is but the good news was that there was no cut to School Readiness. The bad news was that the 2009 adopted budget eliminates all funding ($19.7 million) for the Early Reading Success portion of the Priority School District grant, which the Appropriations Committee had sought to restore, leaving the state's poorest school districts with no state aid for this well-respected program.
While the LWVCT’s position on school finance calls for higher levels of aid to education than the state currently provides, during the 2009 fiscal crisis we supported simply maintaining current funding and opposed proposed cuts, the burden of which would fall mostly on the neediest districts and students in our state. Governor Rell's budget proposals, announced May 28, 2009, were claimed to "preserve municipal aid." While her latest proposals do maintain funding for Education Cost Sharing (ECS), by far the largest state grant to municipalities, they do contain significant cuts to several others. Those cuts, totaling about $28.7 million, if enacted would affect specific grants in support of public education, e.g., Head Start Services and Family Resource Centers. As of this writing, budget negotiations continue.
(Adopted 2006)
The League of Women Voters has long supported policies and programs that promote quality education as well as the health, well-being, and safety of all children. Research shows that modifying school start times in accordance with the biologically-determined sleep patterns of adolescents is associated with increased school attendance, higher grades, lower drop-out rates, less tardiness, and fewer fall-asleep car crashes by young drivers. In order to set a high priority on the health and safety of Connecticut’s adolescent students and to offer them the opportunity to learn when they are most alert and receptive, the League of Women Voters of Connecticut supports policies and practices that facilitate the alignment of school start times with adolescent sleep patterns. Specifically, we believe that:
� Adolescent students – in middle school, junior high, and high school – would benefit academically, socially, and physically from starting school no earlier than 8 am.
� Public schools in Connecticut – junior high schools, middle schools, and high schools – should delay academic instruction until after 8 a.m.
� The State of Connecticut should support local efforts to delay the school start times until after 8 a.m. for adolescent students through consultation and technical assistance.
�State policies should be flexible enough to allow variation in local plans to implement later school start times for adolescents.
Background and Action
No serious bills were introduced in this area in the 2006-’07 sessions. No action was taken. Beginning in 2008, the LWVCT School Start Time Specialist has been consulting with interested parties in school districts in the state.
(Adopted 1996; affirmed in 2007)
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut believes that the system of elementary and secondary education must be fiscally and educationally accountable to Connecticut citizens. Therefore, public funds should not be used through vouchers, state tax credits or any other state incentives or payments, direct or indirect, to provide tuition support for students attending non-public schools.
The League bases its position on choice in education on three undesirable consequences: it will reduce fiscal and educational accountability; it will subvert the goal of equal educational opportunity; and it will sap public schools of financial resources and citizen support.
Background and Action
During the 2002 session, the Governor proposed a legislative package to build upon the federal No Child Left Behind Act. It didn’t pass.
The LWVCT opposed a similar legislative package proposed as part of the Governor’s 2004-’05 budget.
In 2008, the LWVCT opposed a bill that provided tax credits for donations to educational foundations to both public and nonpublic schools, allowing money to be funneled into independent and religious schools. In this way, the state would not provide a direct payment for tuition but would take dollars out of the revenue stream for contributions which are earmarked for nonpublic independent and religious schools. The use of tax credits that support nonpublic schools was removed from the bill and eventually died.
(Adopted 1989; affirmed 1999; amended and affirmed 2009)
1. The League of Women Voters of Connecticut believes that the problems caused by adolescent pregnancy threaten not only our youth but also the future well-being of the State of Connecticut and therefore must be addressed aggressively on the state level.
2. Therefore, we believe the state of Connecticut must take the following steps:
a. Ensure that all school-aged children K-12 have access to comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education that provides them with the necessary skills to make safe and responsible choices in regard to their sexual health. Teacher-training programs should be provided to ensure that such programs are well taught.
b. Support school-based health clinics to give adolescents access to a broad range of health care services, including reproductive health.
c. Support programs and services that provide information and access to affordable birth control in order to help adolescents delay parenthood and avoid unintended pregnancies.
d. Support appropriate services and programs designed to encourage and enable adolescent parents to finish high school and become economically self-sufficient.
3. Specific programs should be developed with the help of broad-based community advisory groups to ensure that there is local support and understanding of these programs.
4. The League of Women Voters of Connecticut opposes placing restrictions on an adolescent’s right to obtain a full range of reproductive health services.
Background and Action
No significant bills have been proposed since 2000. The LWVCT continues to monitor this issue.
In 2005, an amendment to an unrelated bill proposed to require parental involvement in the minor’s decision-making concerning pregnancy decisions. The LWVCT opposed the amendment. It did not pass.
Legislative efforts in this area have been taken principally under the LWVUS position on Reproductive Rights. The LWVCT has no specialist in Teen Pregnancy but does have an active Reproductive Rights Specialist advocating on some of these issues.
Protect the health and safety of citizens through limiting the accessibility and regulating the ownership of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons.
Background and Action
In 2004, a bill requiring the reporting of a theft or loss of a firearm and another bill concerning a waiting period for the sale of rifles and shotguns were both introduced. The LWVCT, in coalition with CAGV (Connecticut Against Gun Violence), supported both bills. The latter bill died in the Public Safety Committee. The bill requiring reporting of stolen guns passed two committees but remained stalled in the House. It died for lack of action.
The LWVCT also responded to several LWVUS Calls to Action regarding bills to renew the federal assault weapons ban.
In 2005, the stolen firearm bill was re-introduced and a new bill proposed expanding the registration coverage for long guns. Both bills passed the Judiciary Committee but, once again, became stalled in the Public Safety Committee despite active lobbying by the LWVCT and the Coalition.
In the 2006 session, the stolen firearm bill was re-introduced with active lobbying in support by LWVCT and the Coalition. It passed the Senate but failed to pass the House by 7 votes.
In 2007, a hard-won victory! After intense lobbying by Connecticut Against Gun Violence, the LWVCT and others, the bill passed and was signed into law by the Governor.
In 2008 and 2009, the LWVCT supported bills that would require the microstamping of semiautomatic pistols which would make it possible to link a gun to a crime. In both years, the bill died in the Judiciary Committee. However, a bill passed and was signed by the Governor that prohibited the transfer of an assault weapon or machine gun to a person under eighteen years of age. This bill was introduced as a result of an 8-year-old boy dying from the recoil of an assault weapon, which he was using under the supervision of adults.
HEALTH CARE
The LWVUS position, adopted 1993, supports a basic level of quality health care at an affordable cost to be available to all U.S. residents. The League favors a national health insurance plan financed through general taxes, with administration either by a combination of the private and public sectors or by a combination of federal, state and/or regional government agencies.
Background and Action
In 2007, LWVCT joined a coalition of organizations in the “HealthCare4Every1” campaign to advocate for accessible, affordable universal health care for all residents of Connecticut. The LWVCT submitted testimony in support of two Senate bills in March. One provided for a single payer system in addition to access to affordable universal health care; the other would have created a purchasing pool of multiple private health plans with a sliding scale for all uninsured residents. However, the legislature failed to initiate universal health care. Instead, it established a commission to make recommendations for 2008 and passed an extension of the HUSKY health care program for youth and a raise in the re-imbursement rate for doctors and service providers for the poor.
In 2008 and 2009, the LWVCT supported bills that would establish a Connecticut HealthCare Partnership. This bill would expand the state employees' health insurance pool and would have enabled certain municipalities, small non-profit organizations and small employers to voluntarily participate in a comprehensive medical plan by joining this larger pool, therefore giving them an opportunity to obtain health insurance for their employees that they might otherwise not have been able to afford. These bills successfully passed both houses of the Legislature but were vetoed by the Governor.
In 2009, the Governor vetoed the establishment of the SustiNet Plan but her veto was overridden by both houses of the Legislature. This bill established a nine-member SustiNet Health Partnership board of directors that must make legislative recommendations, by January 1, 2011, on the details and implementation of the “SustiNet Plan,” a self-insured health care delivery plan intended to extend insurance coverage to the state's uninsured. The bill:
1. creates a large insurance pool that includes recipients of Medicaid and HUSKY, state employees and retirees, families without health insurance from an employer, and individuals having difficulty affording high-cost insurance on the job;
2. digitizes medical records linked to a central database that physicians and other providers must use as a condition of participation;
3. creates “medical homes” that offer patients round-the-clock central coordination of their health care as well as guidance in managing it;
4. relies on periodic quality review of providers and evidence-based medicine; and
5. provides for public health campaigns in support of such measures as health screenings and immunizations.
Support equal access to housing without discrimination. Some of the criteria that support this position are:
· Opportunities for purchase or renting of homes and for borrowing money for housing should not be restricted because of discriminatory reasons such as race, color, sex, religion or national origin.
· Responsibility in nationwide effort to achieve equality of opportunity for access to housing resides with government at all levels and with the private sector.
· Funding should be adequate for public education to inform citizens of the provisions of fair housing legislation, of their fair housing rights and of procedures to be followed in securing them.
· There should be continued evaluation to provide a basis for revision and strengthening of all procedures so that equality of opportunity for access to housing can be accomplished.
· State and local governments should establish effective agencies to aid, promote, coordinate, and supplement the housing programs of the federal government and the private sector.
· Government at all levels must make available sufficient funds for housing assistance programs.
· Zoning practices and procedures that will counteract racial and economic isolation should be promoted.
· Publicly assisted housing should be included in viable, balanced communities, with provisions for quality public services and facilities.
· The rights of tenants to negotiate for proper maintenance, management of facilities and services should be protected.
Background and Action
In 2004, the LWVCT opposed a bill that would have weakened the Affordable Housing Appeals Procedure Act. It did not pass.
In 2005, the same initiative was opposed by the LWVCT. The bill was successfully defeated.
The LWVCT also supported the Partnership’s initiative to create a new $100 million Housing Trust Fund for Economic Growth and Opportunity. It would create a reliable and consistent source of revenues needed for the rehabilitation and production of housing for low and moderate income families. A Call to Action was issued to support the bill. Unfortunately, after passing the key Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, the bill did not pass.
During both the 2006 and 2007 regular sessions legislation was introduced that would weaken the Appeals Procedure. The LWVCT monitored these proposals but did not feel it necessary to intervene. Fortunately, none of the proposed bills reached the floor.
In 2007, HomeConnecticut, staffed by the Partnership for Strong Communities, introduced legislation that would provide incentives to municipalities that allow creation of higher density affordable housing. The LWVCT submitted testimony on behalf of this legislation (SB 1057) not only because of its potential to spur construction of affordable housing but also because it encourages responsible land use. A Call to Action was also issued and although the bill was not fully funded, it was passed and signed by Governor Rell.
Support programs and policies to prevent or reduce poverty and to promote self-sufficiency for individuals and families.
Criteria should be:
· eligibility of all low-income individuals for assistance should be based on need;
· benefit levels should be sufficient to provide decent, adequate standards for food, clothing and shelter;
· there should be increased emphasis on cash assistance but in-kind assistance should be continued;
· under a revised program, participants should not have their benefits reduced;
· privacy of participants should be protected;
· work should be encouraged: participants' total income should increase as earnings increase;
· supportive services should be available but not compulsory for participants in income assistance programs.
Background and Action
All LWVCT activity under this portfolio in 2004 and 2005 has been described under Children’s Issues.
In 2006, the LWVCT had a Specialist who actively worked in coalition with the Connecticut Association for Human Services in advocating for a state earned income tax credit. The effort was off to a very promising start when the Human Services Committee gave the bill (SB 147) bipartisan support and when the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee included a tax credit for low-income workers in the tax package it reported out of Committee. Unfortunately, the Earned Income Tax Credit failed to survive the budget negotiations.
It was unfortunate too that our Specialist moved out of state and no replacement was found for her for the 2007 session. During the 2007 session, the LWVCT’s support of this effort was limited to submission of testimony. Once again, the effort to establish an Earned Income Tax Credit was unsuccessful.
The LWVCT did not take action on this issue during the 2008 or 2009 sessions due to the continued lack of an Income Assistance Specialist.
Protect the constitutional right of privacy of the individual to make reproductive choices.
Background and Action
The LWVUS adopted this position in January 1983.
The LWVCT supported the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act which would preserve the right of a woman to choose an abortion.
Connecticut continues to provide Medicaid funding for all necessary abortions; there is no parental notification law. Teenagers are counseled regularly regarding all options and parental participation in all decisions is encouraged.
In 2005, a bill was introduced to give Connecticut’s uninsured adults greater access to family planning services and reproductive health care. The LWVCT, in coalition with NARAL, supported the bill, which passed. An amendment to another bill, requiring parental involvement in a minor’s decision about abortion, was opposed by the LWVCT, although we took no position on the bill to which the amendment was attached. The bill and the amendment died.
In 2006, the “Compassionate Care for Victims of Sexual Assault” bill was introduced, which provided that victims of sexual assault would be offered emergency contraception in any Connecticut hospital or other medical facility where they were being treated. Due to strenuous opposition by the Catholic Church, the bill failed to pass. In 2007, the bill was re-introduced, with intense negotiations occurring between proponents and opponents in an effort to find a solution which would set a standard of care for the provision of emergency contraception to be delivered by hospital staff or a third party independent provider (nurse, doctor, physician assistant, advanced practice nurse) who would perform the sexual assault forensic exam and offer and provide the emergency contraception on-site. The LWVCT joined NARAL, Planned Parenthood, Connsac and other organizations to promote passage of this bill. The bill was overwhelmingly approved by both the House and the Senate and signed into law by the Governor.
Also in 2006, several attempts were made by some legislators to curtail reproductive choice, specifically in regard to parental notification. Those bills died in committee.
In 2008 and 2009, the LWVCT supported the unsuccessful Healthy Teens Act. This legislation would require expansion of family life education curriculum guides for school districts to cover ways to prevent sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and a healthy teens education grant program. Medically accurate, age-appropriate sex education is especially important, considering that there are a large percentage of teens contracting sexually transmitted diseases.
Support programs, services and policies at all levels of government to expand the supply of affordable quality child care for all who need it, in order to increase access to employment and to prevent and reduce poverty.
This position was adopted by concurrence of delegates at the 1994 LWVUS Convention.
Support policies and programs that promote the well being, development and safety of all children.
The LWVUS believes that early intervention and prevention measures are effective in helping children reach their full potential. The League supports policies and programs at all levels of the community and government that promote the well being, encourage the full development and ensure the safety of all children. These include:
· Child abuse/neglect prevention
· Teen pregnancy prevention
· Quality health care, including nutrition and prenatal care
· Early child education
· Developmental services, emphasizing children ages 0-3
· Family support services
· Violence prevention
Background and Action
In 2004, the LWVCT supported an omnibus bill, putting forth strategies for achieving a 50% reduction in child poverty over the next ten years. It dealt with affordable housing, access to health care, vocational training and other strategies to encourage self-sufficiency for families moving from welfare to work. The bill passed and became law. The law established the Connecticut Child Poverty Council. In December 2004, the LWVCT commented favorably on the plan of action adopted by the Council.
In 2005, a bill was proposed to implement the recommendations of the Council aimed at reducing child poverty in the state. The bill passed and became law.
The LWVCT also supported a bill to create an Earned Income Tax Credit against the Personal Income Tax. The bill did not pass.
The LWVCT also testified in favor of the restoration of healthcare coverage for caregivers of HUSKY A and B children. Although the bill did not pass, the budget carried some additional funding in these areas.
The LWVCT currently has no specialist in this area
During the Program Planning process, League members thoroughly evaluate existing LWVCT positions for relevance and member understanding. Convention delegates have approved several drops, clarifications and re-studies of positions, but also requested that the text of dropped positions and the rationale for dropping them be recorded.
Board of Education Elections (1981, reaffirmed 1991, dropped 1999)
Support: legislation enabling municipalities to determine the composition, terms of office, and methods of selection of local boards of education.
Rationale: This position has been substantially achieved.
Jury Selection (1985, reaffirmed 1995, dropped 1999)
Support: computerized jury lists at state level from voter and motor vehicle lists; no exemptions except extreme hardship; $90 fine for failure to serve; use of expanded voir-dire questionnaire; one-day/one-trial term of jury service.
Rationale: This position has been substantially achieved.
Merit Selection of Judges (1979, reaffirmed 1989, dropped 1999)
Support: broad-based judicial merit selection commission to recommend appointments to the Governor.
Rationale: This position has been substantially achieved.
Property Tax (1975, reaffirmed 1995, dropped as separate position 1999)
Support: extension of the property tax relief program for the elderly to all low-income households.
Rationale: included in Fiscal Policy position, 1999
Nominating Procedures (updated 1988, recommended for update 1999)
Support: requirement that convention delegates be allocated according to the number of votes received by each slate in the primary; all delegates to conventions be chosen by open caucuses.
Rationale: Position needs updating to conform to new legislation. An update committee was sought but was never found, and the position was dropped.
Juvenile Justice (1980, reaffirmed 1991, recommended for update 1999)
Support: in-service training for juvenile case judges; formation of local police Youth Departments; trained probation volunteers; separate and equal overnight placement for boys and girls and separation of status offenders and delinquents.
Rationale: Delegates to the 1997 Convention recommended updating this position since many felt that juvenile court procedures have changed and that the position no longer applies. Despite diligent efforts, no committee could be found. Delegates to the 1999 Convention agreed that unless a committee to update this position could be formed by October 1, 1999, this position should be dropped. None was found and the position was dropped.
Energy (1980, reaffirmed 1989, recommended for update 1999)
Support: measures to reduce our dependence on nuclear energy by encouraging conservation of resources and the use of renewable resources.
Rationale: The Energy position, adopted in 1978, at the time of the oil crisis, was based on the LWVUS position but is less comprehensive. Delegates to the 1999 Convention agreed that an update was needed. However, unless a committee to update this position could be formed by October 1, 1999, this position would be dropped. None was found and the position was dropped. Action is always possible using the LWVUS position.
Constitutional Provisions For Calling A Constitutional Convention (1955, recommended for update 2005)
Support: the Connecticut Constitution should provide for the calling of a Constitutional Convention; a mandatory referendum at stated intervals on the calling of a Convention; submitting to the people the question of calling a constitutional legislature at other times than the mandatory referendum intervals; the affirmative popular vote necessary to call a constitutional convention should consist of a majority of those voting on the question, not those voting in the election.
Rationale: This position was adopted before the revision of the Connecticut Constitution in the 1960’s and has been largely superseded; the LWVCT has taken no action on this item for a number of years. In 2005, the LWVCT Convention delegates recommended that a committee be formed by December 2005 to restudy the position. No committee was found by the deadline, so the position was dropped.
Marital Property Rights (1986, reaffirmed 1995: recommended for update 2005)
Support: the principle of treating property of married persons differently from that of single persons, including recognition of new form of property ownership “spousal property” in which each spouse holds a undivided one half interest in the property without regard to title.
Rationale: There has been very limited legislative activity in this area and the LWVCT has no specialist in this program area. Delegates to the 2005 Convention agreed that a restudy is needed as the position is dated and recommended that a committee be formed by December 2005 to restudy the position. No committee was in place by December 2005, so the position was dropped.
PUBLIC ISSUES TEAM as of 8/09
VP/Public Issues Cheryl Dunson 203-861-7335 Greenwich
Director/Government Christine Horrigan 860-567-3268 Litchfield Cn
(also Election Laws and Open Government specialist)
Internet/Media Issues Pua Ford 203-393-2184 Amity
Director/Natural Resources Karen Burnaska 203-261-9243 Bpt. Area
Air Quality Christine Halfar 203-730-0763 Danbury area
Climate Change Lynn Taborsak 203-748-0822 Danbury area
Drinking Water Cheryl Dunson 203-861-7335 Greenwich
Land Use Margaret Wirtenberg 203-544-9270 Weston
Transportation Jara Burnett 203-637-9244 Greenwich
Director/Social Policy Naomi Schiff Myers 203-637-3892 Greenwich
Gun Control Claire Sauer 860-434-2936 SE CT
Housing Barbara Brockhurst 860-739-2664 SE CT
Reproductive Choice Birgitta Longnecker 203-637-8924 Greenwich
School Finance and Katherine Wilson 860-232-2670 Gr. Hartford
Education Cost Sharing
School Vouchers Karen Rosen 860-232-5027 Gr. Hartford
& Claire Sauer 860-434-2936 SE CT
Universal Health Care Stephanie Paulmeno 203-637-9227 Greenwich
BE A GRASSROOTS LOBBYIST!
Interested in voting issues? Solving the transportation crisis? Getting guns away from Connecticut’s children? We all know that legislators are most responsive to their “hometown” constituents. So … won’t you consider joining the LWVCT Public Issues Team’s Grassroots Lobby Corps? Help us promote the League’s positions on those state issues that you find most compelling. Many League members around the state have already signed up to be part of this informal group. But we want YOU, too!
Our Public Issues Team specialists will be working on a variety of legislative proposals including Election Laws, Transportation, Air Quality, Education Funding, Health Care, and more. They need your help to get proposals passed into law. You can be involved as much as you wish. Our PI Team specialists provide the expertise and the background information and e-mail Action Alerts to you on your topic of interest. You provide a “voice” from your community — a phone call, an email or letter to your legislator/s, or just a “heads-up” to others who might be interested.
To sign up or to get more information, just e-mail Jean Rabinow at lwvct@lwvct.org to request the list of lobby corps issues. Once you receive the list, identify which topics interest you, contact Jean again, and she will sign you up. It’s that easy! We look forward to hearing from you.
For many years, the League has had the benefit of working with Judy Blei and Associates. In their legislative monitoring role for the League, they provide a special password-protected, interactive website for each specialist and a listing of all the bills for the specialist that relate to her area of specialty. The specialists select which bills will be their priorities and then use the Blei site to track priority legislation and efficiently contact legislators. In addition to their monitoring, the Blei team conducts an excellent pre-session training session for specialists and helps us with their insight and observations as we “de-brief” at the conclusion of the session.
Although Judy and her team have long provided legislative monitoring services for us, it was only in 2005 with membership support that we hired her to lobby on behalf of the member-adopted priority of election laws.
Many wonder what Team Blei does for us in the lobbying arena. The short answer is: Lots. Among other things, Judy and her staff:
· Help us to develop a coherent, effective legislative strategy.
· Provide a constant presence for us at the Capitol when we cannot be there in person.
· Assist us in crafting our “message” to legislators through public hearing testimony, fact sheets, letters and the like.
· Ease access to legislators, the Executive and staff at all levels.
· Conduct vote counts on our behalf on specific legislation.
· Provide insight to individual legislators and suggest strategies to move bills through the legislative process.
· Provide technical and clerical assistance.
Judy and her associates work closely with the LWVCT and our coalition partners on critical election laws legislation. One of our coalition partners credited the LWVCT and our lobbyists with being the “extra muscle” needed to make campaign finance reform and public financing of campaigns a reality. We thank our members for contributions that enable the League to augment our volunteer efforts with the seasoned and knowledgeable lobbying team of Judy Blei and Associates. You may not be able to go to the Capitol to lobby with us but know that your contributions are working to advance good public policy in Hartford.
LWVCT actively works in coalition with others to achieve our public policy goals. Coalition work can include actions such as participating in strategy meetings, coordinating testimony and/or action alerts, attending meetings with public officials, and participating in press conferences. Coalitions, as of August 2009, are listed below by policy area; if there is a lead Coalition partner that provides staffing support, they are indicated in parentheses.
Government
Clean Up CT Coalition
Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition
Natural Resources
Citizens Transportation Lobby
Clean Water Action
CT Climate Coalition
Endangered Lands Coalition (CT Fund for the Environment)
New England Climate Coalition
Sound Alliance (Save the Sound)
Transit for Connecticut Coalition (CT Fund for the Environment)
Social Policy
CAGV: Connecticut Against Gun Violence
Coalition for Choice
Citizens Network of the Capital Region
CT Coalition for Justice in Education Funding
CT Housing Coalition and Home CT
Keep the Promise Coalition:
(National Association of Mental Illness CT)
Health Care4EveryOne
(United Health Care Foundation)