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
2007-2009 LWVCT POSITIONS IN BRIEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
GOVERNMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Campaign Finance Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Election Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Fiscal Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
General Assembly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Initiative and Referendum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Primaries and Parties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
LWVCT Action on LWVUS Government Positions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
NATURAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
LWVCT Action on LWVUS Natural Resources Positions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Environmental Protection and Energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
SOCIAL POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Death Penalty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Gambling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Mental Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Quality Integrated Education . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
School Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
School Start Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
School Vouchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Teen Pregnancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
LWVCT Action on LWVUS Social Policy Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
Gun Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Health Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Income Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Reproductive Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Child Care, Children’s Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Children at Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
POSITIONS DROPPED BY LWVCT CONVENTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
PUBLIC ISSUES TEAM as of Sept 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Campaign Finance Reform (1975; affirmed 2005)
Support: limitations on campaign contributions and expenditures, full disclosure, and partial public funding of campaigns.
Election Laws (1983; last updated 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; updated 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.
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; affirmed and updated 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; last 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; updated 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; updated 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, affirmed 2007)
Support: system of elementary and secondary education that is fiscally and educationally accountable to citizens.
Oppose: the use of public funds through vouchers or direct payment to support students attending non-public schools.
Teen Pregnancy (1989; affirmed 1999)
Support: a comprehensive Family Life Education program in all schools; school-based health clinics for health care services including reproductive health; programs and services designed to help teens delay parenthood and to enable teen parents to finish high school.
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
During the 2000 session, the LWVCT, in coalition with 40 other groups, supported a bill establishing a comprehensive public financing system with spending limits for state-wide campaigns. It passed in the legislature but was vetoed by the Governor.
The LWVCT also supported CFR at the federal level through many Calls to Action.
In 2001, the League, in coalition, again supported a comprehensive system of voluntary spending limits and public financing for candidates for statewide offices and General Assembly offices. It passed all the necessary committees and was ready to be brought up in the legislative session. When it became apparent the votes were not there in the Senate and the Governor said he would veto any such legislation, the bill was pulled.
During the 2002 session, very few CFR bills were submitted, and none were passed by the GAE Committee.
In 2003, the LWVCT supported a bill providing for spending limits and partial funding of political campaigns. It was not reported out of the GAE committee.
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 contribution 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 GAE committee and copies were sent to the entire legislature. The League 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 League 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 League 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. League members actively lobbied for CFR, writing letters and responding to action alerts with e-mails and phone calls. National 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 League, announced plans to call a special session to pass a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill. Some League 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 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 League 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 League worked closely with its lobbyists, Judith Blei & Associates, and its coalition partners. One partner credited the League 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 League 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. The League will continue to monitor changes to the campaign finance laws, the status of the lawsuits, and implementation of the bans (currently in effect) and public financing of the ’08 campaigns.
Action was also taken on LWVUS Action Alerts related to campaign finance reform, as requested.
(adopted in 1983, updated 2005; updated 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 2000, a bill protecting the security of electors by preventing the disclosure and transfer of social security numbers was passed, eliminating this category of information from Voter Registration forms. A pilot program authorizing the use of electronic equipment for counting absentee ballots proceeded under the direction of the Secretary of the State. In 2001, the Governor proposed legislation authorizing a “direct primary” system that would have allowed a would-be candidate to more easily petition their way onto the ballot. The Senate defeated this proposal. The LWVCT took no position on the issue.
A Bill was passed restoring the voting rights of convicted felons on probation. It is aimed at lessening the racial disparity in voting eligibility, and bringing such persons into the democratic process.
A Bill supporting the establishment of a Commission to study new Voting Technology, the Computerized Voter Registration and training of election workers passed one legislative chamber but due to time restraints was not raised in the other chamber. A Bill creating a State-Wide Voter Guide was proposed and was postponed until the next year for clarification.
During the 2002 session, the LWVCT supported several Voting Rights bills: An Act Concerning Voting Reform requiring local officials to comply with the Voter Bill of Rights, mandating the use of modern and accurate vote counting technology and a state-wide voter registration data base; a bill mandating the education and training of poll workers and of the voting public; a bill concerning participation in the State-Wide Centralized Voter Registration System; a bill requiring a Voter Guide for state elections, and a bill concerning election day registration. The Voter Bill of Rights passed with some modifications but all the other bills failed.
On October 29, 2002, the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) established a program to provide funds to states to replace voting systems, create the Election Assistance Commission and to set minimum election administration standards for administering federal elections.
The 2003 session saw the re-introduction of an Election Day Registration (EDR) bill and of legislation implementing the provisions of the HAVA bill. Once again, the LWVCT worked with the Connecticut Coalition for Effective Democracy to pass these critical reforms. Three bills passed in regular session: a bill mandating towns to join the Secretary of the State’s state-wide centralized voter registration system by September 1, 2003; the Election Day Registration; and the HAVA implementation bill. The EDR bill was vetoed by the Governor. A bill mandating a Voter Guide did not pass. A bill authorizing a new primary system passed both houses on the last day of the session.
In 2004, the LWVCT testified in support of the re-submitted EDR bill which would also mandate training of Assistant Registrars and Town Clerks and supported other reform bills, such as an expanded Voter Bill of Rights, the bill for permanent funding of the “good government” commissions and compliance with HAVA. Continuing the coalition work, the LWVCT participated in several public hearings. 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, problems 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 non-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 coalition and the LWVCT, 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 League 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 League 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 League 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 League opposed a bill that would have required full-faced ballots for direct recording electronic voting machines. After heavy lobbying by the League, 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.
Passing some form of Election Day Registration was a League priority again in 2007. The League 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 League 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.
All municipalities will be required to use the new optical scan voting machines during the 2007 elections. The League believes that manual, random audits are essential to ensuring the integrity of the machines — and, therefore, the elections — and instilling voter confidence in the new machines. During the 2007 session, the League 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 League’s concerns regarding manual recounts in the event of recanvasses and the necessity for a clear statement that the paper ballot is the official record of the elector’s vote were not addressed in the statute; however, the League has been reassured by the Secretary of the State’s office that these issues will be addressed in regulations which carry the force of law.
The League is working with the registrars and the Secretary of the State’s office to provide voter education regarding the new machines.
In 2005, Public Act 05-235 was passed which created new requirements for the distribution of applications for absentee ballots. The League believes that this law has had a chilling effect on the distribution of absentee ballots. During the 2007 session, a bill was introduced that would have eliminated the pre-registration requirement for distributors of applications for absentee ballots. The League 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. A resolution proposing amendment to the state constitution to remove restrictions on the categories of citizens who can vote by absentee ballot was also introduced. The League did not take a position on the bill; however, a state study has been authorized on the subject. The resolution died on the Senate calendar.
Two “bills” that would have provided for election of the president by popular vote rather than by the Electoral College were introduced during the 2007 session. Neither of these bills passed; however, similar bills are sure to be introduced next year. The League did not testify on these bills, but should be prepared to advocate for the elimination of the Electoral College in coming years.
Election reform has been an area of intense activity over the past several years. The League 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 League 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 League priority.
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:
Reform, strengthen, and clarify Connecticut’s codes of ethics as they apply to public officials, public employees, and lobbyists.
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.
Require a transparent, competitive, and clearly defined state contract selection process.
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.
In the absence of a specialist dedicated to this area, the League monitored, but did not actively advocate on ethics issues. Action was also taken on LWVUS Calls to Action, as requested.
(Adopted 1981; updated and reaffirmed 2003)
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut supports the following components of the state’s fiscal policy:
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.
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.
Bonds should be used only for long-term capital projects and never for current expenditures.
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.
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.
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 2001, the LWVCT lobbied the Governor to include enough money in his 2001-’03 budget to cover at least 50% of statewide K-12 public education costs and to increase the state funding for special education
The 2001 General Assembly adjourned without passing a budget, necessitating a special session. One of the contentious issues was the spending cap and its influence on the budget in the presence of the $640 million surplus. In the final budget, municipalities received some additional funds for special education but the ECS formula reform was stalled. For the first time in many years, no new tax cuts were enacted. The approved budget for FY 2002 was approximately $78 million under the spending cap.
During 2002, revenues plummeted and the budget showed a significant shortfall. The LWVCT urged the Governor and the legislature to conduct a review of all tax expenditures, special tax exemptions and maximize the use of new federal funds. Since 2/3 of all Connecticut corporations pay only the minimum $250 tax, we recommended redressing this imbalance while maintaining the State’s competitive position. The approved budget was balanced in a special session by using up the rainy day fund and enacting a number of one-time fixes. Bonding increased.
In January 2003, the LWVCT adopted the Spending Cap portion of this position. Copies of the position were sent to all the legislators. Budget shortfalls dominated the legislative session; the Governor’s budget proposal included the elimination of critical social services; the LWVCT strongly opposed these cuts, lobbied for a careful examination of all federal funds flowing into the state and continued to press for continued ECS and special education funding. The legislature finally adopted a budget in a second special session that combined modest revenue increases (mostly fees for various services), across-the-board budget cuts and one-time reductions. A small deficit was funded by issuing bonds. The legislature discussed a “millionaire’s tax” but ultimately rejected such a tax.
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, thus 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.
The League currently has no specialist in the areas of the Spending Cap or budgets. No action was taken in this area during the last biennium.
(adopted 1982, reviewed and reaffirmed 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
The LWVCT continues to support measures to tighten reporting requirements for General Assembly lobbyists and to reduce the amount they can contribute to lawmakers, and the restriction prohibiting legislators from lobbying within one year after their term expires. The LWVCT opposes bills that would weaken the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.
In 2001, the General Assembly adjourned without a budget vote and left a record number of bills to die due to time pressures at the end of the session.
In 2002, the budget was again seriously delayed and a special session was required to forge a compromise spending plan. An additional special session was held to eliminate the budget gap resulting from diminishing revenues.
A budget shortfall dominated the 2003 session. The Governor proposed to consolidate the so-called “good government” agencies: the Ethics Commission, Election Enforcement and the Freedom of Information Commission into one new agency to save money. The LWVCT strongly opposed the proposal as the consolidation would weaken the oversight role of each agency. The proposal was dropped but a 15-20% reduction in the appropriations for these agencies was discussed as part of the budget negotiations. The LWVCT opposed such reductions.
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.
In 2005, there was no further legislative activity regarding the reorganization of the General Assembly. 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 League 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.
(Adopted in 1984; reviewed and reaffirmed 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
The 1999 and 2000 sessions saw limited activity in this area.
Since the 2001 session, there has been no significant activity on this issue. In the 2005 session, the LWVCT, under its election laws position, advocated for improvements in the dissemination of information regarding all election issues. The LWVCT has no specialist in this area.
(Adopted 1983; reviewed and reaffirmed 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
Changes in the primary procedures were proposed by the Governor in 2003, but the legislation did not pass. 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. The League has taken no action in this area over last biennium as we have no specialist.
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
Legislative redistricting must be reviewed every ten years after the census.
In 2001, the LWVCT testified before hearings at Hartford and the new district hearings, requesting that redistricting be made more reflective of the population and more accountable.
A Call to Action went out to individual Leagues to testify at their closest district hearing. The LWVCT provided needed materials for such action. The LWVCT testified to the need to change the methodology to make it more reflective of “fairness of representation.”
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. Significant activity is expected around the next census.
(Adopted 1975; reaffirmed 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
Prior to the 2001 legislative session, the Governor proposed to save from potential development 18,700 acres of Kelda water company lands. The proposal received universal support although the method of securing these lands was debated. The LWVCT joined the Coalition for the Permanent Protection of Kelda lands and lobbied intensively and successfully to retain $30 million in the budget and for another $30 million bonding package.
During the 2002 session, debate continued, culminating in the eventual signing of a compact to conserve 15,000 acres of land in four counties; the Nature Conservancy contributed $10 million and the state paid $80 million. The state acquired conservation and public access easements to Class I lands (directly adjacent to reservoirs) and fee title to Class II lands (150 feet from reservoir or water supply). Recreational activity will be consistent with the protection of watersheds.
During 2003, the LWVCT joined The Endangered Land Coalition to further protect the reservoirs and surrounding forest lands. A bill was proposed to close the abandonment loophole, to provide land protection at time of water company mergers and to use the ratemaking process to conserve water company lands. The bill was progressively watered down and ultimately lost support and died. However, four private water companies agreed to a voluntary 2-year moratorium from selling water company lands to allow DEP review of the natural resource for the value of the property. The LWVCT continued its efforts to assure passage of a strong bill in the next session.
In addition, the LWVCT supported legislation to make the Plan of Conservation and Development a more effective guide for state, regional and local planning and regulation. The bill died.
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 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. In an interesting post-session development, some of the legislators who spearheaded passage of the bill are now suggesting that they will work to repeal it based upon reaction from the community.
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.
(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 2000, there was limited legislative activity in this area. However, traffic congestion on roads became a pressing issue. The Governor formed a Transportation Strategy Task Force to study ways to remedy overcrowding on state roads. The Task Force was to report in spring 2001.
In 2001, transportation became a hot issue. Several initiatives were presented, including expansion of rail traffic, incentives to businesses whose employees use public transport, and the use of shoulders on I-95 and I-84 to increase road capacity. The Task Force reported in April 2001 and their recommendations resulted in HB-6985, a comprehensive bill that was amended and altered several times. The LWVCT testified in support of the major initiatives proposed in the bill. The final budget approved in special session included the funding for the Transportation Strategy Board (TSB).
The five Transportation Investment Areas were to submit their plans to the TSB by January 15, 2002. In December 2002, TSB presented to the Governor and the legislature a preliminary strategy plan and cost projections for the first ten years. The LWVCT expressed a strong concern that the entire strategy plan (and funding) was skewed heavily towards automobiles, highway improvements and expansion. Input to that effect was provided at the regional public hearings on the proposed plan.
During the 2003 session, the LWVCT lobbied the Transportation and the Planning and Development Committees to require the TSB to reconsider the recommendations to more closely conform to the original mandate. Letters to the Editor and Calls to Action followed. Ultimately, a bill was reported out of committee and again, and the LWVCT provided testimony urging more mass transit and movement of freight over long distances by rail and barges. An on-going dialog followed between the Transportation Committee and the League. The General Assembly adjourned without taking action on the omnibus transportation bill, but agreed to debate the bill in the special session, scheduled for June 16. That debate shifted to the adoption of a modest proposal to fund some mass transit projects through the budget and continued bonding for major highway projects. The modified proposal passed.
The LWVCT continues to be concerned with the overcrowding of the state’s highway and the over-reliance on trucks to move freight. The 2003 Fall Conference was dedicated to the examination of the various facets of this complex issue and innovative solutions to the problem.
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 a development of a coordinated, interlocking and multi-modal transportation system.
A new DOT Commissioner was appointed in late April 2004 and the League 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, op-ed pieces, attending rallies, issuing calls to action. The League 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 League 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 League 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 League 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 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 League 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.
The League testified on numerous