Democrats and Good Government Advocates Call for National Popular Vote to Elect the President

Posted on February 22, 2017 by Webmaster

Democrats and Good Government Advocates Call for National Popular Vote to Elect the President

State Democratic lawmakers Wednesday stood with good government advocates to add their voices to a growing coalition of people calling for an end to the Electoral College and replacing it with the direct election of the president by national popular vote.

The coalition spoke in favor of Senate Bill 9, “An Act Entering Connecticut into the National Popular Vote Compact,” as well as House Bills 5205, 5434 and 5435. The effect of each of these bills is to enter Connecticut into the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote (the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact”), which would make Connecticut the 12th state to become a member.

“I fully reject the notion that the citizens of America, in the year 2017, cannot be trusted to directly elect their president,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Martin M. Looney (D-New Haven). “Instead, I believe that the direct election of the president by popular vote—that the winner of the presidency is the candidate who gets the most votes in the election—is now critical to the essence of our democracy.”

“It is critically important that we honor the will of the American people and the will of Connecticut’s citizens and create a system that elects a president that is the winner of the national popular vote,” said Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff (D-Norwalk). “By joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, we can move our nation one step closer to truly honoring the will of the voters.”

“This is an issue that has been important to many people in our state for quite a long time, and perhaps the recent presidential election has raised the tenor of this issue, but it still has been an important issue, not just in our state but across the country,” said state Senator Gary Winfield (D-New Haven), who is Co-Chairman of the Government Administration and Elections Committee that is hold a public hearing today on the National Popular Vote bills. “The Electoral College was designed to give people in small states power that they didn’t have. It was designed in some ways to give power to small states that owned slaves. It’s the reason why we had presidents that came from Virginia for a very long time. So for a person like me, this has been an issue that is particularly important, because it has something to do with a part of our history that I think we have done a lot to move away from. I think what Connecticut is looking to do with the national popular vote closes that loop. So let’s not think of this as just a response to the presidential election that we had, but as dealing with some parts of our history that are particularly important.”

“Since last November’s election, my office has received scores of emails from constituents in support of electing our president by national popular vote,” said state Senator Mae Flexer (D-Danielson). “I agree with them, and I believe strongly that we need to move beyond the antiquated and unfair Electoral College system and entrust the election of our president to our people. Every vote in this country should have equal weight. The Electoral College is a relic of a bygone era, and we need to change that.”

“My support for the National Popular Vote is indicative of the equity that is inherent in this policy,” said state Representative James Albis (D-East Haven). “Studies have shown that swing states and battleground states get more federal dollars than other states. Connecticut is at a disadvantage there, and this bill would help level that playing field. The National Popular Vote also creates equity for a person’s vote. A vote in Connecticut counts less than a vote in Ohio right now.”

“I am thrilled to introduce one of the bills that address this critical issue, and I am very happy to be partnering with Senator Looney,” said state Representative Matthew Lesser (D-Middletown) said. “The National Popular Vote is about basic democracy and respect for our Constitution and the original intent of its framers.”

The purpose of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is simple: its enactment would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationally.

Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, once it goes into effect the states therein choose to allocate their electoral votes to the candidate who garners the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact takes effect only when enough states sign on to guarantee that the national popular vote winner wins the presidency. This means that states with a combined total of 270 electoral votes—a majority of the Electoral College—must join the compact for it to take effect.

To date, 11 American states possessing 165 electoral votes have approved the interstate compact, which represent 61 percent of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it. Connecticut’s neighboring states—New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island—have passed this bill.

The 11 states which have already enacted this legislation are physically, politically and geographically diverse: they include four small jurisdictions, three medium-size states, and four large states. The bill has passed—often with broad, bipartisan support—in a total of 35 legislative chambers in 24 different states.
The state-by-state, winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not set out in the United States Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention, nor was it discussed in the Federalist Papers. The Founding Fathers did not design the system of allocating electoral votes currently used in most states. Rather, the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College without any instructions on how states should use it. The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (all of which abandoned it by 1800).

A study of the evolution of the Electoral College notes that, during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the delegates said they “distrusted the passions of the people,” and particularly distrusted the ability of average voters to choose a president in a national election. The result was the creation of the Electoral College, a system that at that time gave each state a number of electors based on the size of its Congressional delegation. Because there were no political parties back then, it was assumed that electors would use their best judgment to select a president. The concept was that the electors would filter the “passions of the people” and provide a check on the public in case they made a poor choice for president.

“For the second time in the last five elections, we’ve elected a president who lost the popular vote,” said Common Cause in Connecticut Executive Director Cheri Quickmire. “And every year, voters in all but a few battleground states don’t have a real say in picking our president. It’s time to make a change to the winner-take-all Electoral College system that led to this anti-democratic outcome so that voters in all 50 states have a voice in our presidential election.”

“The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an elegant way to ensure that every vote cast for president matters equally, without having to abolish the Electoral College,” said Jonathan Perloe, a communications strategist living in Greenwich and member of the National Popular Vote Connecticut Working Group.

“National Popular Vote will make a vote in Connecticut as important as any other voter’s in any other state,” said Andrea Levien, a New Haven resident and Yale Law School student. “I am so excited that the General Assembly is considering this step to protect our interest in a meaningful vote.”

Democrats and Good Government Advocates Call for National Popular Vote to Elect the President

Posted on February 22, 2017 by Webmaster

Democrats and Good Government Advocates Call for National Popular Vote to Elect the President

The purpose of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is simple: its enactment would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationally.

Democrats and Good Government Advocates Call for National Popular Vote to Elect the President

Posted on February 22, 2017 by Webmaster

Democrats and Good Government Advocates Call for National Popular Vote to Elect the President

Senator Gary Winfield (D-New Haven), co-chair of the Government Administration & Elections Committee that is holding a public hearing today on the National Popular Vote bills, said changing the Electoral College system at the state level has been discussed long before the latest presidential election. “This is an issue that has been important to many people in our state for quite a long time, and perhaps the recent presidential election has raised the tenor of this issue, but it still has been an important issue, not just in our state but across the country,” said Winfield. “The Electoral College was designed to give people in small states power that they didn’t have. It was designed in some ways to give power to small states that owned slaves. It’s the reason why we had presidents that came from Virginia for a very long time. So for a person like me, this has been an issue that is particularly important, because it has something to do with a part of our history that I think we have done a lot to move away from. I think what Connecticut is looking to do with the national popular vote closes that loop. So let’s not think of this as just a response to the presidential election that we had, but as dealing with some parts of our history that are particularly important.”

The purpose of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is simple: its enactment would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationally.

Senator Winfield in the News: ACLU praises CT prison reforms on solitary confinement

Posted on February 21, 2017 by Webmaster

ACLU praises CT prison reforms on solitary confinement

CT Mirror: The door of an isolation cell rolled shut Tuesday behind Sen. Gary Winfield, D-New Haven. He stretched out on a hard bunk under a fluorescent light. But his stay would be brief. The cell that held him was a replica assembled in the ornate lobby of the State Capitol, not one of the state’s prisons.

The national movement to limit the use of solitary confinement has come to Connecticut, where civil libertarians say they are on friendlier terrain than in many other states: Here they seek legislation that codifies in law reforms already adopted by the Department of Correction.

Read the full article at the CT Mirror.

Senator Gary Winfield Goes “Inside the Box” for Nearly 2.5 Hours

Posted on February 21, 2017 by Webmaster

Senator Gary Winfield Goes “Inside the Box” for Nearly 2.5 Hours

State Senator Gary Winfield (D-New Haven), in collaboration with the ACLU of Connecticut, unveiled a replica solitary confinement cell in the south lobby of the State Capitol Tuesday.

The replica cell provides visitors with a unique opportunity to immerse themselves in the experience of solitary confinement. During the press conference, Senator Winfield, who is the vice chairman of the Judiciary Committee, urged his colleagues in the General Assembly to support solitary confinement reform and to visit the replica cell while it is on display in the Capitol building until March 2.

“If we’re going to be about the business of putting people in our prison system, which means that they can end up in places like this, to spend five or ten minutes in this box to get a sense of what it means to be here, I don’t think is too much to ask,” Sen. Winfield said. “And I actually think it’s informative in ways that somebody can’t describe to you, so I would encourage every single legislator who speaks about prisons—and that’s all of us—to spend a little bit of time in this box, close the door, and see what it’s like.”

Sen. Winfield made a commitment to remain “inside the box” for an extended period of time so at the end of press conference, he entered the cell, closed the door behind him and spent nearly 2 ½ hours in solitary confinement. He stepped in at approximately 2:53 p.m. and remained inside until 5:15 p.m.; a total of 2 hours and 23 minutes.

“It’s a strange experience. You have no sense of what time is. What I was trying to do was figure out what time it was, so I was trying to count, but then the noise would disrupt the count, so I couldn’t even count to figure out what the time was.”

Earlier this month, Sen. Winfield visited in the replica cell twice while it was on display at the New Haven Free Public Library and remained inside the box first for five minutes, then for 12.
Keishar Tucker, of New Haven, joined Winfield at the Capitol building Tuesday shared his personal experience with solitary confinement inside Northern Correctional Institution in Somers.

“It was a horrible experience. It definitely had a negative, long-lasting effect on me mentally,” Tucker said. “It’s torture.”

“It does have an impact on you,” Sen. Winfield said. “Anybody who says it doesn’t, I say you come spend some time here, and if it doesn’t have an impact on you good, but it had an impact on me.”

Osten Calls GOP Vote to Kill Minimum Wage Bill “Shameful”

Posted on February 21, 2017 by Webmaster

Osten Calls GOP Vote to Kill Minimum Wage Bill “Shameful”

Reacting to the Connecticut Senate Republicans blocking legislation to raise the minimum wage, State Senator Cathy Osten (D-Sprague) today released the following statement:

“I think it is truly shameful that Republicans have chosen to kill a Senate Bill that would benefit the working people of the State of Connecticut by refusing to allow it to be debated by the full legislature,” said Osten, who serves as Vice Chair of the General Assembly’s Labor & Public Employees Committee.

Osten continued, “I maintain that it is vitally important that we take action to raise the minimum wage to a living wage in Connecticut. When hard working people struggle to make ends meet because they simply cannot earn enough working two, and even three, jobs, it hurts their families and the state’s economy.

“These families often have to turn to the state for assistance because the private sector refuses to pay employees a fair wage. The so-called fiscally conservative Republican Party should surely understand that taxpayers end up subsidizing these corporations when we allow business to step on the poorest of the poor.

“I am however heartened by the fact that the House bill which also seeks to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2022 is still moving forward. This fight is far from over.”

Numerous public opinion polls have shown deep and bipartisan public support for minimum wage increases in Connecticut.

A March 2016 poll showed 61 percent of Connecticut residents supported increasing Connecticut’s minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2022. The measure was especially popular with unaffiliated voters, women, and people under age 50. Respondents argued that employees who are paid wages too low to live on often end up relying on government assistance, and that means that every single Connecticut state taxpayer ends up personally subsidizing the profit margins of private corporations that pay poverty-level wages.

An April 2012 poll showed 90 percent of Democrats, 70 percent of unaffiliated voters and 50 percent of Republicans supported increasing in Connecticut’s minimum wage from $8.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour. 80 percent of residents with incomes less than $50,000 a year—and 80 percent of residents with income exceeding $100,000 a year—supported increasing the minimum wage. Three-quarters of women in that poll supported increasing Connecticut’s minimum wage.

In their First Act of Power Purchased for them by CBIA, Senate Republicans Kill Senate Minimum Wage Bill

Posted on February 21, 2017 by Webmaster

In their First Act of Power Purchased for them by CBIA, Senate Republicans Kill Senate Minimum Wage Bill

Senate Republicans Choose Lobbyist Money Over Working People

Reacting to the Connecticut Senate Republicans blocking legislation to raise the minimum wage, Senate President Pro Tempore Martin M. Looney (D-New Haven) and Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff (D-Norwalk) today released the following statements:

“Today, we learned that the detached and divided public spirit of President Donald Trump is alive and well right here in Connecticut, as the Connecticut Senate Republicans’ first official act under our new, bipartisan power-sharing agreement was to turn their backs on some of the hardest working and most needy people of Connecticut by dividing the Labor and Public Employees Committee to block the Senate version of the minimum wage bill. Fortunately, the House version was adopted on a party-line vote with all Democrats in support and all Republicans opposed.” said Senator Looney.

“Thousands upon thousands of Connecticut families work minimum wage jobs. For parents trying to make ends meet, for the blue collar workers hanging sheetrock or changing your oil, for single moms working two or three jobs to provide the basic necessities for their children, there may be no more important and pressing issue than earning a fair, adequate and more ‘livable’ hourly wage. A sufficient minimum wage for the working people of Connecticut is not some sort of luxury—it is an absolute necessity,” Looney continued.

“Year after year, the public’s voice on this matter has been made crystal clear; now Republicans have turned a deaf ear,” said Senator Duff.

Senator Duff continued, “Today is not a proud day for the Connecticut General Assembly. In fact, it is a very sad day. Senate Republicans have failed their first real test of leadership for the people of Connecticut who they claim to represent: Republicans have put pure political calculation ahead of a popular and demonstrable public need.

“If this is the Connecticut Republicans’ definition of leadership, if these are the public policies that they will kill and dismantle if given some greater opportunity to govern, then Connecticut residents face a very sad and dismal future.”

Poll after public poll has shown deep and bipartisan public support for minimum wage increases in Connecticut.

A March 2016 poll showed 61 percent of Connecticut residents supported increasing Connecticut’s minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2022. The measure was especially popular with unaffiliated voters, women, and people under age 50; they argued that employees who are paid wages too low to live on often end up relying on government assistance, and that means that every single Connecticut state taxpayer ends up personally subsidizing the profit margins of private corporations that pay poverty-level wages.

An April 2012 poll showed 90 percent of Democrats, 70 percent of unaffiliated voters and half of Republicans supported increasing in Connecticut’s minimum wage from $8.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour. 80 percent of residents with incomes less than $50,000 a year—and 80 percent of residents with income exceeding $100,000 a year—supported increasing the minimum wage. Three-quarters of women in that poll supported increasing Connecticut’s minimum wage.

Bye Urges Opposition to Bill That Would Kill Municipal Right to Expand Internet Access

Posted on February 21, 2017 by Webmaster

Bye Urges Opposition to Bill That Would Kill Municipal Right To Expand Internet Access

State Senator Beth Bye (D-West Hartford) today urged members of the legislature’s Energy & Technology Committee to oppose a proposed bill that seeks to restrict how cities and towns can use their rightful spot on a telephone pole, a.k.a. their “gain.”

Sen. Bye helped pass legislation several years ago that clarifies the ability of cities and town to maximize the use of their municipal gain. Since then, cities and towns across Connecticut have been meeting with private-sector investment banks and internet providers to issue requests for proposal (RFPs) for the funding and creation of local fiber optic gigabit internet networks.

“For generations, phone, cable and internet utility companies have been able to limit competition by limiting access to the wires on these poles. As legislators, I am sure that you often hear constituent complaints about the cost, quality and service of cable and internet providers. Costs have skyrocketed over the last decade. This is what happens when there is little or no competition,” Sen. Bye wrote. “It is always a difficult battle advocating for public policies that advance consumer and small business interests over the very highly represented and well-funded interests of huge telecommunications firms. Still, it’s important that we keep up this fight in order to secure more and better choices—and often less-expensive options—for our residents.”

West Hartford Corporation Counsel Patrick Alair also submitted testimony in opposition to the proposed bill.

“It is impossible to imagine all the ways in which the proposed (bill) could impede municipalities from delivering services to their residents and taxpayers, because we cannot image all of the creative ways in which municipalities might be able to use the municipal gain in the future,” Alair wrote in part. “Now is the time when Connecticut needs to be more forward-thinking, not moving backward.”

Here is Sen. Bye’s written testimony in its entirety:

February 21, 2017

State Senator Gary Winfield
State Senator Paul Formica
State Representative Lonnie Reed

Good Afternoon Chairwoman Reed and Chairmen Winfield and Formica,

I am writing today to express my strong opposition to House Bill 7011, “AN ACT CONCERNING MUNICIPAL GAINS ON PUBLIC UTILITY POLES,” which seeks to require that municipal gains be used only by a town, city, borough, fire district or the Department of Transportation.

The municipal gain is a powerful economic development tool for towns; I am sure you will be hearing from them today on that point.

Connecticut is unique in its utility pole regulatory structure in that, since the 1930s, Connecticut towns have been granted the placement of a wire on a pole (a “gain”) for their purposes. This gives towns the ability to use that gain as they see fit.

But for generations, phone, cable and internet utility companies have been able to limit competition by limiting access to the wires on these poles. As legislators, I am sure that you often hear constituent complaints about the cost, quality and service of cable and internet providers. Costs have skyrocketed over the last decade. This is what happens when there is little or no competition.

Several years ago, after receiving input from my constituents and local town leaders, I helped craft legislation clarifying language for communities so that they could maximize their use of their municipal gain.

Before this legislation, every time a town tried to use that gain, cable and phone companies would sue, claiming the gain is not for ‘municipal’ purposes. These lawsuits had a chilling effect on town attempts to use their gain for the benefit of local businesses and residents.

It is always a difficult battle advocating for public policies that advance consumer and small business interests over the very highly represented and well-funded interests of huge telecommunications firms. Still, it’s important that we keep up this fight in order to secure more and better choices—and often less-expensive options—for our residents.

We in the legislature must stand up and fight for our communities’ and our constituents’ best interests, and we must turn away any proposed bill that seeks to protect the current monopolistic telecommunications landscape which is characterized by such a disturbing lack of competition and by ever-increasing costs.

Other states across America are looking at their broadband infrastructure investments. Unfortunately, Connecticut’s current leadership has not moved in that direction, leaving it to cities and towns to fight and advocate for themselves on a case-by-case basis.

This bill before you today would severely limit the infrastructure development options for our cities and towns, leaving Connecticut’s small businesses, research institutions, libraries, schools and other facilities lacking affordable gigabit service.

Connecticut is rightfully proud of its innovation economy, yet this misguided bill places our innovation economy in great peril.

Please stand up for consumers, for start-up businesses, and for the economic development potential of Connecticut’s cities and towns, and please stand against this regressive public policy which seeks only to enrich a handful of huge telecommunications companies while stifling the competition and innovation that have made America great.

Thank You,

State Senator Beth Bye
D-West Hartford

Connecticut’s Retirement Security Savings Program in Danger

Posted on February 21, 2017 by Webmaster

Connecticut’s Retirement Security Savings Program in Danger

Sen. President Pro Tempore Looney, Sen. Majority Leader Duff, Speaker Aresimowicz and House Majority Leader Ritter Denounce Congressional Republicans’ Plan to Block Connecticut Program

photo of Senator Looney and Speaker Aresimowicz.

Democratic leaders of the Connecticut General Assembly stood united today to denounce proposals by Trump-era Congressional Republicans who are seeking to roll back rules allowing states to create employee-sponsored, state-administered retirement plans.

On February 15, 2017, Congressional House Republicans voted 231-196 to pass House Joint Resolution 66, which negates the federal Department of Labor rule allowing states to establish savings programs for private-sector employees. The bill is now in the Senate.

The Congressional House Republican action comes despite strong support by Connecticut residents for a state-sponsored employee retirement savings program.
“Republicans in the United States Congress shouldn’t turn their backs on the more than 600,000 private-sector workers in Connecticut who don’t have an employee-sponsored retirement savings plan,” said Senate President Martin M. Looney (D-New Haven). “States like Connecticut, California, Oregon and Illinois are leading the way to ensure that private-sector workers have enough savings for their retirement. Republicans in Congress shouldn’t stand in the way of a financially secure future for hundreds of thousands of Connecticut residents.”

“Last year we passed landmark legislation to expand retirement security to the more than 600,000 private-sector workers in Connecticut who don’t have a retirement savings plan available through their employer,” said Speaker of the House Joe Aresimowicz. (D-Berlin). “It’s a travesty that the rollout of this plan—which is supported by small businesses, working families and seniors—is now being threatened by Republicans in Congress. Despite what happens at the federal level, we are committed here in Connecticut to ensuring that our hardworking residents are given the tools they need to save for the comfortable retirement they’ve earned.”

“It’s shocking, but not surprising, that Republicans in Congress would seek to put a halt to states addressing retirement security,” said Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff (D-Norwalk). “We can either help people save for retirement—with their own money now—or we can have taxpayers pick up the tab later. While Social Security has for many years prevented senior citizens from falling into poverty, it no longer provides a sustainable living for those with no other source of retirement income.”

“Hundreds of thousands of Connecticut residents don’t have access to an employer-based retirement plan. That’s exactly why Democrats in the legislature crafted a public retirement savings plan,” said House Majority Leader Matt Ritter (D-Hartford). “Now we need your voice to tell Republicans in Washington to keep their hands off Connecticut’s retirement.”

Last year, the General Assembly passed legislation (Public Act 16-29) creating a voluntary retirement savings program for the estimated 600,000 Connecticut residents who don’t have a retirement savings plan available to them through their employer. Connecticut’s plan is slated to begin in less than a year—in January 2018—and it will save 3 percent of workers’ pay after they’ve been with a company for 120 days.

The legislation creates a program in which employees make voluntary contributions to be deposited into a professionally managed retirement fund; every employee would have the chance to enroll in the retirement savings program. Employers wouldn’t have any fiduciary responsibility and wouldn’t be required to pay any administrative fees. The program is designed to be self-sustaining and low-risk.

Last year, the AARP shared the results of its report, A Common-Sense Approach: The 2016 Connecticut Work and Save Plan, a survey of 1,000 Connecticut residents ages 35-64 which was conducted by the AARP Public Policy Institute. According to the survey:

88 percent of Connecticut residents wish they had saved more for their retirement
Regardless of political affiliation, 79 percent of Connecticut residents agree that elected officials should support a state retirement savings plan
65 percent of Connecticut residents are “anxious” about having enough money for retirement
More than 90 percent of Connecticut residents say a retirement savings plan should be easy to use, low-cost, and should follow workers from job to job

The 2016 retirement security legislation was enacted two years after Sen. Looney and Rep. Aresimowicz led passage of a bill creating the Connecticut Retirement Security Board, which was tasked with conducting a market feasibility study and a comprehensive proposal for the creation of a retirement plan for private-sector Connecticut workers.

In their First Act of Power Purchased for them by CBIA, Senate Republicans Kill Senate Minimum Wage Bill

Posted on February 21, 2017 by Webmaster

In their First Act of Power Purchased for them by CBIA, Senate Republicans Kill Senate Minimum Wage Bill

Senate Republicans Choose Lobbyist Money Over Working People

“Year after year, the public’s voice on this matter has been made crystal clear; now Republicans have turned a deaf ear,” said Senator Duff.

Poll after public poll has shown deep and bipartisan public support for minimum wage increases in Connecticut.

A March 2016 poll showed 61 percent of Connecticut residents supported increasing Connecticut’s minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2022. The measure was especially popular with unaffiliated voters, women, and people under age 50; they argued that employees who are paid wages too low to live on often end up relying on government assistance, and that means that every single Connecticut state taxpayer ends up personally subsidizing the profit margins of private corporations that pay poverty-level wages.