In This Issue:

From Paddi's Desk

CT Agency Corner

Municipal Roundup

This Day in CT History

This Week's News:

CT begins exploring ranked-choice voting merits, logistics...

LAMONT, his neighbors' tree-cutting case back in front of Greenwich wetlands board...

In Case You Missed It: What Happened This Week

6/24 SENATE Veto Session

6/25 Appropriations and Human Services Committees Public Hearing followed by Committee Meetings re PCA Waiver Renewal 

6/26 SENATE SPECIAL SESSION

6/27 Office of Policy & Management: Municipal Accountability Review Board Meeting

6/27 HOUSE SPECIAL SESSION

Follow the Money

Now that the Governor has finalized the review of the bills enacted by the 2024 legislature, a quiet convening of the required Veto session has occurred, and the special session has concluded, all eyes are on the upcoming fall elections. This week marked the kickoff debate of the rematch between President Biden and former President Trump on CNN, but the 2024 legislative races in Connecticut are also drawing significant attention. As I mentioned in previous articles, Connecticut’s Citizens' Election Program (CEP) is a national model for campaign finance reform that provides thousands of dollars to qualifying candidates running for state office.

Established in 2005 during former Governor M. Jodi Rell’s term, the CEP was designed to reduce the influence of private money in politics, level the playing field for all candidates, especially newcomers, and restore public trust in the electoral process. With 18 years and nine campaign cycles behind us, it’s worth examining the program's impact and what it means for Connecticut’s political landscape.

The Rules of the Road are kind of simple – well maybe. Grants awarded from the CEP program to candidates for state office who agree to adhere to strict fundraising and spending limits are clearly defined and well-known now. To qualify for public funding, candidates must 1) collect a specified number of small-dollar contributions from residents within their district or state. For example, a candidate for state representative must raise at least $5,300 from at least 150 individuals residing in the district; 2) accept limited contributions from lobbyists, state contractors, or political action committees (PACs). Contributions from individuals are capped between $5 to $250 per donor – lobbyists are limited to $100 per election cycle per candidate or caucus/leadership PAC); 3) abide by strict spending limits once they qualify for CEP funding. For instance, gubernatorial candidates can spend up to $6 million in the general election, including the public grant and 4) maintain comprehensive records and file regular campaign finance reports with the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC), ensuring transparency and accountability.

The impacts are many on CT’s election process. Public funding has allowed candidates without access to wealthy donors to run competitive campaigns. According to the SEEC, over 75% of candidates for state office now participate in the program. This has led to more diverse candidates, increased primaries, and broadened representation. Governor Ned Lamont remarked, "Engaging voters directly is crucial for a healthy democracy. It ensures that our leaders are truly representative of the people's will."

Candidates are incentivized to engage with a larger number of small donors, creating greater grassroots involvement. Former State Senator Gary Holder-Winfield noted, “Public financing has made campaigns more about people and less about money.” Lieutenant Governor Susan Bysiewicz added, "Candidates now spend more time engaging with voters and less time chasing big checks."

By limiting large private donations, many believe that the reforms have reduced the influence of special interest groups, and provided a more diversity of thinking in the legislature. Candidates can focus more on policy and less on fundraising from special interest groups. Despite limitations, lobbyists still maintain influence through established relationships based on their expertise and knowledge of the legislative process and history of the internal politics of state government.

With strict spending limits and the need to gather small donations, campaign strategies have shifted. Candidates rely more on volunteer efforts, social media, and grassroots campaigning. Former businessman and gubernatorial candidate Oz Griebel stated, “The paperwork and compliance can be daunting, but it is essential to protect the process and ensure CT remains a leader in clean campaigns.”

While the CEP has achieved many of its goals, some challenges remain. Critics argue that: 1) the thresholds are too high, particularly for first-time candidates or those in less affluent districts. This can create barriers to entry for underrepresented groups; 2) despite the program’s intentions, incumbents still benefit from name recognition, mailing privileges, and existing political networks; and 3) the increased number of participants and funding requests for primary campaigns have raised concerns about the overall cost of elections.



The state's public financing program has met many of its initial goals and has become a cornerstone of Connecticut’s electoral process. While there are areas for improvement, the overall sentiment among legislators is to continue the program. As they say, “the juice is worth the squeeze.”

During a special session this week, lawmakers advanced legislation to streamline the redevelopment of historic properties and save local businesses from a significant increase in motor vehicle property taxes in certain municipalities. The session's agenda included a measure to expedite the review process by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), establishing a 30-day deadline for initial determinations on state-funded projects. If an adverse impact on the historic property or environment is identified, the SHPO must propose a mitigation plan based on best practices. The law also provides an appeals process for developers and authorities overseeing projects to seek revisions from the commissioner of the Department of Economic and Community Development.

In local election voting news, the Governor’s Working Group on Ranked-Choice Voting in Connecticut has started discussions on the logistics and merits of instant runoff voting, potentially transforming state elections. Initiated by Gov. Ned Lamont after his 2022 campaign, the group aims to develop a legislative proposal to implement ranked-choice voting in caucuses, conventions, primaries, and certain municipal elections. The bipartisan group, including co-sponsors Sen. Cathy Osten and Sen. Tony Hwang, heard presentations from experts on the system's benefits and challenges, such as increasing voter turnout and campaign inclusivity. They also addressed concerns about potential delays in results and voter confusion. The group will continue to meet throughout the summer to draft a bipartisan implementation plan.

While that conversation on Ranked Choice Voting was happening, RISE Political Action Committee launched a campaign from the Connecticut ACLU, along with supporters from the NAACP, League of Women Voters, and League of Conservation Voters, aims to encourage Connecticut voters to pass No-Excuse Absentee Voting in November. According to this group, this measure would allow voters to mail in their ballots without needing a pre-approved reason, making voting more accessible, particularly for voters of color who often face barriers to voting. Currently, absentee ballots are only available for specific reasons such as sickness or fear of sickness or travel. The campaign includes nonpartisan voter education to inform voters about early voting and the absentee voting question on local ballots. Early voting in Connecticut, newly implemented in the presidential primary elections, will continue with a 14-day window before the election.

June 28th: Prudence Crandall Jailed

In 1831, Prudence Crandall, with the support and approval of the local citizenry, opened the Canterbury Female Boarding School to educate daughters of wealthy Eastern Connecticut families. After a successful inaugural year, Crandall received a request from 20-year-old Sarah Harris, the daughter of a prosperous free African-American farmer and his wife, to attend the boarding school.

Crandall, a single, 29-year-old Quaker, who was an avid reader of William Lloyd Garrison’s abolitionist newspaper The Liberator, decided to accept Miss Harris into her school. This prompted a severe and instantaneous backlash from her neighbors, who promptly removed both their white daughters and financial support from Crandall’s school, essentially forcing it to close.

Instead of capitulating and denying her prospective student of color admission, Crandall doubled down on her commitment to equal access to female education. She announced that the next school year she would reopen her school, but as an institution exclusively for “little misses of color.” William Lloyd Garrison, who supported Crandall’s decision, ran advertisements for Crandall’s school in The Liberator which garnered national attention. By the start of the school year in 1833, Crandall had no shortage of well-to-do black girls eager to journey to Connecticut to attend her new boarding school.

Meanwhile, however, the now angry Canterbury residents, who had once supported Crandall, agitated for a change in state law that would prevent her from opening her school. In response, the state legislature passed a new “Black Law” in May 1833 expressly forbidding out-of-state black children from attending school in any Connecticut town without first obtaining permission from local authorities.

One month later, on June 28, 1833, Prudence Crandall was arrested after she refused to close her school. This in turn led to several trials, convictions, and appeals. Ultimately, Crandall’s case was dismissed on a technicality, and she refocused her efforts on the African-American girls’ school.

That was not the end of the story. Crandall and her students continued to receive harassment on a daily basis, enduring taunts, threats, and even the risk of physical harm as hecklers shouted and threw stones at them. After an angry mob directly attacked the boarding school at night in September 1834, smashing windows and furniture while Crandall and her students hid in terror, Crandall finally decided to close her school. She feared, she said, for her students’ safety if she continued to keep it going.

Crandall soon moved out of Connecticut with her new husband, Calvin Philleo. She continued, albeit from a distance, to advocate for access to education for students of color. Many years later, long after the Civil War, Connecticut came to regret the way it had treated Crandall and passed a law giving her a $400 annual pension. Four years later, in 1890, Crandall died in Kansas.

Today, Prudence Crandall’s Canterbury home is a historic house museum owned and operated by the state of Connecticut. In 1995, she was designated Connecticut’s official State Heroine, and a statue of her and student Sarah Harris was unveiled in the State Capitol in 2008.

To view the full story on the CT Historian's website, click here.