A unified House Republican minority neutralized opposition from half of the chamber’s Democrats and assured final passage Thursday of a bipartisan deal to end a half century of independence by Connecticut’s elections watchdog.
Senate Bill 1405, the product of mounting legislative grievances and frustrations with the State Elections Enforcement Commission, sped to passage with little debate, as happened Tuesday night in the Senate.
The difference was a bare majority of House Democrats present and voting who rejected the four-caucus deal signed off by their leaders, House Speaker Matt Ritter of Hartford and House Majority Leader Jason Rojas of East Hartford.
The House voted 92-46 to pass the bill, with 11 Democrats and two Republicans missing the vote. All the votes against were cast by Democrats. The Senate vote was 34 to 1, with one Democratic dissenter.
Rep. Lucy Dathan, D-New Canaan, who helped negotiate the bill as co-chair of the Government Oversight Committee, and Ritter both said the revolt among Democrats was provoked by making the appointment of the commission’s executive director subject to lawmakers’ approval.
“That was the poison pill for our folks,” Dathan said.
Ritter and House Minority Leader Vincent J. Candelora, R-North Branford, were willing to strike that provision, but the Senate leaders were adamant it remain in the bill.
“We were made well aware of that,” Ritter said.
Unless the bill is vetoed, the five-member elections commission, known as SEEC, will nominate an executive director, but the choice will be subject to three layers of approval by legislators: the Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee and the House and Senate.
Dathan said she had proposed a compromise: the commission’s choice of an executive director be required to appear before the legislature’s Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee for an informational public hearing but not subjected to a vote.
Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, R-Brookfield, said his caucus insisted on a legislative vote.
Until amended Tuesday night, the bill also would have made all declaratory rulings and written guidance by SEEC subject to review and approval of lawmakers. The revised version gives lawmakers an opportunity to review and comment but not reject.
Other provisions of the bill were intended to streamline fundraising, especially for candidates who participate in the state’s voluntary Citizens’ Election Program, which imposes spending limits in return for public financing of campaigns. To qualify, candidates must raise threshold amounts that vary by office.
Lawmakers complain that the commission was slow to approve public grants in 2004, often delaying approval over small inconsistencies in reports. The commission also audits half of all campaigns, chosen at random, a burden on volunteer campaign treasurers.
“It frustrates everyone,” Rep. Roland Lemar, D-New Haven, said after the vote.
But he still voted against the bill, alarmed at making SEEC’s director subject to legislative approval.
“Your regulator should be independent of the regulated,” he said.
Rep. Michael Demicco, D-Farmington, made a similar comment during the floor debate, noting the concerns raised by the League of Women Voters, Common Cause and others about the perceived and actual loss of independence by a commission created as a post-Watergate reform.
“I’m looking at testimony that was submitted when this bill went to public hearing. And it’s very troubling, some of the testimony that I’m reading,” Demicco said.
No one replied.
He was the only lawmaker in either chamber to speak against the bill during debates.
“I wanted to raise those concerns and hopefully my colleagues become concerned as well,” he said after the vote.
It was unclear whether the unexpected opposition in the House will prompt a closer review of the measure by Gov. Ned Lamont, whose priorities in the last weeks of the legislative session have been negotiating a budget and avoiding a nursing home strike.
“The governor hasn’t made a decision as to whether he will sign SB 1405. We will review the bill more closely when it reaches his desk,” said Rob Blanchard, a spokesman.
The Citizens’ Election Program was created in 2005 as an anti-corruption measure and an effort to create a level playing field on fundraising. It is used by the majority of lawmakers, despite the frustrations in dealing with SEEC.
In the brief floor debate, Dathan emphasized the less controversial aspects of the bill, primarily the provisions dealing with fundraising and disclosure requirements.
“It modernizes a 20-year-old program,” Dathan said. “Like everything we do in our state, we look at where it’s been successful, where things need to be updated. It ensures continued transparency in our government, and really does the objective of keeping our election program transparent.”
Dathan and Ritter said the issue of legislative confirmation could be revisited by future legislators.
“I certainly hope that it does not become political in confirming the SEEC person,” Ritter said. “I hope it is not the Democrats in power want a Democrat and the Republicans in power want a Republican. I hope we continue to find good nonpartisan people.”
“If we get something wrong and in a couple years we regret it, we can relook at it,” Ritter said. “I don’t think the confirmation process bothers me all that much.”
CT Mirror reporter Andrew Brown contributed to this report.
This article first appeared on CT Mirror and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
It is good to understand that ‘legislators’ in CT can come together with representatives and senators from other parties and find their way to approve legislation that is termed bi-partisan.
“Your regulator should be independent of the regulated,” was one comment that caught my attention. Good thought in today’s Federal framework where checks and balance issues are breaking down, and deals that go to your personal advantage are in the open and accepted, rather than being transparent and fought for their boldness.
Twenty years in operation without major changes seems sufficient to stimulate legislators purpose in making things better. Now it is up to the Governor. Time will tell.