Time to Petition the Connecticut Legislature

In the Connecticut 2009 session of the Legislature there were numerous attempts by the towns and cities (local government) to seek property tax relief and moratoriums on mandates to balance their budgets.With little debate and less fanfare local government officials were dismissed, sometimes with little sympathy. The delay of the budget ultimately cost towns additional fees for borrowing while the budget was in impasse.
All of this rancor and lack of collaboration to give the voters at least a voice at the table in the form of those closest to them, local government. Still no action but rather a shift in reminding everyone of who is really in charge, the legislature, as if there were any doubt.The timing of the tea parties and the town hall meetings around the country also serve as an indicator of what is going on in case you forgot.They know best. They have the elitist knowledge to do the right thing. They prevail. You are not heard.
Towns are small. They are represented by the Legislature but town boundaries per house district and overlaps with other towns often conflict and contradict the local wishes of each town and its unique identity. Out of touch with towns, legislators render them useless in actually influencing state priorities. Increased burdens with few options allowed by legislators make the towns as an overall force for change irrelevant.
After many years of probate court mischief the powers in Hartford finally took action to solve the local court system problems.The budget problems nudged the State to take action.Some time later the towns ultimately created a consensus among themselves and agreed upon a formula without a mandate.Proof of town to town cooperation, perhaps under threat of mandate to come from Hartford, but an agreement none the less. Most importasntly, an example of towns cooperation with each other to fix the system, maintain service levels, and provide a cost effective solution for each town.
Based upon this success it would seem that the power of legislation initiated by towns as a statewide referendum could address a variety of issues including:
1. Establishing common interest infrastructural changes to represent fair and equitable educational disbursements
2. Addressing mandates that are not necessary for all towns of all sizes
3. Provisioning towns with shared or individualized resources to address selected mandates
4. Providing statewide bonding access by towns to the state's borrowing authority

In short, allowing towns to use legislation to address common local needs without the interferences of a statewide agenda exercised and imprinted by the legislature could be a useful tool. Especially in those cases when appeals to the legislature go unheeded and their ears go deaf.
The local town political party committes (Independants are welcome also) could start a petition drive to gather signatures soliciting voter interest in seeking a constitutional change to allow "voter initiative" and statewide referendums. Where local officials often use this technique,budget approvals for example, it is a rare occurance on a statewide basis.
With local political parties involvement such a campaign could then aggregate the local signed petitions certified by the local voter registrar for presentation to the legislature.It is not a given that the statewide political leadership would endorse such a project due to the threat to its power, but that is the whole point.
Nobody is listening to the local voters. The petition only proposes to the legislature that such a constitutional change is needed. With the outcry of the people appealing for grass roots democracy how could the legislature not listen? The revolution has just begun!

Referendum for Referendums

In Connecticut the legislature has the power to to initiate an amendment to the Constitution without consulting the public but requiring public ratification.It was done in November 1992 to define a budgetary spending cap methodology to limit legislative spending. This has not proven to be adequate to constrain or limit spending and seems to have lost its purpose considering Connecticut's current 2009 budgetary dilemma. The amendment as stands, lacks clarity,definitions, realistic procedures, and allows manipulation to the point of rendering the amendment useless and ineffective.
The fraud continues as in November 2009 the citizens are facing a saga of budgetary crisis when the legislature did not make the hard decisions and rolled them to a future day during the 2009 session and passed a budget with gimmicks and borrowing. Nobody could agree on the "Revenue Forecast" was often cited as an excuse and required by the spending cap constitutional amendment. Knowing full well that this was not a "balanced budget" means the legislature is guilty of intentionally violating the spending cap so ill-defined by them in the constitution. They are immune from prosecution, but will face voter wrath in November 2010.
If they cannot or will not do what is necessary it is essential for the people to speak, take control, and do the right thing. With legislative authority and a favorable popular vote in November 2010 the constitution can be re-amended to provide a much needed set of parameters, definitions, priorities and boundaries to finally cap the budget and insure a more meaningful spending limit. When such a referendum is placed before the voters in 2010 everyone has a chance to fill the definition void and make concrete decisions about what is best for Connecticut.Consider this an "appeal referendum" now for the legislature to allow a voter referendum so the citizens can clean up this mess and move the state towards fiscal responsibility.This action should be a test for candidates seeking office who should not get a vote if they do not support voter referendums.
Under the current constitution adopted in 1965 and amended 30 times since, it is a 2 step process to make amendments:
1. Both houses of the legislature must first pass a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment by a 3/4 majority in each chamber
2.The resolution is submitted to the popular vote for ratification in the next election
This "appeal referendum" is a request by the voters to have the legislature do the right thing and fix their definitions and processes to avoid these budget impasses in the future.
A more bold approach would have the legislature hear the voice of the people and propose an additional amendment. A voter referendum or "voter initiative" as an additional capacity to voters when a similar crisis occurs would provide the direct voter involvment often used in other states to resolve the impass on what the public really wants. Where a spending cap definition is the target today, future crisis could also involve direct voter reconciliation on issues not so complex or when a contentious indecision occurs.One party majority power is not the right answer all the time. This gives the voter power to resolve conflicts and have a true democratic voice and reflection of all values not bounded by parties or brokering.
The legislature should act NOW to propose this amendment so we may vote on it in November 2010. If they don't, they do not deserve our support with a revolution to follow..

When Do We Get Democacy in Connecticut?

The November 3, 2009 election results in Maine showed 53% of the voters elected to reverse a law passed by the Maine Legislature. While 47% voted to keep same sex marriage, the majority voted it down.

Controversial issues deserve the public debate, visibility, and option for direct voter involvement. You don't need elected representatives to be the voice of the people when such divisive topics cannot easily be solved. You only get the hearts, minds, and common sense of a few when everyone should have a chance to vote their wishes.

In CT we don't have such a voter referendum option. The Legislature has spoken and does not think we need it. Oh the arrogance, the elitism, the special interest groups that keep us from our freedom.

The incumbents have spoken!