Why Single Party Rule is a Problem

The election is now less than 40 days away.   

From the beginning, my campaign has stood for an end to government by the extremes.  I believe that government works best when there is diversity of opinion, respect for different points of view, and vigorous debate to solve problems.

Unfortunately, Connecticut has lacked this healthy process for a long time.  The state has been under “single party” Democrat control for 14 years.  This has not benefitted Connecticut, and I am concerned that many citizens’ interests are simply not being represented.  This election is an opportunity to fix that and restore balance.  

Why Connecticut’s Single Party Rule is a Problem

Since 2011, Connecticut has had a “trifecta” in state government.  This means that the 1) majority of the State House, 2) majority of the State Senate, and 3) Office of Governor are all held by the same party.     A graphic illustration is below:  

Source:   Ballotopedia.org, Party Control of CT State Government

I believe that single party rule has the following drawbacks – regardless of which party holds the trifecta:

• It lacks diversity of opinion

• There is reduced incentive for the party in control to cooperate or compromise

• Government can become more extreme – the most extreme voices in the ruling party tend to have an outsized voice

• A large portion of the electorate may be underrepresented – or not represented at all

My Opponent Voted with her Party 98% of the Time - This Exacerbates the Problem

My opponent voted with her party 98% of the time during her one term in office. Yet, the District is made up of approximately 40% Unaffiliated Voters, 30% Republicans, and 30% Democrats.   Sometimes the views of her party coincide with the best interests of the District, but many times they do not.    

The priority of elected officials should be their constituents over the political demands of their party.Yet, there are a number of important instances where my opponent has voted with her party, to the detriment of her constituents.

• My opponent voted to erode local control of zoning (HB 5390).

• My opponent voted for a budget which broke CT’s spending cap (HB5523).

• My opponent voted NOT to restore the consent search and NOT to require police to fingerprint violent juvenile criminals, two practices that would contribute to our public safety (SB424, Amend. B; HB 5467, Amend. A).

We are 3-4 votes away from a House Democratic Supermajority - This Even Further Exacerbates the Problem

In the 2024 legislative session, Governor Lamont (D) sometimes sided with House and Senate Republicans to make sound decisions for the fiscal future of Connecticut.  I applaud this. But with a supermajority in the legislature, even a Governor who may attempt to act in a bipartisan manner can be overruled.

The House is now split 98 (D) – 53 (R).  If Democrats gain only a few seats in November at the expense of Republicans, they will hold a supermajority.  (The same potential for a supermajority exists in the CT Senate.)  If that were to happen, it would take single party rule one step further; even if the Governor vetoed a piece of legislation, a supermajority House and Senate could simply override the veto.  

A Call for Balance

The pitfalls of single party rule in Connecticut are significant.  The voting record of my opponent exacerbates this for the voters of the 149th District and is out of sync with the District’s makeup.  And, we are close to a supermajority in both houses of the legislature.

We need balance in Hartford.  We need common sense legislators in the House who are willing to put their constituents ahead of their party and work across the aisle to produce the best results.  

Join me in restoring balance to Connecticut’s government. 

I hope I can count on your vote.