CT Senate Floor Session — 2026-03-26

Good morning, everyone. Will the Senate please come to order? Members and guests, if you would please rise and direct your attention to our chaplain, Rabbi Small, who will lead us in prayer. Rabbi.

Alright. And I would like to invite Senator Duff and Senator Fazio to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. SENATOR DUFF (25TH)/SENATOR FAZIO (36TH): (MEMBERS) I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, Clerk have Senate Agenda No. 1 on his desk.

Senator Duff.

Thank you. So ordered, sir. CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY No. 1 REGULAR SESSION the calendar and printing. ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE SUBST. SB NO. 147 AN ACT CONCERNING A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY FOR ELECTRONIC NICOTINE DELIVERY SYSTEMS AND VAPOR PRODUCTS AND INCLUDING AEROSOL PAINTS UNDER THE PAINT STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM. GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE SB NO. 225 AN ACT CONCERNING FEES FOR COPYING, REVIEWING AND REDACTING RECORDS CREATED BY POLICE BODY-WORN RECORDING EQUIPMENT AND DASHBOARD CAMERAS. HOUSING COMMITTEE pk/ak 4 SUBST. SB NO. 256 AN ACT CONCERNING THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BY PRIVATE EQUITY ENTITIES. HOUSING COMMITTEE SUBST. SB NO. 257 AN ACT CONCERNING EVICTIONS FOR CAUSE. INSURANCE AND REAL ESTATE COMMITTEE SB NO. 267 AN ACT CONCERNING VARIOUS REVISIONS TO THE INSURANCE STATUTES. ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE SUBST. SB NO. 317 AN ACT CONCERNING RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES IN THE STATE. HOUSING COMMITTEE SUBST. SB NO. 332 AN ACT CONCERNING NOTICE TO PARTIES BEFORE A FAIR RENT COMMISSION. HOUSING COMMITTEE SUBST. SB NO. 338 AN ACT CONCERNING HOUSING UNIT- EQUIVALENT POINTS FOR DEVELOPMENTS SUBJECT TO LITIGATION. INSURANCE AND REAL ESTATE COMMITTEE SB NO. 341 AN ACT CONCERNING RETURN OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDER PAYMENTS. pk/ak 5 LABOR AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE SB NO. 350 AN ACT INCREASING THE PER DIEM RATE FOR MEMBERS OF THE STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS AND COMPENSATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION. LABOR AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE SUBST. SB NO. 356 AN ACT CONCERNING ELECTRONIC FILING OF CERTIFIED PAYROLL AND DAILY LOGS FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS. LABOR AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE SUBST. SB NO. 436 AN ACT CONCERNING ADVANCED NOTICE OF AN EMPLOYEE'S WORK SCHEDULE BY AN EMPLOYER. tabled for the calendar and printing. GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE SJ NO. 38 RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE REFERENCES TO INDIVIDUALS GENDER-NEUTRAL. EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE SJ NO. 71 RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF SHANNON JACOVINO OF WEST HARTFORD TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES OMBUDSPERSON. pk/ak 6 INTRODUCTION OF SENATE AND HOUSE LIST OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS (LIST NO. 28) – to be waived and bills and resolutions to be referred to committee(s) indicated.

So ordered.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Clerk.

Calendar 62 --

Senator Duff.

Absolutely.

Senator Berthel, do you have a point of personal privilege?

Anyone else? Senator Fazio, do you have a point of personal privilege?

Thank you, Senator Fazio. Any other points of personal privilege? Senator Hwang. Good morning, sir. I see you have some fabulous young ladies with you today.

Yes. Please, please do proceed. And ladies, welcome. Just don't step on the State seal.

We're getting a no from the leadership. That would be highly unusual. Coach, thank you so much for your leadership. These are very impressive young ladies, and congratulations and we wish you continued success.

Thank you. Senator Gaston, do you accept the yield, sir? pk/ak 10

Thank you, Senator Gaston.

Absolutely. Senator Duff, do you accept the yield?

pk/ak 11 Thank you very much. Ladies, pleasure to have you. Coach, congratulations, and best wishes to all of you.

Alright. We'll stand at ease, and go right ahead, ladies. [Sacred Heart University team cheering]

Thank you very, very much, Madam President. And thank you for the indulgence of the Senate circle. And again, congratulations. If I may, I see one of my colleagues who also has a representation for Sacred Heart University, if I may, through you, to defer to one of my colleagues.

Thank you so much, Senator Hwang. Thank you, Madam President. I just want to say congratulations. It's so nice to see you here, especially on equal pay day. So let me say, seeing women here on equal pay day as we're advocating for women in leadership, in positions of authority and climbing up the pipeline. pk/ak 12 What you're doing leading in the state is part of that. So congratulations, and nice to see you all here. Thank you so much.

Yes. Good morning, Madam President. I am ready. In the spirit of what we're already celebrating, I would like to take a point of personal privilege to introduce my intern. I know we have a day coming up at the end of the session that gets a little crazy, so I think we do a little shout out today. Madam President, I'm proud to introduce Laura Sansur. Laura is from the great town of Milford. She is a junior at the University of Connecticut studying finance, and she has aspirations, Madam President, to study law and specifically policy law, which I know might be near and dear to your heart, Madam President. So, if the chamber would please join me in welcoming Laura to the circle as one of our great legislative interns for the 2026 session. Thank you. [applause]

Page 23, Calendar 62, Senate Resolution No. 4, Resolution proposing approval of a tentative agreement between the State of Connecticut and the Connecticut Employees Union Independent, NP-2 Bargaining Unit (CEUI). pk/ak 13

Good morning, Madam President. Yes. Madam President, I move acceptance of the committee's favorable report and passage of this resolution.

Thank you very much. This is a contract for the CEUI NP-2 bargaining unit. It's over 3,600, almost 3,700 employees. Primarily, blue collar workers, those that make our roads safe, those that clean buildings, those that do the things that we all count on being done. It is in the pattern of all of our collective bargaining agreements that we have had, and I would urge passage. It passed in the answer any and all questions relative to this agreement, through you, Madam President.

Yes. Good morning, Madam President. And I rise for just a few comments on this particular contract. This resolution would approve the new labor agreement for the NP-2 bargaining unit, which covers over 3,600 employees in service and maintenance with nearly 50% being paid out of the special pk/ak 14 transportation fund. And I believe close to 50% of these workers are DOT workers. These are the folks that you see on the side of the road with the orange vest that are actually showing up to work every day. They're coming in. They're wearing their vest. And they are, as my good colleague has described, more of the blue collar workers. There's also some service and some cleaning workers that are within this contract. And the contract will cover '26 through '27 with an agreement on wages for the first three years and a wage reopener provisioner in the final year. The agreement provides for a 2.5% general wage increase and an annual increment on top of the step payments. The changes within the contract have a fiscal impact, so I can understand both sides if you don't want to support this today, which includes some changes for a few job classifications, a small change for shift differentials, meal allowances, and it calls on increases in DOC mail handler increases. Overall, these increases amount to about $1.7 million in increased cost when they're annualized, with a $1.25 million of that coming from the grade changes. The total cost of this agreement is about $12 million, just over that in fiscal year '26 and 27.8 in fiscal year '27, 43.9 in '28, and 45 on an annualized basis going forward. So I think that it's important to recognize that, as you heard from my colleague here, that these are really blue collar workers. This increase is in line with what you're seeing in the private sector for this type of work. And I think it's important that we actually show some support for those who are showing up and doing this kind of work every single day. So I urge adoption, Madam President. Thank you.

Madam President, I don't know if this would be an item that would -- we will ask for a roll call vote when we get to that point.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I'm not part of the negotiations of the contract or am I on Appropriations, but I do want to take an opportunity to thank those that are receiving the pay increases here. I think when we go through an airport or we go through a rest area, the attendants that are there, you sort of see them, but you really don't see them. And I don't think we have an opportunity to really express how thankful we are because if our trash didn't get emptied, the repairs didn't get done, I think we would notice it pretty quickly. So I just want to reach out to whoever they may be, the cooks, rest area attendants, the custodians throughout all these facilities, just want to express my sincerest thank you and perhaps, thank you from the legislative body here. So thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I promise I will not make this a habit, but I do appreciate, Madam President, your patience. I rise today in support of pk/ak 16 this measure. I will be voting for this contract. I do understand the fiscal impacts of this, and so you might see some no votes today, Madam President, across this chamber. And that's understandable. And I do want to make one thing very clear that no votes on this contract is in no way stating a lack of support for these employees, and these hard-working individuals. It is a reminder of the fiscal responsibility that we have as state legislators to ensure that when we craft budgets moving forward, that increases in those budgets can lead to tax increases. And when you have the third highest tax burden in the country, third highest property taxes, second highest electric rates, that unaffordability hits at home for all the middle-class families across our state. And that if we continue to budget ourselves into consistent increases, we have to pay for it somewhere and oftentimes it comes in the form of tax increases or hidden fees like public benefit charges. And so a vote is understanding the fiscal aspects of this and understanding that increases can lead to tax increases down the road, which we can at least afford. I do want to highlight though what makes this bargaining unit unique to me. These are maintenance and service workers. These are DOT workers. These are men and women that go to work every single day, 9 to 5 in person, on a hot August day in the highways of our state, in hospitals, you know, cooking, cleaning, doing all the things, that are back breaking work. And I think we have to reflect and respect the fact how important those individuals are to the state and how much of a sacrifice they are making on a daily basis for the people of this state. And I think it's important to really understand what bargaining unit we're working with and specifically what that bargaining unit does, because that is imperative in us to decide whether or not we as pk/ak 17 legislators should be supporting that contract, understanding all the numbers. And again, for me personally as a legislator here, understanding who these individuals are, what they're doing in their job every single day, the fact they're showing up every day in person to work would indicate to me that I believe this is a reasonable contract to support and that's the reason I will be supporting it. Again, I do understand the fiscal aspects of it, and the 4.5% increases annually when you factor in the step increases as well. And some legislators may be leery of that from a fiscal standpoint, which is totally understandable, but for me personally, because of the bargaining unit, I will be supporting this contract today. Thank you, Madam President.

Good morning, Madam President. Speaking in support of the resolution, Madam President, I think this is a reasonable contract as Senator Harding said. These are really hardworking people who are working in maintenance, who are working in other stressful situations in heat and in cold, tough physical situations that are demanding on them. And clearly the only genuine way to show our appreciation for that is to fairly compensate them in terms of wages and benefits. So this is a reasonable contract, one that recognizes the crucial nature of the work that that these state employees do and that clearly this is something that is not in any way excessive but is appropriate, given the importance of their work to the State of Connecticut, and our capacity to meet that to meet that need. pk/ak 18 So, I would urge all the members of this chamber to support this contract in concurrence with the House of Representatives. Wanted to commend Senator Osten for her work in reviewing and analyzing all of the particulars of the contract. And again, this is an important way to keep faith with these workers. Thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call has been ordered in the the Senate. Immediate roll call in the Senate. There's an immediate roll call in the Senate.

Total number voting 32 Necessary for Adoption 17 Total voting Yea 30 Total voting Nay 2 Absent not voting 4

Page 1, Calendar 6, Senate Joint Resolution 12, Resolution confirming the nomination of the Honorable Robert L. Genuario of Norwalk to be a state referee.

Yes. Good morning. I had to check. Good morning. Good morning, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Before us is the Honorable Robert L. Genuario of Norwalk to be a state referee. Comes to us with a favorable report out of the Judiciary Committee. Was first appointed to the bench in 2010, was a graduate of the Villanova University School of Law, also someone who's familiar to us here in multiple capacities, including as a former OPM secretary. Madam President, I would urge adoption.

pk/ak 20 Thank you very much, Madam President. Good morning. I stand in strong support of Judge Genuario's reappointment to our judicial branch. It has been my tremendous honor having served here now for 34 years to have started when then Senator Genuario was representing Norwalk and its environs and served with me during my formative years. He set such an incredible example. One of my fondest memories is when we had a very rigorous debate on Second Amendment issues, gun control. I'm sure Senator Looney remembers that evening as well. And this debate went on for hours until, believe it or not, the sun began to rise. And we could see morning breaking through those beautiful colored windows, at which point in time, Senator Genuario rose and said he would ask the chamber to expedite its debate because he just got word that his wife was having their son, one of their sons. And so very quickly, the Senate concluded its debate and voted on the bill, and that was quite a memorable evening. And I dare say that we debated that bill well enough such that we got to see the sunrise. But above and beyond that, then Senator Genuario set such a good bar, came up and visited my district on educational issues. Back in those days, we are actually in the majority for a term, 1917. And as Senator Winfield pointed out, not only he do an incredibly good job as a senator here in this chamber, but then he went on under Governor Rell to become the secretary of the Office of Policy and Management. And he did an extremely good job there during very difficult times, if one recalls that era, when we had to make some very difficult decisions regarding revenues, because the national economy had suffered a tremendous blow. Since that time, I can't believe that he's wrapping up his second eight-year term as a judge, and I can tell you on occasion, I've had matters before him down in Stamford, and he's just an incredible judge pk/ak 21 as well. Fair, thoughtful, even handed, exactly the way we would want a judge to be. And so as with great humility and honor that I am happy to stand in support of Judge Genuario's renomination. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I rise in support of the resolution. Senator Genuario or Judge Genuario or Secretary Genuario was my predecessor here in the state senate and lives in Norwalk with his family. Lovely people. Lovely family. I see his wife Mary Ann all the time, and their four boys have now grown. And he's really just a wonderful person. He was a great senator. He was an excellent secretary and I know he's done great work in the judicial branch. Plus he did graduate from Villanova, which is a little close to my heart. So, Madam President, I'm glad to support him as well, and I appreciate the good words of Senator Winfield and Senator Kissel about his nomination as well. Thank you, Madam President.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Speaking in support of the nomination, as, said by my colleagues, Judge Genuario is someone who, by temperament and gifts of intelligence and ability, has been an exceptional public servant in his years as a state senator. He was, of course, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, went on to serve with distinction for Governor Rell as her secretary of pk/ak 22 OPM. And then in 2010, became a superior court judge. And it's hard to believe that 16 years have passed that he's actually now seeking reappointment as a referee. In his law practice, he did quite a bit of land use work and had a diverse civil practice and some criminal as well. His work up here, he was always careful. He was always responsible, always conscientious and a good colleague on a personal level. So he's brought that temperament with him to the bench. He has maintained his activity when working with nonprofits in the area of Fairfield County where he lives. So he and Judge Roraback and a number of others who have served here really have been models in the judiciary. And, of course, that's not surprising based on how they impressed all of us while they here. So, once again, wish him good health and energy to continue as a referee as long as he wants. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, if there's not objection, I ask this item be placed on consent.

Calendar 7, Senate Joint Resolution No. 13, the resolution confirming the nomination of the pk/ak 23 Honorable Maureen D. Dennis of Southport to be a state referee.

Yes, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Yes, Madam President. Before us is Maureen D. Dennis of Southport to be a state referee. Comes to us with a favorable report out of the Judiciary Committee. Currently assigned to Bridgeport criminal matters. Was first appointed to the bench in 1994. Graduated from the University of Connecticut School of Law. Has spent on several boards and commissions, including the board of directors for the Connecticut Judges Association. I urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Happy to stand in strong support of Judge Dennis for her reappointment and concur with the statements made by my friend and colleague, Senator Winfield.

Yes, Madam. If there's no objection, I ask this item be placed on consent.

Calendar page 2, Calendar No. 8, Senate Joint Resolution 14, resolution confirming the nomination of Honorable John C. Driscoll of Norwich to be a state referee.

Yes, Madam President. Before us is the Honorable John C. Driscoll of Norwich to be a state referee -- I'm sorry. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adopt the resolution.

Thank you, Madam President. Before us is the Honorable John C. Driscoll of Norwich to be a state referee. Comes to us with a favorable report out of Judiciary. Is currently assigned to the juvenile court. Was appointed in 1994, is a graduate of the pk/ak 25 University of Connecticut Law School, and as able to say has been assigned to juvenile court for 30 years. That's amazing. Madam President, I urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Stay in strong support of John Driscoll becoming a referee and concur with the remarks made by my friend and colleague, Senator Winfield.

Yes, Madam President -- Sorry about that.

Yes, Madam President. If there's not objection, I ask this item to be placed on consent.

Calendar No. 9, Senate Joint Resolution 15, Resolution confirming the nomination of the Honorable Robert A. D'Andrea of Litchfield to be a state reference. pk/ak 26

Thank you, Madam President. I move acceptance of Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of resolution.

Yes, Madam President. Before us is the Honorable Robert A. D'Andrea of Litchfield to be a state referee. Is currently assigned to the Litchfield Judicial District. Was first appointed to the bench in 2018, graduated Suffolk Law School in 1980. Comes to us with a favorable report out of Judiciary. I would urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Happy to stand in strong support of Judge D'Andrea to become a state referee and would urge my colleagues to support his nomination as well.

Yes, Madam President. If there's not objection, I ask this item be placed on consent.

Calendar No. 10, Senate Joint Resolution 16, resolution confirming the nomination of the Honorable Suzanne E. Caron of Bloomfield to be a state referee.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Before us is the Honorable Suzanne E. Caron of Bloomfield to be a state referee. Comes to us with a favorable report out of Judiciary. Sits currently in the Tolland Judicial District. Was appointed to the bench in 2018. She's a graduate of the University of Connecticut School of Law, and I would urge adoption. pk/ak 28

Thank you very much, Madam President. Happy to stand in strong support of Judge Caron to be a state referee. Thank you.

Yes, Madam President. If there's no objection, I ask this item be placed on consent.

Calendar No. 11, Senate Joint Resolution 17, Resolution confirming nomination of the Honorable John L. Carboneau, Jr. of East Lyme to be a state referee.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution. pk/ak 29

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, before us is the Honorable John L. Carboneau, Jr. of East Lyme to be a state referee. Comes to us with a favorable report out of Judiciary Committee. Currently sits in a Willimantic juvenile court. Was appointed to the bench in 2010 as a graduate of Catholic University of America's Co -- Columbus School of Law. First day with the new tongue. Madam President, comes to us with a favorable report out of Judiciary, I would urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Happy to stand in strong in support of Judge Carboneau becoming a state referee and urge my colleagues to support his nomination as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. If there's not objection, I ask this item be placed on consent.

Calendar 14, Senate Joint Resolution 20, Resolution confirming the nomination of the Honorable Steven D. Ecker of West Hartford to be an associate judge of the Supreme Court and a judge of the Superior Court.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Madam President. Before us is the Honorable Steven D. Ecker of West Hartford to be an associate judge of the Supreme Court and a judge of the Superior Court. Was appointed to the bench in 2014, is a graduate of Harvard School of Law. Comes to us with a an affirmative vote out of the Judiciary Committee. I would urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I stand in support of Judge Ecker. Came to my realization years ago that in the constitution, only the chief justice is a justice and everyone else on our state Supreme Court is a judge, even though nationally they're pk/ak 31 justices of their Supreme Court. But Judge Ecker has served faithfully in his capacity on our state Supreme Court, although on occasion, I think that some of his decisions and concurrences are a little left of center for my comfort level, but it's not for me to superimposed my judgments on the state Supreme Court. In totality, I am happy to support his renomination to the bench at this time. But at this time, Madam President, if I may, I'd like to yield to Senator Sampson.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much. I rise in opposition to this judicial reappointment. It's not something I relish doing. You know, when we vote on policy, we're voting on words on paper whether or not certain laws or statutes should affect the lives of our constituents. When we do appointments, executive nominations, and particularly judicial appointments, and certainly judicial appointments at this level, we're actually voting on a person. And it makes it a little bit more difficult. But I feel compelled today to rise and express my objections to this particular nominee. And as we go, I think you'll understand that my concern is not limited to this nominee. It is basically the entire Supreme Court of the United States -- excuse me, of the state of Connecticut rather, as it has operated, I'd say at least over the last decade or so. I served on the Judiciary Committee for a number of years. I had the opportunity to interview a number of judicial appointments along the way. I've always been a little bit frustrated by that process and the pk/ak 32 fact that we often move certain nominees forward without the proper review. And maybe sometimes with too much regard for continuing business as usual instead of reminding ourselves of our responsibilities and our duties as a legislature. There's three branches of government, and each one of them is required to be a check on the other. And I if I had to nail down one concern I have about our supreme court in Connecticut and this justice -- excuse me, judge in particular, I would say that they have failed to be a check against the executive branch on many occasions and failed to be a check on this legislature every so often as well. I've always, when faced with any type of judicial appointment, asked myself the same question, which is, does this judge apply the law as written, or are they, in viewing their experience, in viewing their decisions, are they acting in some other interest? Maybe to reshape the outcome, to inject a political motivation? I don't want to speak to anyone's motive today, particularly, Judge Ecker. I have seen his photo, but I can tell you I couldn't even pick the man out of a crowd. This is not a personal issue for me. This is all about judicial philosophy and constitutional fidelity. But I am concerned that in a number of cases, which I'm going to just go through a few examples, he has aligned his decisions with other members of the court to expand executive authority, to stretch constitutional meaning, and to undermine what I think are some structural elements in our system that threaten the liberty that we all cherish. And as I said, this is not aimed directly at Judge Ecker, although I'm going to apply my comments today to him and his personal record because he's the one up for nomination. But I'm speaking to the whole court when I expressed my concern over some of these decisions. I think that one of the reasons why I wanted to speak today is not so much because I have pk/ak 33 a concern about this particular nominee. I'm confident that this nominee is going to pass this chamber and probably without much opposition. But I wanted to get up and just remind my colleagues that our job is to keep that check in place. And if we're not constantly reviewing how our judicial appointments are behaving on the court, I think we're failing in that regard. And I see a situation like this, where periodically, we get the opportunity to reappoint judges to the various courts in our state as the chance we have to really take an in-depth look at what the behavior has been and whether or not we need to make changes. In my view, this is an opportunity to correct the direction our court has been headed in. So let me just talk about a few of these cases, and I'm going to tell you that some of these are very personal to me. And the first one is the Casey v. Lamont case from 2021. This is a case all about the actions of the governor of our state during the pandemic. And I recall coming into this chamber numerous times over the course of about a year and a half and having votes extending the governor's emergency declaration that we were in a public health emergency to advance or at least rubber stamp his executive decisions, and to continue to give him the power to make executive orders and effectively run this state as a one-man policymaking machine. And the thing is that that's not how our system is supposed to work. The executive authority that's granted in our state constitution limits the governor's ability to simply modifying existing statute in the case of an emergency if he has to accommodate a certain circumstance. And from my view, that would be minor changes to existing laws. This governor decided that he was going to create policy out of whole cloth in a number of examples. So the number one example, I think, would be the determination that some businesses and some pk/ak 34 individuals are considered essential, and while others are considered nonessential. And he made a determination that certain businesses in the state could remain open, while others had to be closed. And I remember coming into this chamber and complaining that it made no sense, that we had a situation where we had a mom-and-pop store, a dress shop, or something like that, where they might have one or two customers a day, and they're not even really interacting with another. And they were forced to be closed under the governor's executive orders and his determination about what's essential and what's not. Well, meanwhile, Walmart, Target, liquor stores were allowed to remain open. They were telling churches to be closed, while liquor stores were remaining open. And there was no actual law that you could lean on that would have allowed this. It was the governor acting on his own as judge and jury, because he was able to determine based on his own opinion what a public health emergency is. And I remember asking in this chamber, what's the emergency? What's the emergency? And the answer is, Ned Lamont thinks it's an emergency. Much like our emergency certified bills that we see come to this chamber are an emergency simply because the powers that be say there's an emergency, whether there actually is one or not. So the governor was challenged in court on exceeding his executive authority. That's what this Casey v. Lamont case is. And the question was very simple, does the law allow that level of ongoing executive power? And the court said, yes. And I find that deeply troubling, because one of the reasons why I was standing in this chamber so many times, every time we extended those emergency powers, was not because I thought I was going to be able to convince my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that somehow I'm right and that we ought to check the governor. I was reminding the courts. I was bringing pk/ak 35 up exactly what their obligation is to the people of Connecticut. But just like the majority in this building ignored me, so did the Supreme Court of the state. The decision turned a temporary emergency tool into a standing grant of legislative power to the executive branch. And it was wrong. And they got that decision wrong. And Judge Ecker was part of that decision. Also in 2021, there was another pandemic related court case. This is the Fay v. Merrill case. Merrill being the secretary of the state, Fay being Mary Fay, who brought a suit to the State of Connecticut regarding absentee ballot voting, because the plaintiff in this particular case was concerned that our state constitution limited constitution limited absentee voting to very specific circumstances. For people in the military, you're out of town, the standard reasons for absentee voting that we've had for decades. And one of those reasons was sickness. And it was always understood to mean that sickness meant your sickness. Because you were sick and you couldn't go to the polls, therefore, you could vote by absentee. The pandemic changed all that. I think the governor, I think the secretary of state, I think the majority wanted to make sure that there was a mechanism to make sure that people voted. And I do not deny the desire of me and other people in my party to try and create a mechanism so that we didn't have a election with 1% turnout because of the pandemic. But at the same time, we still have to live within the constitutional framework that existed. You can't just ignore the constitution because it was convenient at the time because of extenuating circumstances. But that's exactly what happened. In that case, the court was asked to define what sickness means because the idea had been floated that because COVID existed, that gave people a carte blanche reason to vote by absentee. So the court was asked to really define what sickness is. And they pk/ak 36 went overboard in my view and basically came up with the conclusion that sickness itself as a word was the reason. Not your sickness or a family member's sickness or the fear of a sickness. Simply the word sickness. Maybe because sickness has existed in the past, will exist in the future, maybe around the corner. And in my view, that was a complete and utter stretch of the constitutional meaning. And what's interesting and evident is that the majority party came back into this legislative body following that decision to actually pass a law to rewrite the statute to redefine sickness in the framework of the court's decision. That is the exact opposite of how we're supposed to do things. If the legislature wants to redefine the word sickness and they feel that they can do it within the confines of the constitutional framework, then we can. And then the court should uphold that decision. But we should not have courts making policy, especially longstanding policy about something as important as our election process. And that's exactly what happened. So in this particular case, the court replaced clear text, a clear definition with a policy-driven interpretation that suited them at the time because of the circumstances on the ground. And the danger here is if the word sickness can be redefined into anything the government wants it to mean, then the constitution no longer sets any limits. It becomes flexible to political convenience, something that I raise awareness about in this chamber all the time. Words have meaning. We have to do a better job of writing the laws that we do, because I see bills coming through committee that are filled with very, very unclear terminology. Substantial. What's substantial? These are the kind of things that ultimately end up in courtrooms. And frankly, make attorneys wealthy arguing over whether or not the limits have been met for all of these vague terms. pk/ak 37 We should do a better job determining what the parameters of the legislation that we pass are. I'm going to mention one other case, with a little bit of detail, and then I'm just going to reference a few other ones. But this one is Connecticut Freedom Alliance v. the Department of Education, 2023. And this is in the wake of the pandemic also, where people were being required by our government without any real definitive explanation or statute to rely on, but they were being told that they were required to wear masks in locations throughout our state, forcing retail stores to require their consumers and customers to wear masks. Without any statute to rely on. Just, it's now a mandate from the State of Connecticut. No law associated with it. Nothing. Just this is a medical mandate that everyone must follow. This got so bad that people were being told that they could not participate in their local government meetings, that people were not allowed into a board of education meeting because they refused to wear a mask to do so. And of course, some people were actually arrested in these circumstances. Of course, they could not be tried or charged with anything because there's no crime, because there's no actual statute. It's a mess. But this entire state was caught up in it, and everybody was following a law that wasn't a law. But the Connecticut Freedom Alliance actually challenged these medical mandates, this mask mandate, because they felt, as I do, that this is not how we're supposed to operate. Our state government is responsible back to the people that we represent. We have got to write our laws in a clear fashion and they've got to actually become law through a process. Ideally, we follow the full legislative process, including hearings, committee debate, and so on. pk/ak 38 But in this particular case, some might say this is not such a terrible decision because of the facts are simply that the court dismissed the case out of hand simply stating that, well, the pandemic's over and the mask mandates are over, so we don't need to hear the case. But that's not good enough for me. Because if the government can avoid judicial review simply by timing its actions or delaying a decision in court over a very important factual determination for the people of Connecticut, then there are no constitutional limits. Again, things like that become unenforceable. There's a few other cases that I'm just going to briefly describe. And there is CHRO v. Edge Fitness in 2022. This was a case where the court had to decide what was more important in Edge Fitness as a gym. And basically, they set up part of the gym or some of their health classes or they set up a section for women versus men, and a transgender biological male complained under our gender identity or expression, constitutional protections that we have in the State of Connecticut. And that's a legitimate claim. I voted against it. I thought it was crazy. I still do. I think people are biologically what they are. And just because you want to claim that you're something that you're not doesn't change reality. But the fact of the matter is we have that. I respect the law, even if I don't like it. Because I know that it went through the process and we determined that that's what the case is. But that was not the only consideration in this case. That was just half of it. The other argument was about the right to privacy that the lady consumers of this gym were entitled to. So the court had to make a decision. In my view, they made a political decision. And they made a political decision in favor of nonscience and a lack of reason. They elevated one interest, which I think in a more legitimate case about discrimination, I might see it their way. But in this case, they elevated the pk/ak 39 discrimination issue above the privacy issue, and they did so without any clear legislative direction. Nothing that you could point to to say that one was more important than the other. In 2021, there is a case regarding a gentleman that received a parking ticket, and he went off on the cop that gave him the ticket. And I'm not defending that person's actions, but ultimately, that person was prosecuted under a statute that we refer to as the fighting words law, which is a significant crime. And being charged with it and being convicted of it carries a stiff sentence. This is a lot different than the freedom of speech that I think was being exercised in this case. So I think that that was a situation where the court expanded exceptions that give the government more power to decide that they're going to prosecute someone on the subject of speech. Anyone who loves this country and knows our history understands the value of the First Amendment, and that the reason why the first amendment exists is not to protect popular speech, it's to protect unpopular speech. And some guy going off and maybe swearing at a police officer who gave him a ticket might be guilty of something, but he wasn't guilty of fighting words. And I'm concerned that the court didn't consider the value of protecting the freedom of speech in that particular case, even though I certainly condemned the behavior of the gentleman who was probably not so kind in that case. There's another case, the Murphy v. Rosen case, where our state supreme court upheld that calling someone a white supremacist on social media was protected opinion. I want to give a shout out to my GAE colleague, Representative Blumenthal, because we had a great conversation in committee the other day about his bill regarding deceptive synthetic media, which is all about deep fakes and what is protected political speech, and more importantly, what is defamation? What is slander? pk/ak 40 And he very clearly explained to me something that I understood, but not as clearly as he described it to me, which is that there's a difference. If you say Senator Sampson's crazy, that's an opinion. But if you say Senator Sampson was institutionalized for a mental illness, you're making a statement of fact, and that is actionable as slander or defamation. So you have to be careful, particularly when you're engaging in speech condemning another individual, that you do not cross the line into making a statement of fact that could be damaging to their reputation and character because you can be sued for defamation or for slander for doing that. I cannot think of something worse than to claim someone else as a statement of fact that they are white supremacists. And this court said that that was merely opinion. The danger here is that by protecting the ability for individuals to call each other white supremacists without any fear of defamation, which is now precedent in our state, you're essentially creating a situation where you're going to make it much more difficult to hold people liable when they do defame one another. There is a case State v Enrrique H., which was just a case about someone who had a protective order against them, protect their own constitutional right to own firearms. And the court basically negated that person's ability to be able to make the case for why the protective order was invalid, which denied them a constitutional right. And this one's a little bit more complicated. But the fact is before the State of Connecticut in its decisions as an executive branch for some other lesser crime, they ought to be held to a standard. And I believe the court should have said, you can't take someone's constitutional right away for such limited purposes. You should have given that person an opportunity to make their case about why the underlying charge was not relevant. There's a couple pk/ak 41 more. But I guess you get the gist. No single case is going to determine whether I think a judge is an activist judge or they're denying their obligation to uphold the Constitution. But I do think that patterns matter. And across multiple cases, Judge Ecker has aligned his decisions with expanding government authority, stretching constitutional meaning, and weakening those structural safeguards I mentioned at the outset. That's not a technical disagreement about any of these cases. That is a philosophical direction, and it's being done on purpose. And as I mentioned, it's not just him. I think that this is the direction of our state supreme court generally. And I think that's a reason for us to pause today and consider whether we ought to correct the direction of our courts. Our courts are supposed to be the check against us as a legislature. They are supposed to be a check against the executive branch. When one party holds power for a very long time, a lot of things happen. Democrats control majorities in both of these chambers. They control the governor's office, the executive branch, all of the institutional mechanisms of government, every state agency. And also because they're in power, they appoint the majority of judges and justices. But there have got to remain clear, definitive separations between these branches of government. The concept of separation of powers is so important that I'm encouraging my colleagues to think hard about this, that we have an obligation to check people that we might even philosophically agree with if they are going beyond where they are supposed to in the role that they serve. And I believe our Connecticut Supreme Court has taken many, many opportunities to choose a philosophical direction that is in direct contrast with our system of laws and justice, our constitution, federally and in the state. And it should stop. pk/ak 42 And people in both parties should say, even though I like the outcome, the court didn't have the right to do that. The court should not have allowed the governor to continue on that path. It's so ironic with the rallies we've been seeing about no kings. But effectively, a number of these decisions have empowered the executive branch to act in a very authoritarian way, to make policy out of whole cloth without legislative approval, to continue extending public health emergencies when no emergency was in sight. When there were fewer than five people in this entire state in the hospital for COVID, we were extending the public health emergency because the governor said so. There has got to be a limit to your desire for political partisanship and advancing your agenda when it's being done through means that are not appropriate. This is the body that makes the political decisions, that chooses our policy because of our political agendas. But we are held in check by the framework of our constitution, and we are held to that framework by the judicial branch. And if the judicial branch is not doing that, that's a problem. That's all I have today, Madam President. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Speaking in support of the resolution, Madam President, Judge Ecker was appointed to the superior court in 2014 and was elevated rather rapidly to the state supreme court in the in 2018. I think that was done for very good reason. He's an outstanding scholar. As a practitioner, he did a great deal of significant trial and appellate work as an attorney and pk/ak 43 distinguished himself on the Superior Court for the four years that he was there. I think that his decisions, in the whole, really reflect what should be the mainstream of judicial opinion, whether or not they actually are at a given time. And I'm very confident in his judgment. I think generally the cases that Senator Sampson cited were rightly decided, and Judge Ecker was in the majority in those opinions. In fact, the criticism that I've heard from practitioners over the last several years, not relating to Judge Ecker per se, but the court as a whole is that it tends to tilt a little bit too much toward the police and the prosecution in upholding criminal convictions. So that's an entirely different level of concern on different issues. But I think that Judge Ecker has been and continues to be a standing scholarly judge. Anyone who ever watches the proceedings of the state supreme court and on our network, as I do sometimes, he is one who is constantly probing, questioning, making the attorneys justify their positions, delving a little bit more deeply into their understanding of the cases that they cite, or the sections of the transcript that they cite. So that, I think when, on CTN, anyone who gets a chance to watch the Supreme Court, Judge Ecker, Judge McDonald, Judge D'Auria, I think are quite outstanding in the way that they probe and question and reflect and hold the attorneys accountable for all of the implications of the arguments that they make. So, I believe he's doing an outstanding job doing exactly what we want a state supreme court judge to do, and I urge approval of the nomination. Thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call has been ordered in the the Senate. An immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate. An immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.

Total number voting 32 Necessary for Adoption 17 Total voting Yea 24 Total voting Nay 8 Absent not voting 4

Calendar 15, Senate Joint Resolution 21, resolution concerning the nomination of the Honorable Ingrid L. Moll of West Hartford to be a judge of the Appellate Court and a judge of the Superior Court.

Thank you, Madam President. Good to see you. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Yes, Madam President. Thank you. Madam President, before us is the Honorable Ingrid L. Moll of West Hartford to be a judge of the appellate court and a judge of the superior court. Comes to us with a favorable report out of Judiciary. Is currently assigned to the appellate court, was appointed to the bench in 2014, is a graduate of the University of Connecticut School of Law. Comes with a favorable report out of Judiciary, I would urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Great to see you up there. I also stand in strong support of the Honorable Ingrid Moll renominated to the appellate court as well as the judge of the superior court. She does an outstanding job and is highly regarded within the judicial branch. Thank you.

pk/ak 46 Yes, Madam President. If there's not objection, I ask this item to be placed on consent.

Calendar 16, Senate Joint Resolution No. 22, resolution confirming the nomination of the Honorable Jennifer Macierowski of Windsor to be a judge of Superior Court.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, before us is the the Honorable Jennifer Macierowski of Windsor to be a judge of the Superior Court. Was appointed in 2018, is a graduate of University of Connecticut School of Law, has sat on several boards and commissions, including the Superior Court Rules Committee, has been a member since September 2023. Comes with a favorable report. I would urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. It's my distinct honor and privilege to stand in support of Jen Macierowski to be renominated as judge of the superior court. I've had the distinct honor of working with then Attorney Macierowski for a number of years. I actually was here when she first came to serve us in the Senate Republican caucus, back in the days when she was Attorney Jen Butler. And she did an outstanding job in analyzing the legal issues that came before this August chamber, describe all sides of the issues, and afforded us extremely well- informed ability to make decisions on our side of the aisle. Never ever did I ever see her loser cool or calm, and was extremely professional. I also had the distinct honor having grown up in Windsor, to be very familiar with where she lives now. Unfortunately, it's in Senator McCrory's part of town, but that's my loss and his gain. Had opportunities to meet her husband. She has a beautiful daughter that has grown over the years. And I'm lucky also in that we don't have a huge amount of judges from our neck of the woods, north of Hartford. And Judge Macierowski living in Windsor has been into the judicial branch's great credit, assigned over to the Tolland Judicial District at Rockville, and she's done a tremendous job there as well. So, it is my understanding that she consistently does an awesome job as a judge up in the Tolland Judicial District and throughout the branch. One last bit of information, not that long ago within the last years as ranking senator on the Judiciary Committee, I was invited to attend one of the meetings of the Rules Committee of the superior court. And what was nice was Judge Armata was present as well as Judge Macierowski, whom I know both of them very closely, personally. And they just were doing an outstanding job. pk/ak 48 And so it's heartening to see people that you in a way grew up with ascending to such storied heights in their profession, and we are all very, very lucky to have Jen Macierowski as a judge of the Superior Court. And with that, Madam President, if I may, I'd like to yield to the highly respected minority leader of our Senate, Senator Harding.

I do accept the yield, Madam President. Thank you. And thank you to Senator Kissel. I just want to echo the words of Senator Kissel. I've got the fortunate opportunity to get to know and meet Judge Macierowski. I have heard from Senator Kissel and other individuals that have either been senators or worked in the Senate Republican caucus about her immense skills, as general counsel how she kept a level head, how she always provided competent legal advice and direction. And I have heard firsthand that she also has become quite a judge. And so I strongly support her renomination, ask my colleagues to do the same. She is also a very good person outside of being a very good judge. So, please support her. Thank you very much, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Great to see you out there. Madam President, I rise in support of the resolution. Certainly, heartily concur with the remarks of my colleagues. Judge Macierowski really has become a star on the superior court since her appointment in 2018. That's really not surprising pk/ak 49 because of the quality of the work here that she did as general counsel for the Senate Republican caucus. Working closely as the legal representative for Senator Fasano in so many discussions and so many negotiations. I must say that her contributions to a lot of the bipartisan healthcare legislation that we were able to pass between 2015 and 2018. Her work with our healthcare counsel Dina Berlyn and others at that point really helped create really outstanding bipartisan legislation that in many ways became a national model. And that kind of scholarly approach, thoughtful approach, and excellent temperament, demeanor, consensus building, has really made her a leader on the bench as a judge of the superior court. So, I understand she's an administrative judge presiding now in Tolland and that region of the state, is very fortunate to have her there. So, with great enthusiasm, I support her renomination for another eight years of service. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. If there's no objection, I ask this item to be placed on consent.

Calendar 17, Senate Joint Resolution 23, resolution pk/ak 50 confirming the nomination of the Honorable Lisa Grasso Egan of New Haven to be a judge of the Superior Court.

Yes. Madam President, I move acceptance of Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, before us is the Honorable Lisa Grasso Egan of New Haven to be a judge of the superior court. Judge Egan was appointed to the bench in 2018, is a Georgetown University Law Center graduate. Also happens to be a adjunct professor at the University of New Haven who teaches family law. Comes to us with a positive vote out of Judiciary, I would urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Also happy to stand in strong support of Judge Grasso Egan to be reappointed as judge of Superior Court.

Thank you, Madam President. Speaking in support of the resolution in concurrence with my colleagues. Judge Grasso Egan is a friend and neighbor of mine. She is an extraordinary judge of the superior court. Prior to her appointment, she was a labor contract negotiator in the Malloy administration. Did a great job there. And that negotiating skill, able to find common ground and come to a resolution, has really become an important part of her performance as a judge, especially in the family court where she has actually sought assignment. We all know that there are many judges who shy away from that assignment because it is emotionally difficult to be there in a situation where more complaints against judges arise in that context than anywhere else because often people come into court with unrealistic expectations about what may happen there and they may want every single aspect of a relationship that has gone sour to be addressed by the court. And they want their former loved one to be eviscerated in the courtroom. And when that doesn't happen, they feel they're not well served. And despite that, so again, it's difficult for the judicial department to get judges to take that assignment or to stay long in it once when they are there. But Judge Grasso Egan is the opposite of that. She has embraced it. She finds it rewarding for her to do that despite all of the stresses and the difficulties there. And she has really made a specialty of that. And I'm sure the department is grateful, because she's willing to take that assignment that so many others shy away from. But in any case, she is just an extraordinary person, and she and her husband been very active in doing good works throughout the New Haven community, and I urge approval for nomination. And we look forward to another eight-year term of just an pk/ak 52 outstanding service. And also, just sort of the excellence that she brings to it because she is every day very much aware of the fact that she has been given a great opportunity and never takes the office of being a superior court judge for granted for one minute, and has exactly the right attitude. So, thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. If there's not objection, I ask this item be placed on consent.

Calendar 18, Senate Joint Resolution 24, resolution confirming the nomination of the Honorable Nuala E. Droney of West Hartford to be a judge of the Superior Court.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, before us is the Honorable No -- Nuala E. Droney -- I knew I was going to do that, Nuala E. Droney of West Hartford to be a judge of the Superior Court. Judge Droney was appointed to the bench in 2018, is a graduate of University of Virginia School of Law, and has come to us with a positive vote out of Judiciary. I would urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. It's my distinct honor and privilege to support the renomination of Nuala Droney to be a judge of the superior court. She has an awesome reputation in the judicial branch, and that doesn't surprise me at all. I remember, seems like yesterday, but it was eight years ago, at her initial hearing where all her personal qualifications were brought to bear. And in particular, the one that I just will always remember is her particular sensitivity to those folks, families that have autism in their families, her sensitivity to that issue, both personally and professionally, and her very even handed way of addressing family matters that come before her. She understands quite clearly that when people are in the court system, it's probably not their best day, setting aside all the business folks that may come before the courts as well. Although in many instances, if it's a small business, so much could be on the line there as well. She also comes from a very distinguished family; Pat Droney, former state party chair of the Democratic party. And I know that Miss Droney came before me eight years ago, highly recommended by folks in my neck of the woods, in pk/ak 54 particular, Attorney Thomas Tyler, who has the utmost respect from so many people in North Central Connecticut. So based upon past being prologue, it does not surprise me. The only thing that surprised me is how fast those eight years flew, and I think the people of Connecticut are extraordinarily well served by Judge Droney, and I'm happy to urge her renomination to my colleagues. Thank you, Madam President.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, if there's not objection, I ask this item to be placed on consent.

Calendar 19, Senate Joint Resolution 25, resolution confirming the nomination of the Honorable Tracy Lee Dayton of Weston to be a judge of the Superior Court.

Yes. Thank you. Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution. pk/ak 55

Thank you, Madam President. Before us is the Honorable Tracy Lee Dayton of Weston to be a judge of the superior court. Judge Dayton was appointed to the bench in 2018, is a graduate of the UC Berkeley School of Law, has served on several boards and commissions, including Judicial Review Council. Comes with a favorable report out of Judiciary, I'd urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I also strongly support the renomination of this judge to be renominated to be a judge of the Superior Court.

Thank you, Madam President. Good to see you up there today. Doing a great job. Good afternoon. I rise in support of the resolution. I know Judge Dayton, and as a non-lawyer here, there's like very few judges I actually know, but I do know Judge Dayton and she was nominated by former Governor Malloy, has done a good job, and I know she works very, very hard. She takes it very seriously. She has an excellent background and I know that she's well respected in pk/ak 56 the judicial community. So I rise and support her renomination and ask my fellow colleagues to support her as well. Thank you, Madam President.

Yes, Madam President. If there's not objection, I'd ask this item be placed on consent.

Calendar page 4, Calendar 20, Senate Joint Resolution 26, the resolution confirming the nomination of the Honorable Susan A. Connors of Old Lyme to be a judge of the Superior Court.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, pk/ak 57 before us is the Honorable Susan A. Connors of OId Lyme to be a judge with the Superior Court. Judge Connors was appointed to the bench in the year 2010. Is a graduate of the University of Connecticut School of Law. Sat on several boards and commissions, including the Statewide Marshall Commission. I'd urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Happy to support the renomination of Judge Connors to be a judge of the Superior Court.

Yes, Madam President, if there's not objection, I ask this item be placed on consent.

Calendar 21, Senate Joint Resolution 27, resolution confirming the nomination of the Honorable Courtney M. Chaplin of Hartford to be a judge of the Superior Court.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Yes, Madam President. Before us is the Honorable Courtney M. Chaplin of Hartford be a judge of the Superior Court. Judge Chaplin was appointed to the bench in the year 2018. He's a graduate of Howard University School of Law. Served on several boards and commissions, including the State of Connecticut's judicial investigatory grand jury panel, a member of fall 2020 to the present. Comes with a positive vote out of Judiciary, I'd urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Happy to stand in strong support of Judge Chaplin to be renominated as judge of the Superior Court. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. If there's not objection, I'd ask this item be placed on consent. pk/ak 59

Senator Joint Resolution 28, resolution confirming the nomination of the Honorable Karyl L. Carrasquilla of West Hartford to be a judge of the Superior Court.

Yes, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, before us is the Honorable Karyl L. Carrasquilla of West Hartford to be a judge of the Superior court. Was first appointed to the bench in the year 2018, is a graduate of the Western New England School of Law, has sat on several boards and commissions, and is brought to us with a favorable report out of the Judiciary. I'd urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Happy to stand in strong support of judge Carrasquilla being renominated to become a judge of the Superior Court.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, if there's not objection, I'd ask this item to be placed on consent.

Page 4, Senate Joint Resolution No. 29, resolution confirming nomination of the Honorable Eugene R. Calistro, Jr. of Guilford to be a judge of the Superior Court.

Thank you, Madam President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Madam President. Before us is the Honorable Eugene R. Calistro, Jr. of Guilford to be a judge of the Superior Court. Was first appointed to the bench in the year 2018, is a graduate of Mercer University and Walter F. George School of Law and was the chair of the Investigative Grand Jury panel. Madam President, has a positive vote on Judiciary. I would urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Happy to stand in strong support of Judge Calistro renominated to become a judge of the Superior Court.

Thank you, Madam President. Speaking in support of the resolution. Judge Calistro was a distinguished prosecutor, assistant state's attorney in New Haven for many years before his appointment to the bench. He was always fair and even handed and somebody who had a strong sense of the value of cases and the human reality behind cases as a prosecutor and has continued that as a superior court judge. Also, does an outstanding job administratively. And I believe currently or recently was appointed to serve on the Judicial Review Council. So, we look forward to many more years of outstanding service from Judge Calistro. Thank you, Madam President. pk/ak 62

Thank you, Madam President. If there's not objection, I ask this item be placed on consent.

Page 4, Calendar No. 24, Senate Joint Resolution No. 30, resolution confirming the nomination of Honorable Donna M. Wilkerson Brilliant of Cromwell to be a judge of the Superior Court.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, before us is the Honorable Donna M. Wilkerson Brillant of Cromwell to be a judge of the Superior Court. Judge Cromwell[sic] was appointed to the bench in the year pk/ak 63 2018, is a graduate of Western New England College School of Law. Comes to us with a favorable report out of the Judiciary Committee. I would urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Happy to stand in strong support of the renomination of Judge Wilkerson of Cromwell to become a judge of Superior Court.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, if there's no objection, I'd ask this item be placed on consent.

Page 5, Calendar No. 25, Senate Joint Resolution No. 31, resolution confirming the nomination of Honorable Tejas Bhatt of Windsor to be a judge of the Superior Court.

Yes, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of resolution.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Before us is the Honorable Tejas Bhatt of Windsor to be a judge of the Superior Court. Judge Bhatt was appointed to the bench in the year 2018. He's a graduate of the University of Connecticut School of Law. Has been a part of Lawyers Concerned For Lawyers. Had a favorable report out of the committee. I would urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I'm happy to support Judge Bhatt's renomination to become a judge of the Superior Court. And, again, an individual from Windsor, the town that I grew up in, although I'm very happy to call Enfield my home for the last over 30 years. But Judge Bhatt, again, lives in Senator McCrory's part of Windsor, but we're still happy to strongly support him. And he's done an excellent job over these last eight years. I urge my colleagues to support him as well. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. We like all of Windsor around here. Madam President, if there's not objection, I'd ask we place this item on consent.

Page 5, Calendar No. 26, Senate Joint Resolution No. 32, resolution confirming the nomination of the Honorable Laura F. Baldini of West Hartford to be a judge of the Superior Court.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

pk/ak 66 Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Before us is the Honorable Laura F. Baldini of West Hartford to be a judge of the Superior Court. Was appointed to the bench in 2010, is currently assigned to the Middlesex, JD, graduate of the Seton Hall University School of Law, sits on several boards and commissions. Madam President, comes to us with a favorable report out of Judiciary, I'd urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Again, happy to support the renomination of Judge Baldini becoming judge of the Superior Court. And just as an aside, I just thought I actually been living in Enfield, like, closer to 36 years. Just want that on the record. Thank you.

Madam President, if there's not objection, I ask this item to be placed on consent.

Page 5, Senate Joint Resolution No. 33, resolution confirming the nomination of the Honorable Claudia pk/ak 67 A. Baio of Rocky Hill to be a judge of the Superior Court.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Before us is the Honorable Claudia A. Baio of Rocky Hill to be a Superior Court judge. Was appointed to the bench in the year 2018, is a graduate of the University of Connecticut School of Law. Currently, is assigned to Hartford Civil And Land Use Litigation Docket. Comes to us with a positive vote out of Judiciary. I would urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I also stand in strong support of renomination of Judge Baio to be a judge of Superior Court. And would urge my colleagues to support the nomination as well.

Madam President, if there's not objection, I'd ask this item to be placed on consent.

Page 5, Calendar No. 28, Senate Joint Resolution No. 34, resolution confirming the nomination of the Honorable Barbara D. Aaron of Clinton to be a judge of the Superior Court.

Yes, Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Yes. Madam President, before us is the Honorable Barbara D. Aaron of Clinton to be a judge of the Superior Court. Judge Aaron was appointed to the bench in the year 2018, is a graduate of the Brooklyn Law School, sits on Middletown Child pk/ak 69 Protection. Comes to us with a favorable report out of Judiciary. I would urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Happy to stand in strong support of renomination of Judge Aaron to be the judge of Superior Court.

Madam President, if there's not objection, I ask this item to be placed on consent.

Thank you, Madam President. We've been on a roll here. Madam President, will we stand at ease for a moment, please?

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, that is the end of our go list for today. So if the Clerk can call the resolutions that require a vote on our pk/ak 70 Consent Calendar, then we can vote on Consent Calendar No. 1.

Consent Calendar No. 1: Page 1, Calendar No. 6, No. 7, Senate Joint Resolution No. 13; Page 2, Calendar No. 8, Senate Joint Resolution No. 14; Page 2, Calendar No. 9, Senate Joint Resolution 15; Page 2, Calendar No. 10, Senate Joint Resolution 16; Page 2, Calendar No. 11, Senate Joint Resolution 17; Page 3, Calendar No. 15, Senate Joint Resolution 21; Page 3, Calendar No. 16, Senate Joint Resolution 22; Page 3, Calendar No. 17, Senate Joint Resolution 23; Page 3, Calendar No. 18, Senate Joint Resolution 24; Page 3, Calendar No. 19, Senator Joint Resolution 25; Page 4, Calendar No. 20, Senate Joint Resolution 26; Page 4, Calendar No. 21, Senate Joint Resolution 27; Page 4, Calendar No. 22, Senate Joint Resolution 28; Page 4, Calendar No. 23, Senate Joint Resolution 29; Page 4, Calendar No. 24, Senate Joint Resolution 30; Page 5, Calendar No. 25, Senate Joint Resolution 31; Page 5, Calendar 26, Senate Joint Resolution 32; Page 5, Calendar 27, Senate Joint Resolution 33; Page 5, Calendar 28, Senate Joint Resolution 34. Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Senate. We're voting on Consent Calendar No. 1. This is Consent Calendar No. 1. Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. We're voting on Consent Calendar No. 1. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Consent Calendar No. 1: Total number voting 33 Necessary for Adoption 17 Total voting Yea 33 Total voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 3

Senator Duff.

Thank you, Madam President. With that, I move that we adjourn, subject to call of the Chair.