Any day now the Connecticut Supreme Court could be issuing a ruling imposing same-sex “marriage” by judicial fiat…despite the fact that it has been repeatedly defeated at the state legislature. FIC supports a constitutional convention and right of initiative law to stop the Left’s constant efforts to usurp democracy. The right of intiative is a concept that may enjoy broad support, as this May 4th Courant op-ed by former Democratic state representative John Woodcock shows:

We often read of public opinion polls giving poor ratings to President Bush and Congress. No such poll has been taken regarding the Connecticut General Assembly and state government, but suffice it to say they would probably not fare well in such a poll of Connecticut citizens.

What is affecting the citizenry’s opinion of its state government? Is it citizen apathy, poor job performance, voter fatigue, or the myriad important issues such as escalating electric rates and public safety tragedies?

I believe that Connecticut citizens have the will and interest to stimulate and invigorate their government and make it more responsive to their concerns and their needs.

Just 26 years ago, Connecticut consumers deluged the state Capitol with their support of Connecticut’s first-in-the-nation Lemon Law. In the age before the Internet, they attended public hearings, held rallies, wrote thousands of letters and even flew an airplane over the Capitol with a banner expressing support of the pending law.

He might have added that just 5 years ago pro-family state residents deluged the state Capitol with 70,000 signatures to defend marriage, just 4 years ago 6,000 rallied in Hartford to protect marriage and just 3 years ago the Capitol was inundated with so many phone calls against the same-sex civil union bill that we shut down their switchboards. The civil union bill passed anyway…thus illustrating the problem raised by Woodcock and the need for the solution he recommends:

Today more than ever, Connecticut’s government desperately needs an injection of citizen input. Our legislature has become an isolated “Incumbent Nation.” The past dozen legislative election results illustrate this clearly.

If Connecticut’s leaders want to change the political environment of non-inclusiveness, they should offer and support citizen empowerment laws that promote democracy and citizen participation. These laws have been around for a long time and have been legislated by many states across the country…

A direct initiative law allows citizens to place a public policy issue on the ballot with no legislative approval needed. At least 26 states have these referendum laws available to their citizens, and more than 25 states provide for initiatives from their citizens.

Woodcock does not mention it, but there will automatically be a question on the ballot this November asking CT voters if they want to hold a state constitutional convention. Getting a “yes” vote on that question–which only appears once every 20 years–may be our best chance for getting the direct initiative law Woodcock supports. His own op-ed explains well why a “yes” vote–and a right of initiative–is so greatly needed:

Collectively, these reform proposals, tried and proved in other states, offer Connecticut citizens much-needed citizen rights. To become law, these reforms would have to be initiated and approved by the legislature, which has historically given them a very cold shoulder.

Perhaps the time is now, in this historic presidential election year, that we seek out and elect legislators who will advocate and work for the passage of laws that will strengthen Connecticut’s democracy and empower its citizens.

A likely Court-ordered imposition of same-sex “marriage” is another reason “to seek out and elect legislators” who will support the right of Connecticut citizens to be a self-governing people.

7 Responses to “Courant Op-Ed Supports Direct Initiative Law”

  1. on 12 May 2008 at 12:33 pmBob

    Mr. Woodcock is quoted: “Our legislature has become an isolated “Incumbent Nation.” The past dozen legislative election results illustrate this clearly.” end quote.

    Citizens of Connecticut, don’t hold your breath for things to change OR think that the Courant will advocate for politicians to be accountable to the people. It is now up to us! The Courant has seen to it that liberal Democrat politicians are entrenched there for as long as possible AND does all it can to see to it that liberal Democrat agendas are made into law, even if it is by judicial fiat. The Courant and Liberal Politicians are so to speak “bedfellows”

    The Courant is a devotee of such politics and aims to keep things this way by keeping its customer, its readers ignorant. The Courant, Instead of being the guardian of the people, as the free press once was known to be, are willing co-conspirators in keeping the constituents uninformed and kept out of politics.

    Keep the people uninformed, spoon feed liberal propaganda and agenda day after day, year after year, portray opponents to such liberal social policies as Right wing Extremists, racists, bigots, homophobes, xenophobes, religious fanatics etc., you get the idea. This is and has been the same drive by media recipe for decades. This is why newspaper circulation is down drastically, the people are tired of the same ole same ole.

    You would think that the Courant would side with their customer base, the average person, the poor schleps that dole out good money for such printed junk which isn’t so much news, but merely opinions about what they decide to tell you about.

    The Guardians of the people nowadays are organizations such as FIC. One shudders to think what legislative suicide watch the State of Connecticut would be on today without such an organization being a guard dog for the people.

    It (the Courant) isn’t fit to line the bottom of the bird cage nowadays. We use fresh paper towels instead. It’s more absorbent than newspaper and unlike the Courant, doesn’t start out with crap already on it!

  2. on 12 May 2008 at 8:42 pmSteve

    This has the potential to change Connecticut politics in a way that is unprecedented. Imagine… The citizens of Connecticut having an actual say about issues that affect us. Democracy. What a novel vehicle!

    Of course, the legislature will fight this tooth and nail. They’re already on record insisting that Nutmegers are perfectly happy relinquishing our rights to the sublime powers in Hartford. After all, why do we need democracy when we have fellas like Lawlor and Macdonald telling us what’s best for us? We surfs lack the sophistication to be so intimately involved with running our lives. We are complacently contented being ruled by such benevolent masters.

    I mean, the legislature’s resistance to the democratic process couldn’t possibly have a thing to do with the fact that this one little change would take power away from the entrenched incumbents and put power into the hands of the people where it belongs… could it?

  3. on 15 May 2008 at 2:31 pmTricia

    The ruling in favor of SSM today from California just makes ever more clear our desperate need for a “Direct Initiative Law.”

    1% (or less) of the people may be rejoicing at the ruling from California today. But they are not considering the future unintended consequences.

    Of course, it’s not only judges who often have no concern for the “future unintended consequences.” Too often, our state legislators, as well as those in Congress, are concerned mainly with satisfying their lobbyists and funding sources for their campaigns, and getting their names in the media–instead of doing what is best for America and its FUTURE.

  4. on 27 Jul 2008 at 9:48 amCampaignPete

    off topic a bit, but:
    A bunch of primaries take place in two weeks, on August 12th involving Pro-Marriage candidates, including:

    (R) Witkos – Canton, State Senate
    (D) Mazurek – Wolcott, State Rep
    (R) Noujaim – Waterbury, State Rep
    (D) Lydia Martinez – Bridgeport, State Rep

    Immediate questions come the mind: is Witkos at risk of possibly losing?

    The 17th district Republican primary in Avon-Canton:
    Tim LeGeyt vs. Tom Harrison, anyone have information regarding either candidate?

    formerly Middletown Pete (I moved).

  5. on 27 Jul 2008 at 10:23 pmCampaignPete

    I’m in the wrong thread here … but I forgot the #1 race on AUG 12: Pro-marriage Marie Kirkley Bey-Lopez, Deputy Speaker of the House

    tough primary. Most of the action 8/12 is in the cities, NHaven, Bprt, WTBY, Htford

    A large number of far-left Democrat incumbents are facing primary challengers … go figure. It is one of the benefits of living in a liberal state … you can sit back and watch 2 leftists beat up on each other.

  6. on 28 Jul 2008 at 10:05 amCampaignPete

    August 12 is a big day for grass-roots folks like us. A very big day. Bigger than November when everyone’s efforts are diluted.

    I realize the response is often, “we have limited resources and this is one day that we can’t make an effort.” But why the boycott? Pro-family voters seem to have a thing about boycotting elections.

    I have details on some of these races, but don’t want to bore people with the details, if they’re disinterested.

    Perhaps someone can start a new thread on the AUG 12 primaries. And I will be showing up somewhere for the next 2 weeks, with or without y’all. I won’t be working 18-hour days on the campaign trail. But I will participate.


    “End the Boycott.”

    PS I am in the wrong thread. Someone please move me.

  7. on 28 Jul 2008 at 1:08 pmCampaignPete

    the news article had Marie’s name wrong and I repeated the mistake in my post.

    It is Marie Lopez Kirkley-Bey

    the 5th district is the north end of Hartford.

Leave a Reply