Unpacking a month of filibusters, deadlock, and unresponsive governance.
On Wednesday, May 8, Connecticut’s state senators packed up their briefcases with eight minutes left in their legislative session. According to Christopher Keating in Governing, 400 bills were unresolved in a rushed legislative session with a messy conclusion; that is, the death of so many draft laws.
This essay is hardly an obituary for those bills. Instead, I aim to stress the role that Connecticut voters can play in helping the Connecticut Senate break its handcuffs to deadlock politics.
In Governing, Keating writes that “Republicans staged filibusters in the House and Senate chambers throughout Wednesday afternoon and into the night, asking detailed questions and delivering long speeches on lower-profile bills in a traditional strategy to run out the clock so that no time would be left to debate bills that they sought to block.” Four hundred bills “were still pending… with many of them expected to die.” Now, House Bill 5004, which promised cleaner energy and new environmental subsidies, may never see the light of day.
[RELATED: CT legislature ends session with no major climate change action — again]
May’s legislative chaos marks a classic tale of bad-faith cooperation — although it might be generous to say there was much cooperation in the first place. Without the coalitions, cross-cutting cleavages, and partnerships necessary to govern Connecticut, the Senate necessitates criticism. Deadlock is a serious issue for Connecticut’s legislators. Cooperation on their bills is unlikely as filibustering, a mode of blocking cooperation and gaming well-established political systems, comes into focus.
Filibusters plague the U.S. Senate and Connecticut Senate. Of the U.S. Senate, Tim Lau at The Brennan Center for Justice notes that “There have been more than 2,000 filibusters since 1917,” but that “about half have been in just the last 12 years.” Vocal opponents of the filibuster point to the “slowed business in the Senate [the filibuster creates]… often entangling the chamber in procedural maneuvering instead of substantive debate and, ultimately, lawmaking.”
There are many principles by which all legislators should abide. Filibustering is not one of them. Rather, transparency, efficiency, and mouthpiece representation are central to policy-making and responsive governance.
The Connecticut Senate’s performance in May does not comport with responsive governance. To better understand what the term means, consider a takeaway from the 2015 United Nations’ World Sector Report: “Responsive governance requires public servants to act beyond orders and to be proactive.” After May’s legislative meltdown in the Connecticut Senate, Hartford’s Senate halls know of little proactive political conduct and decision-making.
Connecticut state senators, no matter their position on the political spectrum, should be held responsible for their refusal to govern properly and cooperate. For the reason of accountability, I advise a few points. In preparation for the Connecticut General Election this year, voters should consider not only the current divisions within the Connecticut state senate, but also more diligently question the qualifications of the local candidates they like.
Political antics should never constrain responsive governance and bills. When the General Election comes in November, Connecticut voters should be proactive and engaged when their representatives are not. Indeed, voters should confirm that their state legislators endorse bipartisanship, responsive governance, and lawmaking. There is ample time to intercept the graveyards for the hundreds of bills that (regrettably) perish in Connecticut Senate sessions.
Peyton Royce Lusk is a a rising junior at Connecticut College in New London.