Back Home About Us Contact Us
Town Charters
Seniors
Federal Budget
Ethics
Hall of Shame
Education
Unions
Binding Arbitration
State - Budget
Local - Budget
Prevailing Wage
Jobs
Health Care
Referendum
Eminent Domain
Group Homes
Consortium
TABOR
Editorials
Tax Talk
Press Releases
Find Representatives
Web Sites
Media
CT Taxpayer Groups
 
Home
From: Susan Kniep, President

From:  Susan Kniep, President
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc.
Website:  http://ctact.org/
email: 
fctopresident@ctact.org and fctopresident@aol.com

860-524-6501

February 23, 2006

 

Last evening, Manchester newspaper, the Journal Inquirer, featured,

on its front page, The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations’ call for

a 2006 Constitutional Convention to address the Eminent Domain issue.

FCTO believes the call for a Constitutional Convention in Nov, 2006 is required

by our Constitution, a position shared by a University of CT Law Professor and others! 

 

We encourage all Connecticut citizens who are concerned that they could be impacted

by the recent Supreme Court decision on Eminent Domain to join with FCTO.  We ask that they

contact their State legislators to impress upon them the necessity to cement within our Constitution

the protection of their private property rights from government seizure!

  

The Kelo v New London Supreme Court ruling allows government by Eminent Domain to condemn private property for the financial gain of another private entity.   In New Hampshire, all 24 State Senators have recently co-sponsored a bill which “explicitly states that no private property can be seized for “the public benefit resulting from private economic development and private commercial enterprise.” (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060219/REPOSITORY/602190351/1037/NEWS04)

Our Connecticut Legislature refuses to consider a similar bill.   

Last evening, Manchester newspaper, the Journal Inquirer, featured The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc. call for the 2006 Constitutional Convention to address the Eminent Domain issue and the Secretary of State’s refusal to do so.  The issue is in the interpretation of our Constitution.  FCTO’s suggestion that the voters should be the decision makers in November, 2006 on whether there should be a Constitutional Convention is shared by University of Connecticut School of Law professor Richard S. Kay, an expert on Connecticut's constitution and others. 

 

The following is both the Journal Inquirer article and FCTO’s Press Release on this matter. 


*******

 

 

Timing of constitutional vote questioned

By Tom Breen, Journal Inquirer, 02/22/2006

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16175459&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6

 

The possibility of a line on the ballot this November asking voters whether to call a constitutional convention has come down to a lawyerly dispute over a handful of words in the state constitution.

To paraphrase former President Bill Clinton, it depends on what the meaning of the word "next" is.

A group of state taxpayer organizations argues that the constitution requires voters to decide this year whether a convention should be called to amend or revise the constitution.

Spurred by the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that allowed New London to use eminent domain to take private homes to make space for future economic development, the taxpayer groups want a constitutional amendment restricting or prohibiting the use of eminent domain.

But Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, who oversees elections and the statewide ballot, argues the constitution doesn't require the question to be put before voters this year, but in November 2008.

"We dispute that," Susan Kniep, president of the Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, says. "We don't think that's the correct reading of our constitution."

Short of a court challenge, though, there's no way to establish which side is reading the constitution correctly, meaning that a ballot question on a constitutional convention is unlikely this fall.

The whole tangled affair starts with the state constitution, ratified in 1965.

In Article 13th, section 2, the constitution requires that the question "Shall there be a constitutional convention to amend or revise the constitution of the state?" be put on the ballot "in the even-numbered year next succeeding the expiration of a period of 20 years from the date of convening of the last convention," meaning the 1965 convention.

The next succeeding even-numbered year after 1965 was 1966, and, consequently, in 1986 voters in Connecticut were asked if they wanted to call a convention. They overwhelmingly said no.

The constitution further requires that the same question be brought in the even-numbered year "next succeeding the expiration of a period of 20 years from the date of submission of such a question to all electors of the state."

This is where the problem begins.

Kniep's group reads the constitution to mean that the period of 20 years from the last submission of the question, 1986, is this year.

That reading is shared by University of Connecticut School of Law professor Richard S. Kay, an expert on Connecticut's constitution.

The secretary of the state's office, though, disagrees.


According to staff lawyer Ted Bromley, the words "next succeeding" don't mean the next even-numbered year after a 20-year gap, but the one after that: 2008, in other words.

"It can be easy to misunderstand if you read it quickly," Bromley says.

"You could probably parse it that way," Kay says. "But it clearly wasn't intended to put this question before the voters once every 22 years."

The last vote was on Nov. 19, 1986. The constitution requires the next vote on the question for the even-numbered year "next succeeding" the 20th anniversary of the 1986 vote. Kay says that, going strictly on the literal wording of the section, there was still more than a month of 1986 left, meaning that the "next succeeding" even-numbered year would be 2006, not 2008.

Confused yet?

"This is why people have lawyers," Kay says with a laugh.

"It's the kind of interpretation which is faithful to the expressed literal words," he says of the secretary of the state's claim, "but I think it's a little formalistic. The question is: Why are they going to this trouble to read the constitution this way?"

The secretary of the state's reading, though, is final, barring a court challenge.

Kniep says her group is unlikely to sue the state over the issue, unless it can find a lawyer to do the work pro bono.

"We do not have the deep pockets to pursue litigation," she says.

In the meantime, her group is lobbying state legislators to call a constitutional convention to take up the subject of eminent domain.

The constitution allows the legislature to call a convention at least 10 years from the date of the last convention as long as two-thirds of the General Assembly supports it.

House Minority Leader Robert M. Ward, R-North Branford, who has been a vocal proponent of changing the state's eminent domain laws, says it's unlikely the legislature will call a convention.

"I don't think you'd get the necessary number to approve a convention," he said. "We're proposing meaningful reform on eminent domain in the legislature now, and we're already being met with resistance there."

Ward points out that if a convention were to meet, it would not have to confine itself to the question of eminent domain. It could do anything - even write an entirely new constitution - although its decisions would be subject to a referendum.

The unpredictability of a convention is one of the things that makes people uncomfortable with the prospect, Kay says.

"Opinion-makers tend to be terrified by the prospect of a constitutional convention," he says. "They see the whole world being turned upside down."

 

********

 

 

 

PRESS RELEASE

Contact:  Susan Kniep, President

The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc.

February 14, 2006

 

 

2006 CONNECTICUT CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

 

AMEND CONNECTICUT’S CONSTITUTION TO

 

PROTECT PROPERTY OWNERS FROM EMINENT DOMAIN

 

FCTO issued the following Press Release today.  This year those seeking election to the state legislature will be on the ballot in November. Connecticut voters will have an opportunity to determine prior to their vote which legislative candidates support protecting Connecticut property owners from the abusive powers of eminent domain, and they can vote accordingly.

 

 

In November, 2006, State legislators are mandated to place before the voters of Connecticut, the following question: 

 

“Shall there be a Constitutional Convention

 to amend or revise the Constitution of the State?”

 

If the majority of Connecticut citizens vote in the affirmative, within one year the General Assembly must assemble a convention. 

 

Proposed amendments or revisions to our State constitution must then be submitted to Connecticut voters at referendum. 

 

As our State does not afford its citizens the right to petition our state government for reform, this is an important vehicle which Connecticut voters have to enforce true reform in our State.   

 

As such, the Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc. is encouraging our State legislature to adopt an amendment to our Constitution to protect the citizens of our state from the abusive powers of Eminent Domain.  

 

John Adams, our country’s second president said it best when reflecting upon the passion of our forefathers on property rights issues when he stated  "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.  Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist." 

  

The recent supreme court decision on Eminent Domain restricted the rights of private homeowners in the utilization and retention of their property and expanded the rights of the rich, powerful and politically connected who were given a key to unlock our front door and invade the sanctity of our homes.  The decision further served to uproot families on homesteads passed down from generation to generation based not on government need but instead on government greed.

    

Redevelopment is the precursor to Eminent domain.  It’s big business.  It enriches developers, lobbyists, attorneys, consultants, and those special interests aligned with government officials who pass laws which undermine our rights.   Elected public officials yield their responsibilities to quasi public agencies, which are financed by taxpayer dollars, and which have limited accountability to the public.  

 

Reflecting upon John Adams’ words, our forefathers never intended for Americans to be forced to relinquish their property so that others would prosper as suggested by the Supreme Court in their recent findings on the landmark Kelo v. New London case.   

 

As such, in reflecting upon the words of John Adams, our liberties and the sanctity of our property rights must be secured within Connecticut’s constitution.  Our constitution should enforce a prohibition on any government body from seizing, by eminent domain, private property for the purpose of transferring ownership from one private party to another for financial gain or for any other reason.     

We encourage all Connecticut citizens who are concerned that they could be impacted by the recent Supreme Court decision on Eminent Domain to join with FCTO.  We ask that they contact their State legislators to impress upon them the necessity to cement within our Constitution the protection of their private property rights from government seizure.              

 

*******