House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz of Berlin and Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney of New Haven said Tuesday that each has convinced the other they have the votes necessary to pass legislation next week authorizing tractor trailer tolls on a dozen highway bridges. But there’s a significant complication.
The Democratic leaders still have to convince their rank-and-file that the other chamber’s count can be trusted. And that is leading to the possibility of the House and Senate acting simultaneously — an unprecedented scheme immediately denounced by Republican minority leaders as a mockery of parliamentary process, legislative history and common sense.
“It is the intent to bring it up at the same time,” Aresimowicz said.
Looney acknowledged hours later in a separate interview that synchronized debating and voting indeed was under consideration, though it was not his preference.
Nor would it be easy to achieve.
As a matter of legislative procedure (as well as physics), the same bill cannot be before two chambers at the same time. The workaround would be each chamber debating and voting on identical bills. To become law, one would have to be passed eventually by both chambers.
“Only one chamber would have to vote twice,” Looney said.
And that, say Republicans, would be a sophomoric solution to satisfy unnamed House and Senate Democrats, each willing to vote for tolls only if final passage is guaranteed and each saying to each other: “You go first.”
“Think about the silliness of this — foot dragging until one chamber catches up to the other? If that doesn’t speak volumes in this building, then nothing else does. It’s absurd.”
Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano
“Think about the silliness of this — foot dragging until one chamber catches up to the other?” said Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano of North Haven. “If that doesn’t speak volumes in this building, then nothing else does. That’s just silly. It’s lunacy. It’s absurd. It’s laughable.”
“You wonder why the public doesn’t trust government, they don’t even trust themselves,” said House Minority Leader Themis Klarides of Derby.
How both chambers could simultaneously vote was unclear.
Each chamber has the custom of unlimited debate, and Republicans have more than a little to say about how long a debate might run. Theoretically, Looney said, the chamber that finished its debate first could leave the voting machine open until the other was ready.
It’s never been done.
“The institution matters more than any governor, than any legislator or any bill and when you bastardize the institution, you can’t repair it. And that comes first,” Fasano said.
“That is disgusting, quite honestly,” Klarides said.
The Connecticut General Assembly has managed in the past to take controversial votes without a guarantee of what the other chamber might do, such as passing an income tax and repealing the death penalty. So, what is so difficult about a bill that would authorize a dozen tolls on tractor trailers?
“I don’t know if it’s the issue itself, but rather this mischaracterization of what the bill actually does,” Aresimowicz said. “That frustrates Marty and I.”
In February, Gov. Ned Lamont proposed a comprehensive system of tolls on cars and trucks at more than 50 locations on Interstates 84, 91 and 94, as well as the Merritt and Wilbur Cross parkways. It would have raised as much as $800 million annually.
When lawmakers refused to bring the measure to a vote, the administration countered with a downsized version of tolls on cars and trucks on 13 bridges. Legislative leaders could not find the votes for passage, leading to the current version of tolling only tractor trailers, raising about $175 million a year.
Opponents say that the measure would be a first step to a broader system involving car tolls but can’t quite explain how something so politically unpopular might win passage. The bill before the legislature would not allow car tolls without the passage of another law explicitly permitting them.
Aresimowicz said a synchronized vote “doesn’t allow the folks that are organizing against the issue to play one chamber off against the other.”
Looney said Aresimowicz called him Monday night to say he had confirmed the availability next week of at least 76 House Democrats in favor of the transportation bill, the minimum necessary for passage. Democrats hold a 91-60 majority in the House.
The vote would take place on the 18th, 19th or 20th, though a public hearing has been scheduled for the 19th on a controversial bill to repeal the religious exemption for school-age vaccination.
Lamont said earlier Tuesday, before Aresimowicz and Looney spoke about the potential need for a synchronized vote, that he was pleased a vote may be imminent. The governor spoke at a press conference announcing the availability of CTrail exit, a mobile app allowing the online purchase of train tickets on the Hartford Line and Shoreline East.
”The Senate’s been clear. They’ve got their list. They’ve shared their lists. They know who the votes are. The houses are ready to go. They’re both ready to vote,” Lamont said. “I think right now, they are doing the Kabuki dance — what’s the exact day and the order that people go. I think it’s going to happen next week.”
Honestly. For all you CT dems who just spent the last couple of weeks crying about the Senate not doing things properly. Where are you now when your party does it. If you have the votes, VOTE
Synchronized Votes?
Anybody who feels they made an intelligent decision by putting these Democrat Legislators in office. Truly needs to perform some serious soul searching. Only in Connecticiut.
If Republican lawmakers have any guts. They should all not show up. Filibuster is just time wasted. Have CTN have the cameras Just on the pro tolls pols who were willing to fall on the sword. The pics will say it all.
Until this state gets rid of Aresimowicz and Looney and actually has two or more parties represented in Hartford,nothing will change.
Why are the Democrats so fearful? Aren’t the citizens clamoring for truck tolls? Go vote-nothing to worry about- except the 2020 election.
Is anyone surprised by this “profiles in courage” display by Democrat “leaders?”
This is no longer an “are tolls needed” issue.
All of the promises, changes and delays, pulling the votes, and now ‘synchronized votes’ tells the taxpayers of CT one thing–the overwhelming Democrat majority in Hartford doesn’t want to be held accountable. One has to wonder what other things have been promised–and at what cost–to secure votes.
What a bunch of cowards.
If this is such a good thing for the state’s economy, I’d expect they’d be clamoring to be the first to act.
After all, it’s for the good of the CT taxpayers!
If you watched the Dem Senate hold up the Aresimowicz / jobs/restaurant bill overide on a bill the Senate had passed almost unanimously a short time before you would understand the mistrust.
What a bunch of nonsense. Predictable game-playing. Brings to mind the old (anybody else here old enough to remember them?) Looney Tunes (how apropos) cartoon, The Goofy Gophers, Mac and Tosh. They were so polite to each other: You go first. No, you go first, I insist. Are you sure? You may precede me. I think we should precede together.
I thought we would lose federal funding if we only toll trucks? Is this another “foot in the door” strategy to get tolls for all but sell it to us as trucks only in the beginning? Sounds like the “temporary” state income tax all over again.
Hi ell, the income tax was never meant to be temporary. Read our report on that here: https://ctmirror.org/2019/11/21/debunking-connecticuts-enduring-tax-myth/
What about the conveyance tax? That was supposed to be temporary way back in the day. I think Eli’s point is that nothing is temporary.
You are partially correct. The real estate conveyance tax has been in existence for well over 50 years. I do not believe that the tax itself was ever meant to be temporary (part goes to the state, part goes to the municipality). However, back in 2003, the tax was increased due to — surprise, surprise — budget constraints. The increase was supposed to be temporary — two years. But, of course, we all know that temporary doesn’t mean temporary in Connecticut. They get addicted to the extra revenue, and the “temporary” just keeps getting extended.
I agree – on your side with this one. I though Weicker was to eliminate the conveyance tax – but it was a long time ago.
Part of Weicker’s pitch was a plan to drastically cut the sales tax and some others in exchange for the income tax. And we all know how that worked out, don’t we? We still have both, and the sales tax has increased again over time. And the Dems wonder why the public doesn’t trust them on “trucks only, limited bridges” tolls?
The legislature might vote only to install gantries. Then in a few years they can vote again on whether to start charging tolls.
By then, the federal court case about whether charging only trucks is legal will be resolved. And the money will be available immediately to start construction relying on that funding.
And those favoring tolls can run for re-election able to say they never voted for charging any tolls to anyone.
That would make everyone happy, right?!
Give the tax payer some assurances. Put into the legislation a 2/3 vote by the house and senate before they can toll cars. Why is this hard?
The legislature can’t tell itself to require a two-thirds vote. After such a bill passes and is signed into law, the legislature would be free to repeal it by a majority vote. Even if they didn’t vote on repealing language, they could pass any bill by a majority vote.
If it is this hard and you have to cheat this much, maybe its not a good law? For all of you who believe that trucks pay the tolls, you are wrong. They will pass the cost onto the consumer and increase our costs. These tolls will result in increased consumer prices, if you don’t believe me, I have some tariffs that China paid for (oh wait…. we paid for them too). Don’t buy the lies- you will never stop paying for them!