A 'turkey' of a law

If it is true, as Ulysses S. Grant once said, that "there is no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution," then the great Civil War general and former president must be smiling from his Manhattan resting place at what’s happened in Salisbury’s recent elections.

In a word, the will of the people has been thwarted. A well intentioned but counterproductive state law was supposed to prevent one political party from dominating the affairs of a municipal board or commission, but its effect in Salisbury has been to deny a seat on the Board of Finance to a well-qualified candidate.

"It sounded simple enough," as a story in last week’s Journal reported. Two candidates, Republican Mathias Kiefer and Robert Bettigole, a Democrat, were running for two open seats. In a gesture of goodwill, the Democratic Town Committee also endorsed Kiefer at the party’s caucus in July. And so it looked like both men were shoo-ins to remain on the board.

But since the mishandling of ballots and petitions forced town Republicans to run as write-in candidates, Kiefer was not on the ballot as a Republican, so the 891 votes he received meant that in the eyes of the state, he is a Democrat. Bettigole is a registered Democrat, but he received only 804 votes. That means he cannot sit on the finance board because, according to state law, the board will have exceeded its quota of Democrats. Ever hear of anything so convoluted?

Originally enacted in 1877 and revised and rewritten several times since, Connecticut’s minority representation law states that "no more than a specified number of members (generally two-thirds of the total) enrolled in the same political party can serve on most elected and appointed bodies of the state, its towns, and other political subdivisions," according to the Secretary of the State’s Web site. Astonishingly, Connecticut is believed to be the only state in the nation with such a law.

And it’s especially revealing that when Connecticut’s General Assembly enacted the current version of the minority representation statute, lawmakers made sure that certain types of boards and commissions would be excluded from it, including those in which board members or commissioners represent districts with geographical boundaries. That provision effectively exempted the state Legislature and the governing bodies of Connecticut’s largest cities, where minority parties often have the least representation. Why, then, pick on the state’s small towns? Perhaps it’s because we were the low-hanging fruit.

It goes without saying that good laws protect citizens from those who would do them harm. Bad laws often try to mandate outcomes or protect people from themselves. Clearly, what’s missing from the minority representation law is any evidence that without it the Nutmeg State would revert to one-party rule.

Consider the case of the neighboring state of New York, where no such law exists but where the political parties are robust and diversity of thought thrives. New York is considered a blue state but until recently, it had a three-term Republican governor. For decades, the state senate has been under Republican control, while the state assembly is majority Democratic. Both the state’s U.S. senators are Democrats. And to top it off, New York has more minority parties than you can shake a stick at: the Liberal, Conservative, Right to Life, Independence, Working Families and Socialist parties (just to name a few) maintain a strong presence on the political landscape.

Two towns to our west, Amenia and North East, typically have lively elections featuring candidates with sharply different points of view — frequently within the same party. And major party candidates often court the support of minor party political committees. Interestingly, school board elections are nonpartisan, with all office-seekers running as petitioning candidates. Believe it or not, such diversity and activism are accomplished without any law mandating the representation of any party on any level. The marketplace of ideas is far more powerful than an intrusive legislature trying to tell its small-town citizens what’s best for them politically.

Clearly, it’s time for the General Assembly to rethink this law and whether it’s really necessary for Connecticut democracy to function effectively. The Salisbury Board of Finance was expected to meet this week to tackle the Bettigole problem. State Sen. Andrew Roraback has hinted that a minor legislative fix could be enacted to let Bettigole serve the term to which his town’s voters have appointed him, but it could never be accomplished in time, as the finance board must appoint a replacement for Bettigole within 30 days. Voter intent is the key issue and it should be the local voters who decide which candidates represent them — not the powers-that-be in Hartford.