Vote No on Question 1

If you will be voting in Connecticut next Tuesday, you will not only be casting a vote that will influence the direction of the country with your choice for president, but you will have an opportunity to cast a vote that will have a significant impact on the future of Connecticut. Question 1, which must appear on the general election ballot every 20 years, reads:

“Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the state?”

The best answer to this question is no.
A television ad from CT Vote No
As a Connecticut resident who happens to also be a student at Wesleyan, I urge you to vote no on question 1. We do not need to have a constitutional convention in Connecticut because…

  • …our state legislature can amend the constitution when necessary, and has done so 30 times since 1970
  • …the delegates to the convention are not chosen by voters, and cannot be held accountable by voters. By comparison, when our legislators make changes to the state constitution, they can face repercussions at the ballot box if voters find such changes undesirable.
  • …it will be an additional cost burden on the state, at a time when we can least afford it.

Here is what one of the groups mobilizing in favor of a constitutional convention, The Family Institute of CT has to say:

“Getting a “yes” vote on Question 1 on Election Day in order to have a constitutional convention is very likely the only chance we will have to restore not only marriage, BUT OUR VERY RIGHT TO SELF-GOVERNMENT IN CONNECTICUT!”

Nevermind what they wrote in all caps. What this is really about for them is what I’ve italicized above: restrictively defining marriage.

They plan to do that through Initiative Referenda, which is the goal cited by the pro-convention website:

Our mission is to inform and educate as many people as we can that it is extremely important for them to vote yes to this question. If the yes votes win then it will be incumbent upon the state legislature to convene a state Constitution Convention. It will be in this arena where we can implement Initiative Referenda as a mechanism and amend our state Constitution for a 31st time.

This has a lot of implications. California allows for ballot initiatives, and as such they find themselves in a huge budget deficit (who’s not going to vote for keeping taxes the same, even as expenses rise?). Not only that, but out of state anti-marriage equality groups have poured enormous resources into the state to push proposition 8, which would restrict marriage rights in California.

We don’t need that in Connecticut. We finally have full marriage equality in the state and hope to help light that path for the rest of the nation.

Below are some links to other opinions in favor of voting no on question one, as well as other information:

Last but not least, a disclosure. I proudly work for the CT Citizen Action Group, which as an organization is officially supporting the CT Vote No effort, but I am publishing this blog post on my own behalf as a Wesleyan student on my own time using my own resources.

24 thoughts on “Vote No on Question 1

  1. spazeboy

    It is misleading to say that state politicians are “in bed with special interests.” As of last year, we have in place a system for publicly financed elections that applies to all state offices in CT. Though participation is voluntary, the rate of participation is quite high. Participating candidates must raise a minimum number of donations no greater than $100 from residents of towns they represent. Lobbyists and the immediate family members of lobbyists are forbidden from contributing. For those of you who want to learn more, check out the State Elections Enforcement Commission.It is untrue that a yes vote will allow NGOs and citizens to have more say in anything, or that it will “INCREASE THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER IMPACT. VOTE YES!!” Using all-caps and exclamation points does not make it true.Vote No on Question 1.

  2. spazeboy

    It is misleading to say that state politicians are “in bed with special interests.” As of last year, we have in place a system for publicly financed elections that applies to all state offices in CT. Though participation is voluntary, the rate of participation is quite high. Participating candidates must raise a minimum number of donations no greater than $100 from residents of towns they represent. Lobbyists and the immediate family members of lobbyists are forbidden from contributing. For those of you who want to learn more, check out the State Elections Enforcement Commission.It is untrue that a yes vote will allow NGOs and citizens to have more say in anything, or that it will “INCREASE THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER IMPACT. VOTE YES!!” Using all-caps and exclamation points does not make it true.Vote No on Question 1.

  3. spazeboy

    It is misleading to say that state politicians are “in bed with special interests.” As of last year, we have in place a system for publicly financed elections that applies to all state offices in CT. Though participation is voluntary, the rate of participation is quite high. Participating candidates must raise a minimum number of donations no greater than $100 from residents of towns they represent. Lobbyists and the immediate family members of lobbyists are forbidden from contributing. For those of you who want to learn more, check out the State Elections Enforcement Commission.

    It is untrue that a yes vote will allow NGOs and citizens to have more say in anything, or that it will “INCREASE THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER IMPACT. VOTE YES!!” Using all-caps and exclamation points does not make it true.

    Vote No on Question 1.

  4. Anonymous

    I vote yes. This initiative will allow NGOs and citizens to have more say over politicians who are in bed with special interests. It will INCREASE THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER IMPACT. VOTE YES!!

  5. Anonymous

    I vote yes. This initiative will allow NGOs and citizens to have more say over politicians who are in bed with special interests. It will INCREASE THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER IMPACT. VOTE YES!!

  6. Anonymous

    I vote yes. This initiative will allow NGOs and citizens to have more say over politicians who are in bed with special interests. It will INCREASE THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER IMPACT. VOTE YES!!

  7. Anonymous

    Attention pro-choice people…A constitutional convention also would seriously jeopardize reproductive rights for women in the state. Heard what’s happening in South Dakota? Imagine that happening here. Vote NO!

  8. Anonymous

    Attention pro-choice people…A constitutional convention also would seriously jeopardize reproductive rights for women in the state. Heard what’s happening in South Dakota? Imagine that happening here. Vote NO!

  9. Anonymous

    Attention pro-choice people…A constitutional convention also would seriously jeopardize reproductive rights for women in the state. Heard what’s happening in South Dakota? Imagine that happening here. Vote NO!

  10. Anonymous

    Vote Yes! We need the State Consitution to allow Initiative Referenda. The vested special interest groups that own the State Legislature must be stopped. We need tax relief not by lowering taxes but by reducing costs at all levels of government. This can be accomplished by eliminating unfunded mandates and elimination of binding arbitration from government contracts to name two. Why are the three teacher unions in CT putting 1 Million dollars to support a “No” vote? Special Interests? Indeed!

  11. Anonymous

    Vote Yes! We need the State Consitution to allow Initiative Referenda. The vested special interest groups that own the State Legislature must be stopped. We need tax relief not by lowering taxes but by reducing costs at all levels of government. This can be accomplished by eliminating unfunded mandates and elimination of binding arbitration from government contracts to name two. Why are the three teacher unions in CT putting 1 Million dollars to support a “No” vote? Special Interests? Indeed!

  12. Anonymous

    Vote Yes! We need the State Consitution to allow Initiative Referenda. The vested special interest groups that own the State Legislature must be stopped. We need tax relief not by lowering taxes but by reducing costs at all levels of government. This can be accomplished by eliminating unfunded mandates and elimination of binding arbitration from government contracts to name two. Why are the three teacher unions in CT putting 1 Million dollars to support a “No” vote? Special Interests? Indeed!

  13. Anonymous

    Just fyi, I voted absentee elsewhere in CT and the question comes with information provided by the state. This consists of a very vague paragraph that makes it sound as though you should, as an American, say yes with phrases like “constitutional right” and “peoples voice”. So basically, I think I’m a pretty informed voter and I barely knew about the question and if I had only seen the state-provided paragraph I probably would have checked yes. Said another way, spread the word to vote No!

  14. Anonymous

    Just fyi, I voted absentee elsewhere in CT and the question comes with information provided by the state. This consists of a very vague paragraph that makes it sound as though you should, as an American, say yes with phrases like “constitutional right” and “peoples voice”. So basically, I think I’m a pretty informed voter and I barely knew about the question and if I had only seen the state-provided paragraph I probably would have checked yes. Said another way, spread the word to vote No!

  15. Anonymous

    Just fyi, I voted absentee elsewhere in CT and the question comes with information provided by the state. This consists of a very vague paragraph that makes it sound as though you should, as an American, say yes with phrases like “constitutional right” and “peoples voice”. So basically, I think I’m a pretty informed voter and I barely knew about the question and if I had only seen the state-provided paragraph I probably would have checked yes. Said another way, spread the word to vote No!

  16. Anonymous

    thanks for the heads up. i really do appreciate this bit of info, no matter how partisan it is.

Comments are closed.