Latest Column: Special Session, Same Old Trick: Hide the Ball, Pass the Bill (December 2025)

What Connecticut witnessed during the November special legislative session was not governance. It certainly wasn’t leadership. It was the raw exercise of political power by a majority so comfortable and so dismissive of basic procedural norms that they no longer bother pretending otherwise.

And to be clear, this was a special session. These are supposed to be reserved for genuine emergencies. Yet when I asked the majority to explain what “emergency” justified any of these bills, there were no credible answers. Special sessions let the majority sidestep normal rules: no public hearings, no meaningful notice, no time for legislators to read bills, and none of the tools the minority uses to force cooperation. They prefer this setup because it neuters accountability. All you get is hype, buzzwords, and whatever talking points they choose. The real facts rarely resemble the sales pitch.

For years, I’ve warned that the Democratic supermajority treats process, transparency, and fairness as inconveniences. This session proved it again. Public notice? Forget it. Time to read what you’re voting on? Forget it. Respect for legislators who simply want to understand the bills? Forget that, too. When you hold two-to-one majorities, you can ignore everyone and still get your way.

The first bill was a $500 million slush fund cleverly dressed up as a humanitarian measure. We were told it was needed to ensure people wouldn’t miss their SNAP benefits during the federal shutdown, except the shutdown ended the night before the session. A normal legislature would have stopped right there. Instead, legislative Democrats forged ahead because the SNAP excuse was never the real objective. They wanted the money and the power to spend it.

The bill’s design made that obvious. The funds could be used for almost anything if a majority of the six legislative leaders agreed. Four of those six are Democrats. That tells you all you need to know.

I offered a better idea: return the money directly to the people who earned it. A $400 credit, perhaps more, on next year’s tax return to every Connecticut taxpayer. But giving people their own money back has never appealed to those who prefer hoarding half a billion dollars of discretionary spending power.

The second bill was the majority’s favorite style of legislation: a policy grab-bag omnibus. Unrelated items thrown together solely because they have the votes. A few pieces were decent and might have earned bipartisan support on their own. Of course, that is exactly why they weren’t allowed to stand alone. Instead, they added a reckless new restriction preventing federal immigration officers from detaining or arresting anyone inside a Connecticut courthouse. That’s right: not in a safe, controlled environment where everyone is screened and security is present. That would make sense and good policy. They even debated whether ICE agents could stand on courthouse property at all, including the sidewalk. It would be funny if it weren’t dangerous. Once again, elected Democrats voted down party lines to protect criminal illegal aliens instead of protecting the people of Connecticut.

The third bill, the so-called “hospital bill,” may be one of the most overzealous acts of irresponsibility I’ve witnessed in government. It authorizes UConn Health, meaning us taxpayers, to purchase three failing private hospitals and take on all their liabilities forever. And here is the part that should alarm anyone who cares about good government: this vote was only to authorize the deal. The actual purchase, terms, obligations, and long-term commitments will be negotiated behind closed doors and will never return to the legislature. In other words, we were asked to sign a blank check for a deal we weren’t allowed to fully read.

The administration framed this as the only way to “save” jobs and patients. That is false. A responsible private buyer would be far preferable, if private buyers could only survive in the environment majority Democrats created. Yale New Haven itself passed on the deal, which should tell you something. My responsibility is to protect my constituents, not hand them the bill for the largest expansion of state government in decades with no plan and no escape route.

Finally, we reached the 104-page housing bill, a central-planning fantasy disguised as policy. The House received it an hour before voting. The Senate was given, generously, a day. This bill undermines local zoning, hands power to unelected regional bureaucrats, prohibits so-called “hostile architecture” (because the majority believes playground-adjacent sleeping benches are enlightened urban planning), and punishes housing providers until many will flee or shut down.

And make no mistake: this is about control. They want the authority to impose 50-unit apartment blocks next to cul-de-sacs and homeless sleeping in parks, all decided in Hartford, by people who never live with the consequences.

When I pressed the Senate Majority Leader on basic facts, rental availability, whether a shortage even exists, how this bill would meaningfully create affordable housing, he couldn’t answer. Instead, he offered snark about the President and empty rhetoric. It was pure egomania on display. The message was clear: I don’t deserve real answers, and neither does the public.
This is what one-party rule looks like: bad policy, no accountability, no transparency, and no respect for the people of Connecticut or the representatives they elect. That must change. Next November, voters must finally hold accountable those responsible for harming our great state.