Conservative Group Files Lawsuit Against Gov. & Lawmakers Over Budget
by Christine Stuart | May 6, 2011 2:13pm
(11) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Courts, Legal, State Budget
(Updated 5:55 p.m.) Two Republican lawmakers, two former lawmakers, and a conservative think tank called the Roger Sherman Liberty Center said Friday they will file this lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the budget Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed into law Wednesday afternoon.
Tom Scott, a former lawmaker and one of the plaintiffs, said the constitutional provision that requires the state’s expenditures to match its revenues was violated when it was adopted with a $2 billion hole.
“The Senators who voted for this and the representatives who voted for this and the governor who signed it into law violated their oath to protect the constitution of the state of Connecticut,“ Scott said standing on the steps of Hartford Superior Court. “This constitutional provision was designed to protect the taxpayers against the very thing that happened this week.”
Scott said the only remedy taxpayers have is to ask the third branch of government to intervene and protect the taxpayers.
He argued the language of the constitution is unambiguous it says: “The amount of general budget expenditures authorized for any fiscal year shall not exceed the estimated amount of revenue for such a fiscal year.”
Roy Occhiogrosso, Malloy’s senior adviser, said that the budget will be balanced by July 1 the start of the fiscal year. He said the lawsuit will be moot and the budget will be balanced either with union concessions or $1 billion in spending cuts.
“We researched the matter when the Republicans made this claim,” Colleen Flanagan, Malloy’s spokeswoman said. “We’ve reviewed the matter and are confident that it is fully compliant with the Connecticut constitution and that the courts won’t interfere with the duly adopted budget of the State of Connecticut.”
Sen. President Donald Williams, one of the named defendants in the lawsuit, said the Republican’s no-tax-increase budget also assumed $2 billion in union concessions.
“The Republican lawsuit is frivolous and hypocritical,” Williams said. “The same legislators who claim the $2 billion in savings is unconstitutional actually voted for a Republican budget amendment this week which included an even larger number. The lawsuit is a publicity stunt that will waste taxpayer money and Republican leadership should call for its immediate withdrawal.”
But Scott, who is not an attorney, said it’s not that cut and dry.
The budget Malloy signed into law relegates “$2 billion worth of policy to unelected bureaucrats,” Scott said. “One of our many claims is the citizens have no opportunity to participate in the process of this $2 billion question.”
Section 12 of the budget, which was debated and changed by the legislature before passage of the budget, allows lawmakers to come back and vote on $1 billion in spending cuts if Malloy fails to get the concessions he needs. However, it doesn’t require them to return to vote on the cuts or concessions. Originally it gave sole control of the spending cuts to Malloy’s Budget Director Ben Barnes.
“The fact that it’s not required is telling as is the fact that there’s no constitutional basis for section 12,” Scott said. “It was cobbled together by the House and Senate at the last minute.”
Sen. Len Suzio, R-Meriden, said to him the issue is very clear.
“At this point in time the so-called budget that’s been passed has a situation where revenues are exceeded by the expenditures by $1 billion a year,” Suzio said. “It’s not constitutional to pass a budget with a fill-in-the-blanks form to it.”
Even though they haven’t joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs, Senate Minority Leader John McKinney and House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero said they support the lawsuit because even though changes were made, it still doesn’t require a vote on the $1 billion in spending cuts. Cafero said the lawsuit would be moot if the legislature had adopted the language Republicans recommended.
McKinney said whether the budget signed by Malloy takes away some of the legislature’s constitutional authority is a question that needs to be asked.
The lawsuit will be filled by former attorney general candidate Martha Dean Friday afternoon. The lead plaintiff will be the Roger Sherman Liberty Center and the defendants are Malloy, Sen. President Donald Williams, Barnes, and House Speaker Chris Donovan.
Click here to read the lawsuit.
Tags: budget, lawsuit
(11) Comments
posted by: Bill M. | May 6, 2011 4:22pm
This certainly looks like a winner. Give them uniforms and they look like the cast of F Troop.
posted by: CTforFreedom | May 7, 2011 8:30am
As a struggling tax payer it’s nice to see the Roger Sherman Liberty Center take a stand for me and all other producers in CT that CAN NOT afford to pay more income taxes.
The Gov and legislators should pass a balanced budget instead of playing games with bonding (putting our debt on credit cards) and not following GAAP (generally accepted accoutning principals).
Thanks Roger Sherman Liberty Center!
posted by: Not that Michael Brown | May 7, 2011 6:43pm
I hear that failed AG candidate Martha Dean will be this group’s attorney. One of her platform items was that she would end “frivolous lawsuits.” She filed suit against all three of her political opponents. She lost every time.
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | May 7, 2011 8:26pm
ultimately a waste of time, but a good grandstanding/PR thing i suppose. if you are into that sort of thing.
HST
posted by: wmwallace | May 8, 2011 1:30am
I guess they should just roll over and play dead as Connecticut residents once again get their pockets picked by the politician in Hartford. I give them credit for doing something to protect their constituents.
posted by: hawkeye | May 8, 2011 11:53am
DrHuntersThompson: We already wasted our time—when we voted in a lifetime career politician like Donnell P. Malloy, as Governor.
We didn’t get what we deserved—but we got who we voted for—aided and abetted by an equally insane Democratic General Assembly!
Sorry you are in foir this sort of thing!
posted by: hawkeye | May 8, 2011 1:07pm
Not That Michael Brown: Martha Dean is responding to FRIVOLOUS TAXES - which you counter as a frivolous law suit.
It’s disheartening that some of our citizens support TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, and would describe a legal attempt to fight it—as FRIVOULOUS.
posted by: ... | May 9, 2011 2:10am
Say all you will about the tax policy hawkeye, but if you have a Rep. and you have a Sen. at the CGA, you are represented in this state. Simple as that.
If anything you should be saying in regards to the 2 billion Ben Barnes ‘supposedly’ has power over, “evisceration without representation”, as the alternative to the deal will be cuts and layoffs, no new tax increases from what has passed and been signed already.
posted by: Matt W. | May 9, 2011 11:42am
I’m with you DrHunter - total waste of time. However, to be fair, this is in response to Malloy’s political strategy to limit his own options with respect to the union negotiations and paint them as the bad guy if Plan B has to be adopted.
It’s political cowardice of the first order. He cannot stand up to the unions b/c he lacks the will to make the cuts through layoffs and otherwise so paints them into a corner politically in hopes that they will surrender what he needs.
And anyone who suggests that Plan B contains no tax increases is disingenuous at best. Does the bull care from which side it is skewered?
posted by: CTforFreedom | May 9, 2011 5:42pm
@michael brown: Gov Malloy signed into law a budget that IS NOT balanced. Article 28, section 18a of the CT Constitution states: The amount of general budget expenditures authorized for any fiscal year shall not exceed the estimated amount of revenue for such fiscal year.
Hence and UNCONSTITUTIONAL bill - since there is a $2 Bilion dollar whole on the revenue side.
posted by: ... | May 9, 2011 7:52pm
Since I’m guessing the ‘no new tax increases’ comment is being unintentionally directed at me Matt, let me clarify since I’ve said this in the past here about certain cuts and tax increases so much it hurts.
If the cuts come from municipal aid, there will be new taxes in the form of property taxes at the municipal level. That is obvious to anyone and I’ve fought hard for our state to prevent that from occurring.
What I stated in my post is that the tax package passed by the CGA is not going to throw in new taxes (like decide they need that 3 cents), as well as get rid of tax credits (tax free week or the 300$ credit) into its budget bill. Just want to clarify that.