William E. Curry Jr., the former state comptroller who twice ran unsuccessfully for governor, said Tuesday that he would not force a Democratic primary and seek a rematch with U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-5th District.
But Curry declined to rule out another run for a different elective office.
"I have no plans to seek public office at this time," he said. "But I don't feel as if I'm done with electoral politics. There's just a lot going on in my life right now that requires my attention."
Curry's denial came in response to an unusual challenge from Republican State Chairman George D. Gallo, who had insisted in a statement that the Democrat finally "come clean" about his political intentions.
Gallo, who did not return a telephone call seeking further comment, referred in his statement to a report by a Danbury News Times political columnist who wrote that Curry had admitted he had "intentionally avoided" talking about a potential rematch with Johnson.
Curry squared off against Johnson in 1982, when she won 52 percent of the vote to win her first term in Congress.
The columnist, Fred Lucas, wrote that Curry had refused to either confirm or deny speculation that he planned to get into a primary contest, challenging state Sen. Christopher S. Murphy, D-Southington, and J. Paul Vance Jr., the president of the Waterbury Board of Aldermen.
Lucas concluded that it was "a general rule of thumb that if a politician isn't strongly considering running for something, he'll just say no."
Murphy's bid for his party's nomination appears secure, especially since Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois congressman who serves as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, agreed to join him today for a campaign announcement in Hartford.
Vance, meanwhile, said Tuesday that he was ending his bid for Johnson's seat and would support the Democratic nominee.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
From the Journal-Inquirer
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
