One week after the election, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz repeated her call for a "sore loser law" that would essentially prevent a politician that loses a primary from being on the ballot again in the general election.
Just before speaking to students at Western Connecticut State University today, Bysiewicz said it would be part of her legislative package in 2007.
If such a law had it been in effect this year, it would have stopped U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman from running as an independent after he lost the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont.
This proposal would not affect write-in candidates, Bysiewicz said, such as Waterbury Mayor Mike Jarjura, who was re-elected as a write-in candidate in 2005 after first losing the Democratic primary.
This makes good common sense. Why have a primary in the first place if a person can just ignore the results of their party. Look at all the money wasted between Lamont and Lieberman during the summer only to have Lieberman ignore the results of the primary, jump on the GOP bandwagon, and win re-election based on 70 percent of the Republican vote which in turned probably resulted in Diane Farrell losing to Chris Shays and Joe Courtney going through a recount.
If people like Lieberman and Jarjura are so worried about losing a primary, they should leave the party and simply run as an independent from the get-go.
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.
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.
