For those new to the area, click here to read Congressman Ratchford's bio.
UPDATE: Attorney General-Elect George Jepsen released the following statement regarding the death of Congressman Ratchford
Bill Ratchford's passing this morning is sad for me personally and marks a loss for the people of Connecticut.
I got my start in politics working for Bill Ratchford. As a college student, I worked in his unsuccessful 1974 campaign for Congress, and managed his campaign in 1978 when he won the seat.
As House Speaker in the Connecticut General Assembly in the late 1960s, Bill Ratchford was an early advocate for high ethical standards and transparency in government. As a state legislator and congressman, he stood up to protect working families, the environment, and consumers. Finally, he was a kind, compassionate man, committed to his wife, Barbara, and to his family, who saw in public service the opportunity to help his community and enrich the lives of others. He will be missed.
Congressman Chris Murphy issued the following statement:
Bill Ratchford's advocacy for the elderly and his commitment to public service built a legacy that will live on in Danbury and communities across Connecticut. Shortly after I was sworn in to office, Bill came by to share some of his wisdom about the House of Representatives. More than twenty years had passed since he served in this seat, but his enthusiasm for policy and his passion for the people of Connecticut were just as strong as ever. He will be terribly missed, and my thoughts and prayers are with his wife Barbara and his family at this time.
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.
