If you care about redistricting, then I suggest that you pay attention at the goings on in Hartford as the state repares to redraw the state's district boundries.
Several State Rep and Senate races in Greater Danbury can be determined based on changing district boundries. A change in the boundres of district held by state lawmakers such as State State Julie Kushner (24 dist), State Rep Raghib Allie-Brennan (2nd dist) and Ken Gucker (138th dist) can benefit the incumbents will face a VERY challenging political landscape and most beleive stand a good chance at losing re-election.
I hope you're payign attention...trust me when I say that state lawmakers are paying VERY close attention as their future can be determined on the borderline of their district.
The General Assembly’s bipartisan Reapportionment Commission is expected to vote Thursday on new maps for the 151 state House Districts to reflect population shifts counted by the pandemic-delayed 2020 Census.
On Wednesday, the House and Senate members of the commission emerged from their separate negotiating sessions with a deal on the House map but work remaining on the Senate map, according to House leaders.
As was the case 10 years ago, the commission might not set boundaries of the state’s five U.S. House districts by the Nov. 30 deadline, subjecting the congressional map to review by the Connecticut Supreme Court.
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.
