The uncharacteristically early 22-12 Senate vote came just two days after the House voted 89-60 in favor of the bill.

Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, said the chamber took it up so quickly because of the critical need for the state to address the alarming public health changes at the federal level.

“Attacks on vaccine science, cuts to public health infrastructure and measles outbreaks in states that have loosened their immunization standards demonstrate the need for urgency in Connecticut,” said Duff in a statement. “Connecticut has an obligation to act quickly and decisively. That is why we moved on this bill today.”

The proposal, backed by Gov. Ned Lamont, would expand the power of the state’s Public Health Commissioner to establish vaccine recommendations for both adults and children, guarantee insurance coverage of recommended shots and allow the agency to purchase doses from sources other than the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Hundreds of members of the public came out against the bill during a March hearing. Over 500 people signed up to speak and, several hours into the hearing, the vast majority of those who testified had opposed the measure, calling it an example of government overreach and erosion of religious freedom.

Connecticut had the highest MMR, or measles, mumps and rubella, vaccination rates in the nation among kindergarteners for the 2024-25 school year.

During the debate on the floor, Senate Republicans took issue with several parts of the legislation, including that even though Democrats argue that the DPH commissioner’s vaccine recommendations, or “standard of care,” isn’t a mandate, it could still have very real implications in the lives of doctors and patients.

Republican lawmakers raised amendments to protect doctors from legal action if their patients chose not to follow the “standard of care” and to prohibit discrimination by employers and insurers against residents who choose not to follow the “standard of care.” They all failed.

Sen. Saud Anwar, D-South Windsor, co-chair of the Public Health Committee, said he empathized in particular with fears surrounding insurers, but said he didn’t want to risk sending the bill back to the House if amended and suggested the legislature find another way to address the issue in the future.

Lamont has previously said the bill is meant to “to speak clearly on the importance of vaccines” amidst “mixed messages” from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the leadership of vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Last year, Kennedy ousted and replaced all 17 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee, known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP. He also reduced the number of immunizations recommended broadly for all children from 17 to 11.

In March, a federal judge issued an order temporarily blocking every major vaccine policy change made in the last year, ruling that Kennedy and the ACIP committee had ignored the traditional scientific process for establishing recommendations.

As of January, 27 states and the District of Columbia now deviate from federal guidelines for some or all childhood vaccines, according to KFF Health News.

Republicans and Democrats historically held similar views concerning vaccines. But since the pandemic, trust in vaccinations has eroded along party lines.

As of 2025, upwards of 85% of Democrats agreed with public school vaccine requirements, but only roughly half of Republicans reported the same, down from 79% in October 2019, according to a survey from Pew Research Center.

Katy Golvala is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).

Lawmakers are currently considering a bill, HB 5312, that would allow an individual who has been the subject of an AI-created sexual image to bring a lawsuit against the person that publicizes it. It would also allow the state attorney general to bring lawsuits against companies that don’t promptly remove such images, when requested, from their platforms.

“ I think everybody knows what we’re talking about because of the proliferation of images on websites, videos on websites — thousands, millions, probably billions of images that are on the internet without the consent of the subject,” Tong said during a press conference on Thursday.

Tong referenced an expose on CNN that revealed a network of websites and group chats on platforms like Telegram in which men uploaded videos of drugging and raping their wives and advised others how to do the same.

State Rep. Craig Fishbein, R-Wallingford, who has worked with Tong on the legislation, said he’d heard stories on a podcast about girls whose pictures were taken at a party and then manipulated and distributed throughout their school.

“This is good-sense practice, to put tools in the crux of our attorney general’s arm so that he can use it to save not only children, but adults also,” Fishbein said.

Under the proposal, a person has two years from the time they discover the image has been spread to bring forward a lawsuit. That person can also request anonymity during the proceedings.

Tong is part of a coalition of 35 attorneys general who sent a letter to xAI calling on the company to stop Grok, its AI chatbot, from producing nonconsensual sexual images, take down the images it has already created and suspend users who have created those images.

Last year, Congress passed, and the president signed into law, the Take It Down Act, which makes it a federal crime to spread nonconsensual AI-generated sexual images and requires online platforms to remove these images within 48 hours of being flagged.

“The rate at which our world is changing and making it more unsafe for people who are victims of this type of activity and crime — the curve … is changing at an exponential pace,” Tong said.

A bill passed by the state legislature last year made it a class D misdemeanor to transmit an AI-generated sexual image, and a class C misdemeanor if the person sent the image to multiple people on a virtual platform.

But Tong said adding on the right to sue would allow people to gain compensation for the destruction of having a sexual image or video of them spread online.

“ There’s not only embarrassment and humiliation. There are often severe financial ramifications. People lose their jobs, they lose their kids, they lose their housing,” Tong said.

Rep. Steven Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, said the bill was an attempt to make the law catch up with evolving technology.

“ Unfortunately, oftentimes these pictures and videos can be really indistinguishable from real life. I mean, I think we’ve all had the occasion of scrolling social media and seeing an image, or having one sent to us, and saying, ‘Wait, what? Huh?’ And then you realize it’s an AI generated image,” Stafstrom said.

The bill would require social media or other online platforms to remove any such image within 48 hours of being asked to do so. Companies that fail to remove an image or images within two days could be charged up to $25,000 per day in fines, and could be sued by the attorney general.

Beth Hamilton, executive director of Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual Violence, said she hopes allowing these actions to move forward in court, and the threat of a $25,000 daily fine, would be enough to persuade companies to remove these images. She said people are often unable to convince companies to take down images no matter how many times they make requests.

Hamilton said the majority of cases she sees aren’t necessarily AI-generated. More frequently, someone will provide a consensual image that is then manipulated or spread around without the person’s consent.

“ I think technology-facilitated abuse continues to be something that is really rampant. And the challenge, I think, on the other side of that, is that oftentimes it’s not taken as seriously as other types of abuse,” Hamilton said. She added that survivors of this type of abuse often experience trauma and PTSD similar to what they might experience if they had been a victim of sexual violence.

This is not the only bill Tong and lawmakers have been pushing for that is designed to promote online safety and regulate Artificial Intelligence.

On Wednesday, the Senate passed a bulky bill focused on AI regulation that would, among other things, require chatbots that can simulate human-like interactions to include a method for detecting expressions of self-harm or suicidal thoughts, and direct people to mental health resources. The chatbots would be prohibited from mimicking a romantic relationship, encouraging harmful behavior or engaging in a sexually explicit relationship.

The same bill also would place parameters around minors’ use of social media, including required age verification and parental permission for sites that use personalized algorithms, mental health warnings that pop up every three hours and limits on notifications to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 p.m.

Emilia Otte is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).

Known for his outgoing personality, Dargan developed long-standing friendships with some of Connecticut’s top Democrats, including former Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, former House Speaker Tom Ritter, and longtime judiciary committee co-chairman Michael P. Lawlor. He was known for calling them on a regular basis on his cell phone to trade tips and quips about the latest updates on politics, sports and other news.

In one of the longest committee stints in decades, Dargan served as co-chairman of the legislature’s public safety committee for 22 years under four different House speakers. The committee oversaw all aspects of gambling, which was a key topic during those years. Lawmakers also focused on police issues on the committee as Dargan described himself as “a friend of law enforcement.”

After 26 years as a state legislator, Dargan was nominated by Malloy for a full-time position on the Board of Pardons and Paroles, which oversees whether inmates can be released from prison. His service spilled over into the administration of Gov. Ned Lamont, where he worked fulltime until his diagnosis of cancer.

Known as a moderate Democrat, Dargan also developed friendships across the aisle with numerous Republicans, including then-House Republican leader Larry Cafero of Norwalk.

“When I started in the legislature, Chairman Dargan was a giant — chairman of the Committee on Public Safety, highly respected and well loved by his colleagues,” said William Tong, a Democrat who served in the House before winning the election for state attorney general in 2018. “He never took himself too seriously, and I could count on him to give me a good ribbing when I deserved it. We loved him, all of us, and our state was made better, and much safer, because of Steve Dargan.”

Tong and Dargan worked together, along with others, to pass landmark gun safety legislation after the shootings in December 2012 at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. As the committee co-chairman, Dargan led the debate on the floor of the House of Representatives on the Sandy Hook bill.

As a fellow Democrat in nearby West Haven, Dargan worked closely with U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro of New Haven on various issues for decades.

“Elected to our respective seats, myself to Congress and Steve to the General Assembly, in the same year, we developed a special kinship, rooted in our passion for service,” DeLauro said of their election victories in 1990. “I am saddened to hear of his passing and grateful for the many years of friendship and support we shared. I will miss his gregarious nature, ready smile, and big heart.”

DeLauro said that Dargan “exemplified what it means to be a civil servant — demonstrating deep dedication to his community and fighting to make a difference in the lives of others.”

Fighting cancer

Despite being diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer, Dargan continued calling his friends on a regular basis and receiving telephone calls in return. He also set up various luncheons with former colleagues to chat about politics, sports and the UConn basketball teams.

During his illness, Dargan could no longer drive his car because the cancer made him suffer from double vision. Instead, he relied on friends for his doctors’ appointments and other transportation needs. It was the double vision that led to his diagnosis as his ophthalmologist told him to go to the emergency room, leading to a week-long hospital stay that resulted in the diagnosis.

But Dargan maintained a positive attitude throughout his illness.

“I have a warped sense of humor, a lot of friends, and a positive attitude,” Dargan told The Courant in July 2025. “It helps big time. Like Frank Sinatra, I have no regrets.”

He underwent treatments at the Smilow Center at Yale University, noting that it was only three miles away from his home in West Haven.

One of Dargan’s closest friends, former longtime state employee Scott DeVico, was among a group of friends who attended numerous UConn men’s basketball games through the years, including the Final Four.

“Steve was truly a special person, and I was blessed to have him in my life,” said DeVico, who was at Dargan’s bedside with family members when he died. “He was a second father, a brother, and a best friend to me for over 30 years.”

State parole board

At the time of his appointment to the state parole board, Dargan was the longest-serving committee co-chair in the General Assembly and one of the longest in recent state history after serving as House chairman of the public safety committee for 22 years.

After being approached by the Malloy administration for the job, Dargan was torn about leaving the state Capitol because he enjoyed dealing with his colleagues and thrived on the seeming chaos of the rough-and-tumble of the legislature.

“I’ve always loved the job,” Dargan said of his legislative career. “I love working with everyone in the building. It’s a long time, and it’s something I’ve always loved.”

Dargan, who met personally with Malloy before taking the parole post, added that the decision was “difficult” due to “the years of friendships” he developed on both sides of the political aisle and the enjoyment of the hurly burly of the House floor.

Through the years, Dargan was involved in high-profile issues in the legislature because the public safety committee legislates guns and gambling. He became one of the legislature’s leading authorities on gambling. Dargan was also a behind-the-scenes adviser to Speakers of the House and top staff members for more than two decades.

“The legislature will miss Steve not only from a policy perspective, but also for his friendship and good-natured sense of humor,” incoming House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz said at the time.

As his friends knew of his diagnosis, Dargan received multiple awards in his final years.

One of them was being named West Haven’s 2025 Irishman of the Year in ceremonies that were held in his hometown on St. Patrick’s Day. As the grandson of Irish immigrants, Dargan traveled to Ireland multiple times through the years, including with his longtime friend, the Rev. Mark R. Jette.

“I’m honored by my Irish heritage and to live in West Haven,” Dargan said at the time. “With the number of multicultural people that we have, it’s an honor to represent my Irish heritage.”

The award is a family tradition because Dargan’s father, Robert, won the award in 2012, making them the only father-son duo to receive the award in West Haven history.

Capitol photos

In a long-running tradition, Dargan told colleagues that he had a formula on how to get his picture in the newspaper from the final day of the legislative session. Whenever Dargan saw a photographer enter the House chamber, he would immediately walk up to the House Speaker’s elevated dais and start talking with the chamber’s top leader. At various times, Dargan was photographed with Speakers James Amann and Chris Donovan, among others.

After Dargan’s death, Lawlor posted multiple photographs on Facebook that showed Dargan with colleagues in the House chamber as he had described.

“One of my proudest accomplishments, in concert with Dargan, was the final day of the legislative session gesticulation pose to get our photo on the front page of the paper on the day after,” Lawlor wrote. “Each time with a different special guest.”

U.S. Rep. John B. Larson, who served with Dargan in the legislature during the state income tax battles with Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr., described Dargan as a friend.

“He was a person with a heart of gold, a good sense of humor, and a deep understanding of what the people he was sworn to serve needed and had the dedication to get it accomplished,” Larson said. “As chairman of the Committee on Public Safety, he rallied our state after the tragic Sandy Hook shooting to enact some of the strongest gun safety laws in the nation – and save lives. Steve will be deeply missed, not only for his expertise as a legislator but for the person he was, and the impact he had on so many of us.”

House Speaker Matt Ritter knew Dargan as “Uncle Steve” when he visited the Capitol decades ago as a young boy when his father, Thomas Ritter, was serving as Speaker in the mid-1990s.

“People like Steve are why this place is great,” Ritter told reporters. “He was so proud of his service here, so proud of his reputation in the public safety world. It’s a sad day. He means a great deal to many people in this room, including me.”

Calling hours are scheduled from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Friday, May 1 at the West Haven Funeral Home. A Mass of Christian Burial is scheduled at 10 a.m. on May 2 at Holy Infant Roman Catholic Church in Orange.

Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@courant.com 

Lamont spoke at a press conference Thursday alongside members of the Connecticut Tenants Union, housing advocates, members of the General Assembly and faith leaders. The governor has previously stayed out of the debate on the issue of eviction reform, which has come up the past few legislative sessions.

“Your apartment is your home. Your apartment is dignity. Your apartment is respect. Your apartment is access to a local school for your child, knowing where that’s going to be, knowing it’s not going to change on short notice, knowing you have a little continuity and a little bit of respect. This bill is about a little bit of respect for folks who are playing by the rules,” said the governor, who is running for a third term and faces a challenger from the left for a primary race. Rep. Josh Elliott, D-Hamden, is running against the incumbent and has criticized Lamont’s record on housing.

Senate Bill 257 would largely end no-fault evictions, which typically occur at the end of a lease. These are evictions in which the landlord isn’t claiming that the tenant did anything specific wrong, but wants them out of the apartment. If passed, the law would only apply to buildings with five or more units.

Landlords say they use these types of evictions when people are a nuisance or danger on the property — for example, if someone smokes in the hallways. But tenants say no-fault evictions are destabilizing to people and the community, and that larger landlords often use them to conduct evictions en mass and raise the rent.

The bill has faced fierce criticism from Republicans who say it violates landlords’ property rights and could discourage people from renting out their properties altogether. Landlord groups have also opposed the measure, saying it would make it harder for them to evict problem tenants.

“When a tenant violates their lease or creates an unsafe situation that is disruptive or threatening to other apartment residents, ending the lease at its end date is the only reasonable tool housing providers have to protect their communities. This idea has failed in each of the past two years, it has bipartisan opposition, and nothing has changed since then to make this a workable bill,” said Jessica Doll, executive director of the Connecticut Apartment Association, in a statement.

Lamont said he decided to be more outspoken on the issue because of a tough housing market and news about landlords of large properties evicting lots of tenants at once.

“I think the market has gotten really tight. I think in some cases, some of the landlords got a little arrogant,” Lamont said. “People are playing by the rules, all the rules in the lease, and you can’t treat them differently just because you don’t like them.”

Over the past couple of years, lawmakers have tried to run the bill through the House first. This year, they’ve decided to start with the Senate. Housing Committee co-Chair Sen. Martha Marx, D-New London, said she was confident that it would be called.

“I am telling everybody behind me to fight like you are a badass, and it is your apartment that is going to be taken away,” Marx said, adding that it was time to put pressure on the House.

Lamont said Thursday he plans to help with that effort. Asked whether he’d talk to Democratic lawmakers who were on the fence about the bill, Lamont said “that’s what I do for a living.”

Housing Committee co-Chair Rep. Antonio Felipe, D-Bridgeport, declined to comment on expected vote counts in the House. Earlier this week, House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford, indicated he didn’t think the House had the votes to pass the bill, although he said he wanted to give Felipe time to work on it.

“Instead of helping you address those living conditions, they look at you, dismiss your problems, dismiss you as a human being, and force you out,” Felipe said of landlords. “Then they say, ‘Oh, you know what, we’re not getting enough rent from this person.’ They force you out, so they can raise the rent, make sure they can price you out of getting the next apartment, and that’s just something that we can’t abide by.”

Tenants also shared their stories about being evicted without cause.

“If we’re paying our rent on time, there is no reason why you should be coming to us and saying, ‘You know what? I don’t want you here,’” said Michael Duffy, vice president of a New London tenant union. Duffy and many of his neighbors got eviction notices when a large company purchased their apartment complex late last year.

East Hartford resident Maria Martinez trailed after Lamont as he left the press conference, handing one of his aides a folder with detailed information about her daughter’s pending eviction in Hartford, which she claims is tied to discrimination. One of the common problems raised by renters about no-fault evictions is that they are used in discriminatory ways or as retaliation against tenants who complain about poor housing conditions.

“We cannot be silent,” Martinez said. “This is an abuse.”

Lamont left with promises that his office would review the documents.

“We won’t forget about your daughter,” he said.

Ginny Monk is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).

Lawmakers said they were taking a necessary step because Connecticut has some of the weakest regulations in the nation regarding homeschooling. They said they felt compelled to take action by changing the law after three shocking child abuse cases in Waterbury, New Britain, and Enfield that have generated major headlines in recent months.

After more than 5 1/2 hours of debate, the House voted 96 to 53 for the bill at about 11:45 p.m. Thursday. Four House Democrats, including Rep. Minnie Gonzalez of Hartford, joined with all 49 Republicans against the bill.

The legislature stripped out some of the most controversial provisions in order to guarantee that the measure would pass, lawmakers said. The bill no longer includes a highly controversial “equivalent instruction” provision that had concerned homeschool families and public school educators who said they did not have the personnel to oversee the curriculum for students who were not attending public schools.

The measure, known as House Bill 5468, now goes to the Senate, which will not convene again until Tuesday as lawmakers race to finish legislation before the 2026 regular session ends on May 6.

House Speaker Matt Ritter, a Hartford Democrat, said that the bill was “caucus adjusted,’ meaning that it was rewritten to satisfy the necessary majority of legislators to ensure passage. But Ritter said he was only concerned about the final version of the bill and did not want to debate provisions that had already been stripped out or future years’ revisions.

“The term ‘slippery slope’ is the laziest intellectual argument that has ever existed in mankind because it can be used for anything,” Ritter told reporters before the debate. “I hate it. I hate it, so I don’t want to hear about slippery slopes.”

Both Ritter and House majority leader Jason Rojas of East Hartford said it is possible that there could be changes in the future.

“There will have to be a new hearing, a new bill, elections,” Ritter said, looking ahead.

New provisions

The controversial bill was watered down to two main provisions: the first is that parents of all children – whether homeschooled, public or private school – will be required to fill out an “intent to educate form” every year, starting in July 2028, so that the state education department will know where the child is being educated. But advocates said that those in public and private schools will be automatically registered because their names are already in the system. As a result, homeschool supporters maintained that they were still being singled out for disparate treatment by being required to fill out the form every year.

If the child does not show up at school at the start of the school year, the district must try to reach the parents at least three times before contacting the state education department to track down the child.

If signed into law, Connecticut would join 38 states in requiring an annual registry to track students.

The second provision is that students and families must be cross-checked by the state Department of Children and Families if parents submit a withdrawal form starting in July 2027 in order for the child to be home-schooled. The one-time check, under an existing portal in school systems, is to determine whether the family has had an active DCF investigation within the past 33 business days, a timeframe that is set by state law. If a family had a DCF case that was closed 60 days earlier, for example, then the child could be withdrawn. If there is an active DCF investigation or someone in the household over the age of 18 is on the DCF central registry, then the child cannot be withdrawn for home schooling, lawmakers said.

In the bill, homeschooling is described as “parent-managed learning,” which lawmakers described as a new term.

Months of work

The debate Thursday night came after months of discussions, hearings, and the rewriting of the bill into the final 17-page version.

“This was obviously a heavy lift,” said Rep. Jennifer Leeper, a Fairfield Democrat who co-chairs the legislature’s education committee. “This is a difficult issue. … We are an outlier of low or essentially no regulations.”

Leeper and others admitted that the state cannot stop all tragedies involving children.

“It is not a panacea,” said Leeper, adding that the bill was written after the disclosure of cases of “child torture.”

Leeper remained on her feet throughout the debate for nearly six hours to answer scores of questions by Republicans.

Ritter and others said the legislature can always come back next year and try to adopt more provisions.

“That’s always possible,” Ritter said.

House Republican leader Vincent Candelora of North Branford said that few Republicans support the measure.

“I think that bill really misses the mark if we are concerned about children falling through the cracks who are being abused,” Candelora said. “That’s what our focus should be. … It’s an attempt to regulate homeschooling, and that’s not our issue. Our issue is when children are in DCF custody or report of DCF abuse or neglect, how are those children monitored? The focus, unfortunately, is registering homeschooled children.”

He added, “It is the first step to regulate homeschooling. The next is curriculum review, and that is where families start to object.”

Rep. Anthony Nolan, a New London Democrat who was first elected in 2018, said the original version of the bill was “hard to swallow,” but it became palatable when various items were removed.

“We really worked hard on this bill,” Nolan said. “I know that there are parents out there who will still say, ‘I don’t like the bill.’ Again, we’re trying to protect the children in the state of Connecticut.”

Rep. Mark DeCaprio, a Lebanon Republican who described himself as a homeschooling father and grandfather over a span of 25 years, said, “We homeschooled our children in the family room. … The state should not be interfering with the relationship in the family. As far as child neglect, when you consider the checks that are already in place, there are mandated reporters – doctors, police officers.”

He added, “I knew a lot about science, but in history I was very weak, and I learned a lot through the years. … The homeschoolers have really thrived. For the circle of people we know, that has been the case.”

Three cases

The impetus for the legislation was a shocking case last year in Waterbury that was following by two other cases in New Britain and Enfield. In Waterbury, an emaciated 32-year-old man who was rescued from a fire last year said that he had purposely set the blaze in his bedroom to attract attention because he had been essentially imprisoned there for years after being pulled out of the Waterbury public schools as a child.

In a second case, an 11-year-old girl, who was found dead behind an abandoned house in New Britain, weighed only 27 pounds at the time of her death. Ruling that the death was a homicide, the chief medical examiner’s office said she died from fatal child abuse with starvation. A third case involved a 12-year-old girl in Enfield who died in March. The cause of death remains unknown but her stepfather has been charged with sexually assaulting her. The stepfather had been a bus driver in the Enfield public school system.

The cases placed a spotlight on homeschooling, but homeschool parents say they are largely highly diligent about educating their children and should not be penalized for the other cases. Instead, they say the state Department of Children and Families, which had interactions with all of the victims, should have ensured the children’s safety.

State education commissioner Charlene Russell-Tucker said that 1,800 children left public schools for homeschooling in the last fiscal year, along with another 3,700 who departed public schools to attend private schools.

Rep. Lezlye Zupkus of Prospect, the ranking House Republican on the education committee, spent nearly 2 1/2 hours Thursday night on the House floor as she questioned Leeper on every section of the bill.

“This bill is about regulating homeschooling. Period,” Zupkus told reporters. “It targets the homeschoolers. We want to protect every child. … You’re still attacking homeschoolers.”

Zupkus said on the House floor that many children in public schools are not reading at grade level, based on test scores. She also questioned the cost of the bill, saying she had been told it would be $500,000 because DCF would need to hire two new staff members and change algorithms to make the program work.

But Leeper said that the legislature’s nonpartisan fiscal office estimated that the cost would be $165,000 in the first year and that the work could be accomplished essentially on a part-time basis with the equivalent of half of a fulltime salary.

“I’m really disappointed because I wanted a bill to keep every child safe in this state, no matter where we are,” Zupkus said in her wrap-up remarks. “A sixth-grader hung herself, due to bullying. There’s no silver bullet to ensure what these evil people did to their children. It is only one group of people that we are focused on in this bill.”

Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@courant.com 

Shortly after Hartford officials finished celebrating “AI Day” downtown, legislators in the Capitol on Tuesday voted 32-4 for an amended Senate Bill 5, a comprehensive AI proposal that regulates developers of “frontier” AI models, outlines the creation of a state AI “sandbox” to help companies test new technologies and creates new regulations around youth social media and AI chatbot use, among other provisions.

“What we’re doing is we’re putting in important protections,” said Sen. James Maroney, D-Milford, the co-chair of the General Law Committee and S.B. 5’s main author.

“Sometimes these machines get things wrong,” he said.

Determining the best way to regulate artificial intelligence has been a contentious issue in Connecticut for years, with the Senate, House and governor’s office all divided on the best way to deal with a technology that is changing faster than regulations can keep up. Despite a last-minute compromise, last year’s effort to pass regulation cleared the Senate, but fell apart due to a veto threat from Lamont, who has long worried that too much regulation would hurt businesses and hamper innovation in the state.

This session, after years of efforts to pass legislation, and as questions around AI use, intellectual property, and privacy rights become more pressing, legislators argued that a bill needs to be passed.

“I think that this will do more good than any negative,” said Sen. Paul Cicarella, R-North Haven.

S.B. 5 contains a number of AI-related regulations and provisions, including on employment-related decision-making, and AI-related tasks and programs within state agencies.

The bill also includes efforts to expand awareness of and involvement in AI-based workforce development in the state, such as promoting the Connecticut AI Academy among the parents and guardians of state baby bond recipients and unemployed workers, offering AI education support for small businesses and expanding AI literacy programs for teachers and state workforce programs.

Previous versions of the bill were replaced with a strike-all amendment introduced by Maroney Tuesday afternoon. To help lawmakers understand the new bill before them, Maroney and Cicarella, the ranking senator on the General Law Committee, engaged in a lengthy back and forth, with Cicarella asking the committee chair to explain the majority of the bill over the course of the first hour of debate.

Lawmakers had previously expressed concern around the size of the legislation, a 40-section omnibus bill that regulates a range of AI-related topics in the state. “There’s so much to the bill,” Sen. Henri Martin, R-Bristol, said shortly before the bill was called. “We may want to consider not doing so much and really keep it simple.”

But legislators ultimately decided that the proposal, even with lawmakers’ limited time to review the latest changes, should move forward.

A different approach

This year lawmakers took a different approach to AI policy, opting to target specific uses of artificial intelligence more so than specific users. The focus is largely on a targeted list of AI-related issues including data privacy, online safety of minors, and AI-related workforce development.

The approach mostly sidesteps regulations that would create new requirements for the state’s businesses, an issue that halted previous efforts to pass an AI bill.

The latest AI bill arrived on the Senate floor as a patchwork that resulted from folding multiple bills into S.B. 5. The bill now includes pieces of legislation that cleared other committees earlier in the session, including a provision from the Labor and Public Employees Committee that focused on automated employment decision-making.

Senate Bill 5 also now includes portions of two Gov. Ned Lamont-backed bills, Senate Bill 86 and House Bill 5037, adding in provisions around a state-managed “regulatory sandbox” that would allow companies to test new technologies and products, as well as governor-supported regulations around youth social media use and interactions with AI chatbots.

The latter proposal has been controversial this session, with parents, technology policy groups and digital rights organizations arguing that H.B. 5037 inserts the state into conversations around youth online activity that should be left to parents.

The digital organizations also argue that the measure’s age verification provisions introduce privacy concerns, noting that the bill will require age verification of all social media users to be effective. To accomplish that task, more data about users across the state would need to be collected, just as legislators seek to further strengthen the state’s data privacy laws and help consumers pull their information offline.

But the bill’s supporters countered that the legislation is needed to help negate the harms of extensive social media and chatbot use on children, an issue that has become a priority for the attorney general’s office and the governor this year.

“We have to understand that there is a problem,” said Sen. Saud Anwar, D-South Windsor, after recounting the story of a teenage boy who died by suicide after being encouraged by an AI chatbot. “We need to have important protections in place.”

The latest amendments, however, have ultimately moved Senate Bill 5 closer to having a similar scale and breadth as 2025’s Senate Bill 2, the failed comprehensive AI bill Maroney previously introduced. During a brief interview with the Connecticut Mirror on Tuesday morning, Maroney said that with numerous AI bills on the Senate’s calendar and the end of the session quickly approaching, condensing the legislation was needed.

“There’s not as much time to get things done, so we’re trying to combine where we can,” he said.

But the approach proved to be divisive, with some GOP senators arguing that the new bill additions arrived so late that lawmakers had no chance to understand the bill they were voting on.

“I just got this bill,” said Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, who criticized the legislation extensively Tuesday evening. “This is yet another strike all amendment. I think the third or fourth one that we’ve gotten in about 24 hours.”

Old concerns remain prevalent

Even with the changes this year, much of the debate on the bill echoed previous arguments that have been raised against the state adopting artificial intelligence legislation.

Much of that centered on the argument that artificial intelligence is still a new technology, and that attempting to regulate it at this time is premature. Some legislators argued that even as other states move forward with legislation, Connecticut should not be trying to pass a state AI law, saying that it is up to the federal government to regulate.

“I fear crafting legislation in the state of Connecticut with 4 million people, on a technology that is really unknown, and is evolving by literally the second,” said Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, R-Brookfield. “This should be done at the federal level.”

Opposing lawmakers also argued that even with the bill changes, businesses would still be negatively affected by the legislation.

“We may be creating a roadblock that hampers business success, business innovation,” said Sen. Tony Hwang, R-Fairfield.

The bill’s latest amendments seem aimed at getting one key party on board: Lamont. By incorporating the governor’s social media and regulatory sandbox proposals, the legislation is now much more closely tied with issues that the governor has marked as a priority.

In a statement, the governor’s office acknowledged the bill’s upsides. “The Governor has said that the potential benefits posed by AI must be balanced with the safety of its users,” said spokesperson Cathryn Vaulman. “This bill provides helpful clarity and promotes user safety in specific use cases.”

With the latest vote, the bill now moves to the House, which opted to not take up last year’s AI proposal.

Lawmakers say that after several failed attempts, passing the artificial intelligence bill remains necessary. “History will not look with favor on those who say that we should wait,” said Senate President Pro Tem Martin Looney, D-New Haven. “Things are changing so quickly.”

P.R. Lockhart is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).

But officials will be challenged to maintain and boost these investments one year from now. That’s because various loopholes they’ve used to work around state budget caps are closing simultaneously, even as aid from Washington shrinks precipitously.

“We’re going to get to a balanced budget,” Lamont said late Wednesday afternoon after meeting privately with legislative leaders for nearly three hours in his Capitol office. “We talked about some of our towns and cities that are having a really tough time. … We’re in a good place.”

Chris Collibee, the governor’s budget spokesman, did not discuss specifics. But he said, “A budget that addresses the needs of today, invests in tomorrow and is sustainable in future years remains our focus.”

The top leaders of the legislature’s Democratic majority emerged confident of finding a way to increase education funding. They declined to say Wednesday how much more could be provided but have said repeatedly in recent weeks they want at least $150 million extra for local schools.

“We’ve agreed to make a substantial increase in ECS funding,” House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, said, referring to the Education Cost Sharing program that is the state’s chief operating grant to local districts.

The leaders warned there remain substantial details to address and talks with the governor would resume Thursday.

“I think we’re very close” to an agreement to boost education aid, said Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven. “But you don’t have a deal until all the pieces come together.”

More for town and child care, despite the spending cap

Democratic leaders have been saying for months that doing more for cities and towns — and their school systems in particular — is one of their highest priorities.

They added Wednesday that Bridgeport, Hartford and Hamden were in urgent need of further aid to close shortfalls in education budgets, but they were unsure if those needs could be fully met without major grant formula changes or special appropriations.

Tariff-driven inflation, rising energy costs and vanishing federal aid have pushed many districts into fiscal crisis. And leaders say they want at least $150 million extra for school systems, as well as some boost in non-education aid.

Legislators and the governor invested $300 million last June in a new endowment to expand affordable child care, and many Democratic legislators also have been pushing to match that contribution this year, or at least to come close.

At first glance, Lamont and legislators have plenty to spend on town aid and many other priorities.

Though revenue projections won’t be updated until April 30, analysts say early trends following the April 15 tax-filing deadline show more than $200 million in growth, though numbers still can fluctuate significantly over the next week.

The savings program that withholds a portion of income and business tax receipts from the budget now is on pace to capture more than $2 billion this fiscal year, up from the $1.8 billion analysts estimated in January.

But those dollars are supposed to be used to build reserves and reduce pension debt. And a budget cap that keeps spending growth in line with household income also appears to block major new investments.

The child care endowment, however, was created outside of the formal budget and spending cap, and officials could redirect funds from the savings program to early childhood education.

But most aid to cities and towns is regulated by the cap system. This is where legislators and Lamont are expected to get creative.

Connecticut will receive about $90 million next fiscal year from a 1% sales tax surcharge on certain prepared meals. Sources said those funds could be redirected via an accounting maneuver to municipalities for non-education programs. And because they were intercepted before technically arriving in the state’s General Fund, they would not count as spending subject to cap rules.

To get more state aid to local schools, lawmakers could take advantage of a long-planned change in the cap system.

To tighten overall spending, the 2017 legislature decided mandatory payments into the pensions for state employees and municipal teachers no longer would be exempt. Contributions to the employees’ fund fell under cap rules in the 2022-23 fiscal year. But those for teachers don’t start until this July.

That means lawmakers could order a one-time raid of $150 million — or whatever other amount they want to give school districts — from the $2 billion savings program and use those dollars to prepay a portion of next fiscal year’s mandated contribution to the teachers’ pension.

That would create $150 million or more in room under the cap next fiscal year to accommodate extra school aid.

And the pre-payment wouldn’t violate the cap, provided it was made soon, since contributions to the teachers’ pension don’t count against spending limits until July 1.

House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, has said repeatedly this year that legislators have taken big steps in recent budgets to enhance education aid and support a child care industry that was badly weakened by the coronavirus pandemic.

But while the speaker said continued investments in these areas are essential to ensure Connecticut remains affordable for working families, legislators won’t gut the savings program and other budget caps they launched nine years ago.

“There’s no way we’re not paying down our” pension debt, he said, noting Connecticut still maintains of the largest budget reserves of any state. And it still has more than $300 million set aside, in addition to its $4.3 billion reserve, to offset deep federal cuts to human service programs.

Lamont’s tax rebate likely to shrink if it survives

The governor, a fiscally moderate Democrat, has been loath to tamper with state budget caps since he took office in 2019.

Connecticut, which failed to properly save for more than seven decades prior to 2011, has one of the highest pension debt burdens in the nation, owing more than $33 billion.

Still, that burden would be $10 billion greater were it not for surplus dollars Lamont and lawmakers poured into the program over the past six years, and the administration expects more than $1 billion from the current savings program to be deposited this fall.

Collibee said Connecticut has become “a case study in how sustainable budgeting plus political follow-through can materially change a state’s fiscal outlook,” adding the governor won’t allow state government to deviate from this path.

But the governor, who is seeking reelection to a third term this fall, likely must compromise in this area, since he also wants to temporarily ease savings efforts.

Lamont in February pitched taking $500 million from the savings program to finance a $200-per-person tax rebate in late October, just days before the election. The governor says a one-time rebate is fiscally safer than ongoing tax cuts, given federal cuts in Medicaid assistance would cost Connecticut hundreds of millions annually through the early 2030s.

Legislators from both parties counter the state can afford to dole out some lasting tax cuts given all it’s saved.

Sources said the rebate remains up for discussion. But if it survives, it likely would be reduced from $500 million to at least $300 million.

Hospital funds also headed outside budget cap

The governor and Democratic legislative leaders also are expected to embrace a House Republican proposal to move big annual payments to hospitals outside of the cap.

Each year, Connecticut collects hundreds of millions of tax dollars from the industry and then returns those funds as part of a complex arrangement to qualify for extra federal Medicaid funding. Most states employ this back-and-forth arrangement that Washington long has encouraged.

House Republicans last week said Connecticut should move roughly $700 million in payments outside of the spending cap system to create room for more town aid.

That depends on state and hospital officials reaching a new deal, with the current taxing arrangement about to expire.

Connecticut officials are pressing the industry to do more to control care costs and forgive more debt from low-income patients.

The Connecticut Hospital Association “is actively engaging with administration officials and lawmakers on opportunities to slow the growth in health care spending and further build on existing financial assistance policies, which are already some of the most generous policies in the nation, built through years of collaboration with the state to enhance transparency and consumer protections,” the CHA wrote in a statement.

But the industry also insists the new taxing arrangement must recognize a federal Medicaid system that each year covers less of provider’s costs.

CT Mirror reporter Mark Pazniokas contributed to this story.

Keith M. Phaneuf is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).

On Khan’s desk in the third row, three off the center aisle of the House, the tiny U.S. flag displayed on most desks since the attack on the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001 had disappeared. In its place was the flag of Pakistan, a green banner with a crescent and star symbolizing its founding as a Muslim homeland.

“I displayed the Pakistani flag as a reflection of my heritage and personal pride. Any suggestion that it represents something improper or disloyal is simply inaccurate,” Khan said in a text. “Pakistan is a longstanding diplomatic partner of the United States, and acknowledging one’s background does not diminish commitment to this country or to serving the people of Connecticut.”

Khan, a school teacher elected to the House in a special election in 2022, said she made the switch after reports April 8 of Pakistan’s success in brokering a ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran. She said she was disappointed that no Republican approached her directly before staging their mini-flag protest.

“I’ve had the Pakistani flag in my office for little while,” Khan said.

It replaced the U.S. flag as a matter of pride, not a rebuke to America, the country where she is now a citizen, Khan said. Space on legislative desks is limited, she said.

“I’m going to try to get a multiple-flag holder so I can have multiple flags,” she said.

House Minority Leader Vincent J. Candelora, R-North Branford, confirmed that the Gadsden flag and at least one Israeli flag displayed Monday after the House returned from a week’s recess were directed at Khan’s flag and what the GOP saw as an uneven enforcement of rules barring political displays.

The Gadsden flag features a coiled rattlesnake over the legend, “Dont tread on me.”

During Gov. Ned Lamont’s speech to a joint session of the General Assembly on opening day in early February, a Republican lawmaker protested Lamont’s denunciation of federal immigration tactics by turning her back and motioning to two words on her blazer: ICE IN.

That prompted a rebuke by House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford.

Candelora said he saw inconsistent enforcement of the rules “if we’re going to be told that there is no signage allowed in a building, that tomfoolery is not going to be tolerated, and then we turn around and see the Democrat Party has allowed” the display of flags.

There was no Gadsden flag on his desk.

“I don’t support any of these flags being put up at people’s desks. I think it should be a blanket rule. The only flag that should be on our desk is the American flag,” Candelora said.

Other flags have appeared from time to time, and Ritter noted the rules do not specifically prohibit them.

One legislator of Greek descent has a Greek flag beside a U.S flag on her desk. Irish flags have been known to appear around St. Patrick’s Day. House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford, the first Latino in the top leadership ranks, has the flags of the U.S., Connecticut and Puerto Rico.

Ritter said he would speak to Candelora around whether the House needed a rule on tiny flags. He sighed.

“I don’t think I was elected to debate flags all day,” Ritter told reporters. “I’ll make it my job for today, I guess.”

Mark Pazniokas is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (Ctmirror.org).

Diamantis, 69, was to appear before Judge Stefon Underhill at what was scheduled to be a routine change-of-plea hearing to accept a deal. But while Diamantis sat in the courtroom, his attorney Norm Pattis and prosecuting attorneys conferred with the judge in chambers.

They all left the courtroom soon after.

“We will be filing a motion to continue to trial,” Norm Pattis, Diamantis’ attorney, said outside court. “That’s really all I can say.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney David Novick, asked if the case was proceeding to trial, said, “That seems likely.” He did not discuss details of the plea offer.

A trial date will be scheduled after discussions with attorneys, but the original date of April 27 will likely be postponed.

Diamantis is facing bribery and extortion charges for allegedly assisting a Bristol eye doctor avoid a 2020 state audit into her Medicaid and Medicare billing practices by pressuring state Department of Social Service officials in charge of that audit to drop it in exchange for nearly $100,000 in bribes from the eye doctor.

The federal investigations into Diamantis began nearly five years ago with a subpoena seeking school construction records in October 2021.

Some of the highest-ranking members of Gov. Ned Lamont’s administration could be asked to testify in the current case, including former Office of Policy and Management Secretary Melissa McCaw and former Department of Social Services Commissioner Diedre Gifford.

The two other key players in the Medicaid scheme, Bristol eye doctor Helen Zervas and former state Rep. Christopher Ziogas, a long-time associate of Diamantis from Bristol, have already pleaded guilty to paying Diamantis the bribes and were expected to be key witnesses at the upcoming trial.

Diamantis has already been convicted of 21 counts of bribery, extortion, conspiracy and lying to federal investigators for using his position as head of the state’s Office of School Construction Grants and Review to steer contracts on school projects in exchange for more than $75,000 in bribes.

In that case, federal prosecutors used text messages, bank records and emails to show how Diamantis negotiated payments with the owners of Acranom Masonry.

In exchange for the money, Diamantis used his influence at the state’s school building office to help the masonry company win lucrative construction contracts on several projects in Tolland, Hartford and New Britain.

At times texts showed Diamantis hounding them for his payment and threatening to remove them from school jobs if he wasn’t paid.

“I will wait til Monday for him to give you 40. If not, then I think D’Amato needs a new mason for Tolland then he will see how real the job was,” Diamantis said in one text, referring to the Birch Grove project where Acranom was working on.

The jury found Diamantis guilty after a nine-day trial last October.

Underhill delayed sentencing in that case until the second trial was completed.

Pattis, Diamantis’ attorney, has previously said his client could face up to 10 years just from the first conviction.

Diamantis is currently free on a $500,000 bond that was kept in place after his conviction even after it was revealed that he had obtained a Greek passport.

When Underhill asked Diamantis about the passport, he told the judge that he had recently obtained dual citizenship in Greece and obtained a Greek passport. But he said he applied for the passport to claim a piece of property in Greece that his father had inherited.

He also told the judge that his passport was sent to Greece to facilitate that property transfer and was not currently in his possession.

“It was a clean sweep. I thought it was going to go my way, but obviously it didn’t,” Diamantis said outside the courtroom after he was convicted. “The jury clearly believed them and not me.”

Zervas and Ziogas have not yet been sentenced, pending their testimony at the second trial.

It was during the height of COVID, in May 2020, when Diamantis and Ziogas hand-delivered a check for nearly $600,000 to DSS in order to reimburse the state Medicaid program for services that Zervas improperly billed.

After that check was delivered to the state Department of Social Services office in Hartford, the audit into Zervas’ optometry practice was dropped, which prevented state auditors from combing through her records and potentially clawing back even more money for the state.

The CT Mirror reported that the audit of Bristol Eye Care was the only one that DSS canceled over a five-year period.

Zervas pleaded guilty in February of 2024 to health care fraud charges and admitted that she conspired with a former state lawmaker and former high-ranking Connecticut employee to pressure officials at the state’s Medicaid agency to cancel an audit that was examining Medicaid overpayments at her optometry practice.

At that time, federal prosecutors would not identify those public officials. But less than three weeks later, Ziogas and Diamantis were both indicted.

Ziogas pleaded guilty to extortion and bribery charges in November before U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector. The judge quizzed Ziogas about whether he understood what he was pleading guilty to and then asked Ziogas to describe in his own words what he had done.

“I participated in a scheme with Helen and Kosta to try and have him suppress some activity in Medicaid charges that she was facing,” Ziogas said, adding “we paid him (Kosta) to help influence the outcome of the audit.”

When asked by the judge what he had specifically done, Ziogas added, “Helen gave me money, and I gave it to Kosta — maybe $100,000.”

Andrew Brown and Dave Altimari are reporters for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).

The Republican race moved into a new phase last week when Democrats released a scathing report that charged a pattern of misconduct by New Britain’s tax collector, who served for all 12 years during the tenure of New Britain mayor Erin Stewart. Stewart is battling in a potential three-way Republican primary and has blasted Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont, who she hopes to oppose in the general election in November.

But before the general election, Stewart and two other candidates are scrambling for delegates who will vote on May 16 during the Republican Party’s convention at the Mohegan Sun casino.

Stewart is facing Sen. Ryan Fazio and Betsy McCaughey, two Greenwich residents who have already started their advertising campaigns in the battle against Stewart. Candidates need to win support from at least 15% of the delegates to qualify for the August primary. In recent Republican history, the winner of the party’s convention endorsement — such as Mark Boughton for governor in 2018 and Themis Klarides for U.S. Senate in 2022 — has not won the primary in August.

The charges about New Britain tax collector Cheryl Blogoslawski drew attention away from Stewart’s selection of state Rep. Timothy Ackert as her running mate as the report dropped within about 20 minutes of Stewart’s announcement in Ackert’s hometown of Coventry.

The report stated that Blogoslawski, the sister of a former mayor, had backdated overdue tax payments so that some taxpayers, including Blogoslawski herself, did not have to pay the state-mandated, annual 18% interest charge. The report also stated that large amounts of cash were left “haphazardly” in the tax collector’s office, and the office did not follow the city’s policy that bank deposits should be made daily. The case has been referred to the state’s attorney’s office for possible criminal prosecution.

“There have been repeated documented instances where cash was left unsecured in drawers or on top of filing cabinets around the Revenue Collector’s Office, and cash (was) left unsecured in Ms. Blogoslawski’s internal office drawers,” the report says. “In one instance in January 2024, over $246,000 was left unsecured on top of the safe. After discovery of the large amounts of cash left unsecured overnight, the custodial staff refused to clean the office to avoid any suspicion if money was discovered to be missing.”

Longtime political science professor Gary Rose of Sacred Heart University in Fairfield said that the buck stops with the mayor.

“It has to fall on Erin, honestly, because it did happen on her watch,” Rose told The Courant. “It continued throughout the years. It was not a one-shot. … Even if she was unaware of it, that, too, is a problem. How do you not know if you’re a mayor?”

With a population of about 75,000 residents, New Britain is small enough for the mayor to personally know city employees and the daily comings and goings as compared to far larger cities, Rose said.

“It’s not like the city of Chicago,” Rose said. “It’s not New York. It’s not Bridgeport. It’s not Hartford. How do you not know?”

Stewart herself said that she had been involved “several times” as mayor in negotiations regarding tax delinquencies that were handled in consultation with the city’s corporation counsel and the finance department.

“I can definitively state that at no time did I ever direct anyone to backdate anyone’s payments,” Stewart said.

But former state Democratic chairman John F. Droney and others say they want to see more evidence before jumping to any conclusions.

“Do I think that any of the governors that I’ve ever known knew what was going on in the department of the treasury if they had someone there who was clever enough to be covering something up?” asked Droney, who supports Lamont in the race. “The late Governor William O’Neill used to tell me that he used to wake up every morning and always be afraid that some idiot was doing something wrong and he was going to get blamed for it. When you have 40,000 employees in Connecticut and if something goes wrong, it’s his fault. That’s what’s going on over there. If it was negligence, because she didn’t do what she was supposed to be doing, that’s one thing. But not if it’s just some criminal who had the trust of everybody in New Britain for many years.”

Droney cited other recent cases that have been in the headlines this year with police officers who were arrested and charged with embezzling money from funds that they had controlled.

“The police chief in New Haven had to resign because he was stealing money from the undercover fund, but no one is saying it’s the mayor’s fault,” Droney said. “In Seymour, the head of the police union, I don’t know how the mayor of Seymour is supposed to know that. Unless you give me more information, I don’t think it’s going to hurt her at all.”

Timing of release

Stewart also accused Lamont several times of being involved in the timetable of the law firm’s report on the tax collector.

“Obviously timing the release of this memo to coincide with [the running mate] press conference shows this to be the political witch hunt we’ve known it to be … and it confirms that I’m the only Republican Ned Lamont and his minions are scared of,” Stewart said. “This is just the latest Democrat attempt to discredit our record of success and deflect from their own abysmal record of failing the hardworking people of Connecticut.”

Despite Stewart’s claims, both Lamont and Sanchez said the governor had nothing to do with the timing of the release. Campaign watchers said that the internal wars in New Britain have been brewing for decades and bitter, bareknuckle New Britain politics is ugly enough without needing any extra push from Lamont.

Lamont’s campaign denied any involvement in the production of the four-page audit or the timing of its release.

“To be clear: Mayor Bobby Sanchez had no conversations with Governor Ned Lamont regarding the timing of the memo’s release,” said Alisha Rayner, Sanchez’s communications director. “Any claim otherwise is unfounded speculation.”

Campaign trail

Back on the campaign trail, Lamont holds an incumbent’s advantage of attending ribbon-cuttings and handing out money for various causes as part of the $28 billion annual state budget and additional money from the State Bond Commission.

Last week, Lamont toured a well-known chocolate factory in Waterbury to serve as the backdrop for his plan to help small businesses by offering tax credits to pay for the health insurance for employees. The program would be limited to businesses with fewer than 50 employees, but would be particularly helpful for those with 10 employees, which often do not offer health insurance due to sky-high premiums. The proposal is still pending in the current legislative session, which adjourns on May 6.

Less than two weeks days ago, Lamont announced that the state would provide $15 million to fund clean air projects that would be overseen by the state’s environmental protection department. The money will come from a national settlement of a well-publicized case against Volkswagen in an emissions cheating scandal. The money can pay for items like school buses and cargo handling equipment that replace older, dirtier diesel sources.

Two days after the Volkswagen announcement, Lamont released more than $1.5 million in grants to food pantries and other nonprofits so that residents would have access to healthy food in a program that helps both local farmers and those who have trouble affording healthy food.

New York gas pipeline

In another twist, both Fazio and McCaughey have publicly called on Lamont to sue New York state in order to obtain more natural gas for Connecticut in an attempt to reduce sky-high electricity prices.

The problem, they say, is that New York regulators have approved pipeline plans for their own state but have blocked plans that would help Connecticut. Lamont, who is not a fan of lawsuits, says that he would rather seek negotiations instead of taking legal action against Gov. Kathy Hochul, a fellow Democrat.

In a twist, McCaughey filed her own lawsuit against New York state, saying that she has legal standing as a Greenwich resident who is paying for natural gas. The lawsuit, filed by McCaughey’s husband, states that New York’s “refusal to allow construction of the pipeline has inflicted economic injury and harm” on McCaughey, who “has been compelled to pay higher rates for the use of natural gas and the electricity generated by natural gas.”

Rather than filing a lawsuit, Lamont says the best move is to go forward with nuclear power and renewable energy like the windmills that have been constructed off the shores of Connecticut and Rhode Island to produce electricity.

“Projects like Revolution Wind didn’t prevail by accident,” said Rob Blanchard, Lamont’s chief campaign spokesman. “It succeeded because Connecticut has a governor willing to stand up to Donald Trump, not one busy trying to win his approval with stunts.”

Some observers predicted that McCaughey’s lawsuit will not be successful.

“I think she’s doing her best to get some attention focused on her in Connecticut,” Droney said. “I don’t think it’s going to do anything for her. I don’t really think that suing somebody in this day and age, as a taxpayer, is going to make the changes that she wants.”

Rose, the Sacred Heart professor, said, “Betsy seems to be a candidate who is trying to make a big splash with [calling for] ending the state income tax, which everybody knows is kind of a ridiculous claim. It just seems like she’s desperate for media attention. The lawsuit seems like another one of these stunts or ploys on her part to stay in the news, very similar to ending the income tax.”

Concerning whether McCaughey can capture 15% of Republican delegates in order to qualify for the August primary, Rose said, “I would say that it’s questionable. There might be some delegates who like renegade people like this, so I can’t say it’s not going to happen. But it will be a challenge to get that number. I would say Betsy is still a long shot to get the 15%.”

But McCaughey disputed the analysis, saying she is “quite confident” that she will reach 15%.

She also sharply rejected the notion that the lawsuit against New York is a stunt, citing a legal case that she says proves that she has legal standing.

“It’s not a stunt,” McCaughey told The Courant in an interview. “This is serious business, going to the federal courts. I would not file a lawsuit without legal standing.”

She added, “To me, the most significant development by far is this lawsuit. It’s quite likely that we can win this lawsuit. … Suddenly, Connecticut is going to have reasonable electric bills. Think what that will do to the economy and household budgets. … I’m taking action now. It’s not just a political talking point. Shame on Ned Lamont that he didn’t solve it. He could have filed this lawsuit himself, but he put partisanship ahead of the people of the state. He just doesn’t want to sue another Democrat. That’s it. He’s too partisan. … Connecticut is getting fleeced, and Lamont is doing nothing about it.”

The lawsuit, McCaughey said, is part of her overall campaign strategy.

“This is not an election for baby steps like I’m going to take a little, tiny bit off your electric bill,” McCaughey said. “No. I am going bold. Pull pin. Throw grenade. I am eliminating the state income tax. I am offering big ideas. This election requires big ideas. The Republicans are not going to beat Ned Lamont with tiny baby steps. But that’s what I’m hearing from the other candidates — both fine people. They’re very cautious. They’re building their future careers. Let me say what’s obvious: I am not using this as a stepping stone.”

Josh Elliott

While Republicans have been clashing, liberal Democrat Josh Elliott has been crisscrossing the state to capture both delegates and cash as he seeks to qualify for a primary against Lamont. Various insiders believe that Elliott will reach the necessary 15% of the delegates, but it is unclear how long it will take him to meet the qualifying threshold for public financing against the self-funding Lamont. The deadline for him to raise the money is July 17, which is less than one month before the Aug. 11 primary.

“We have raised over $215,000 of the $335,000 we need to qualify for our state grant,” Elliott wrote last week to supporters. “When the party sees the numbers we put up at the convention, the collective jaws of the establishment are going to drop.”

Even some Lamont supporters concede that Elliott will likely force a primary. But they predict that Lamont will not only win the primary but the November election as well.

While updated polling would show the latest state of the race, a University of New Hampshire poll in mid-February showed Lamont leading Elliott by 57% to 13%, which was an improvement for Elliott from a mid-November poll that had Lamont ahead by 55% to 7%.

“The Democratic Party in Connecticut, aside from Lamont, has turned so far left that they might have enough lefties to create a problem like that on behalf of their leader, Mr. Elliott,” Droney said of a potential primary. “That’s possible. He can’t beat Lamont, and all he can do is dust up Lamont. He can’t beat him.”

Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@courant.com