Judiciary committee advances many judicial nominees; public testimony sharply divided on at least one pick

The Connecticut Legislature’s Judiciary Committee heard nomination testimony and public comment Jan. 22 and then advanced multiple judicial nominees toward full Senate consideration, placing a large group on a consent calendar and separating others for individual review.

The hearing included lengthy appearances by nominees, questions from committee members and public testimony both supporting and opposing candidates. The Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (CCDLA) submitted a multi‑page commentary endorsing a number of nominees and praised several judges for courtroom performance and outreach. “He could run a judicial district anywhere in the state, and I'm sure he would,” CCDLA past president Edward Gavin said of one presiding judge, urging reappointment.

Members of the public also used the hearing to oppose at least one nomination. Maureen Martowska told the committee she opposed the reappointment of a particular nominee and urged the panel to review past hearings and written submissions; she asked the committee to “look at the 3 links that I provided” and to consider prior no‑confidence votes when evaluating a reappointment.

Committee action after the hearing advanced Chief Justice nominee Raheem Mullins for further Senate consideration and moved many superior‑court nominees to a consent calendar for a collective favorable report. Several nominations were removed from the consent calendar for separate committee consideration and votes. Committee members also recorded roll‑call votes on certain nominees and discussed recusals where members had conflicts.

Committee members repeatedly raised the issue of judicial temperament and external systems of accountability during questioning. Several nominees described steps they take to stay accountable — from soliciting feedback from clerks and defense and prosecuting attorneys to reviewing recorded hearings. Senator Gary Winfield emphasized the committee’s interest in whether nominees have systems in place that allow colleagues, court staff or attorneys to raise concerns without fear.

Votes at a glance - Chief Justice nomination: Raheem L. Mullins — advanced by the committee for Senate consideration following testimony on technology and operations. - Consent calendar: A number of superior‑court nominees were placed on a consent calendar and advanced together; committee minutes show multiple candidates later removed from the consent calendar for separate consideration. - Public comment: At least one public witness urged the committee to reject the reappointment of a nominee on the grounds of past conduct as a court‑appointed guardian ad litem; CCDLA filed broad support for many nominees.

Ending: The committee’s actions move several nominees to the full Senate; several were set aside for further committee review after members and public witnesses raised concerns about temperament, past conduct and accountability systems.