Judiciary Committee advances multiple bills to the floor after debates on venue, nondisclosure agreements and legal standards

The Judiciary Committee voted May 12 to move a slate of substitute bills to the floor while holding separate debates on venue language, nondisclosure agreements, a commerce-clause challenge to parts of a prescription drug bill and an undefined investigatory standard in a campaign finance measure.

The committee voted to send substitute for Senate Bill 7, “An Act Concerning Protection for Access to Health Care and Equitable Delivery of Health Care Services in the State,” to the floor with the recommended adoption of Senate Amendment Schedule A. Senator Derek Winfield made the motion, with Representative Fazino (recorded as the second). Representative Joel Fishbein said he would vote no because the bill as drafted (line 732 referenced in committee discussion) would limit petitions to Hartford Superior Court and could force parties to travel to Hartford rather than using courthouses across the state. “I do intend to vote no, hoping that that language gets fixed,” Fishbein said.

The committee also advanced substitute for Senate Bill 545 (telecommunications quality-of-service standards and prohibiting remote reconnection fees) and substitute for Senate Bill 1035 (limitations on the use of nondisclosure agreements). Representative Fazino and others voiced procedural or regulatory concerns but supported moving the measures forward. On SB 1035, Representative Fishbein said he sympathized with the goals but cautioned against government stepping into private contracts: “language here, even though the person is compensated for that agreement, it would break that. And that’s stepping into contract, and that’s not an appropriate role for government,” he said, and indicated he would vote no on the bill.

A contested amendment to substitute for Senate Bill 1355 (an act concerning prescription drugs, devices and nonlegend drugs) drew extended debate. Senator Kevin Kissel moved to strike sections 4 through 12 of the bill, arguing those sections would prevent the lawful sale of a drug manufactured in Connecticut that could lawfully be sold to other states for use in executions and that the restriction could violate the Commerce Clause. Kissel invoked Philadelphia v. New Jersey in arguing the strike: “I believe that our cognizance is does something violate the United States Constitution… I believe… it violates the commerce clause,” he said. The amendment went to a roll-call vote and failed. The underlying bill was subsequently moved out of committee (JF to the floor) after debate.

Members also discussed substitute for Senate Bill 1417 (establishing a nursing home workforce standards board). Senator Kissel noted the proposal included what he described as a roughly $1 million price tag that was not part of an appropriations package before the committee, and the chairs said budget details would be addressed in subsequent steps.

Substitute for Senate Bill 1517 (concerning referenda, independent expenditures and other campaign finance changes) produced sustained legal questioning over a change in Section 20 that replaces the familiar phrase “probable cause or no probable cause” with “reason to believe or no reason to believe.” Representative Fishbein and several members said they could not identify a clear legal meaning for “reason to believe” in Connecticut law. Representative Blumenthal, who described the language as an attempt to accommodate the State Elections Enforcement Commission’s request to permit preliminary investigatory authority beyond a one-year statute of limitations, said the provision was “a work in progress” and that the chairs were committed to continuing negotiations before floor action. Blumenthal said the provision was intended to allow the agency “to make a preliminary evidentiary determination that there is some evidence to go forward… without making the full probable cause determination.”

The committee placed two bills on a consent calendar — substitute for Senate Bill 1257 (consumer credit and commercial financing) and substitute for Senate Bill 1336 (a study relating to banking issues) — and the consent calendar was called and ordered by the administrator without recorded objection.

Votes at a glance - Substitute for Senate Bill 7 — Motion: JF to the floor with recommended adoption of Senate Amendment Schedule A (LCO 7974). Mover: Senator Derek Winfield; Second: Representative Fazino. Outcome: advanced to the floor. (Roll call recorded in committee transcript; some members stated reservations about venue language.) - Substitute for Senate Bill 545 — Motion: JF to the floor. Mover: Senator Derek Winfield; Second: Representative Fazino. Outcome: advanced to the floor. - Substitute for Senate Bill 1035 — Motion: JF to the floor with recommended adoption of Senate Amendment Schedule A (LCO 7734). Mover: Senator Derek Winfield; Second: Representative Johnson. Outcome: advanced to the floor. Representative Joel Fishbein stated he would vote no on principle about government-mandated limits on private contracts. - Substitute for Senate Bill 1257 — Placed on consent calendar; advanced on consent. - Substitute for Senate Bill 1336 — Placed on consent calendar as amended (Senate Amendment Schedule A); advanced on consent. - Substitute for Senate Bill 1355 — Motion to strike sections 4–12 by Senator Kevin Kissel (second: Representative Fishbein) — amendment failed on roll-call. The underlying bill was later JF to the floor. - Substitute for Senate Bill 1417 — Motion: JF to the floor. Mover: Senator Derek Winfield; Second: Representative Fazino. Outcome: advanced to the floor. Committee discussion noted an estimated $1 million implementation cost cited by one member. - Substitute for Senate Bill 1517 — Motion: JF to the floor. Mover: Senator Derek Winfield; Second: Representative Fazino. Outcome: advanced to the floor; members requested clarification and revisions to Section 20 before the bill would reach final floor consideration.

What the committee did and did not decide - The committee moved multiple bills to the floor, but several members reserved the right to press for changes on the floor or during subsequent negotiations. The record shows specific, substantive objections on venue language in SB 7, contract and constitutional concerns in SB 1035 and SB 1355, and a legal-standard concern in SB 1517. No final floor enactments or final passage by the legislature occurred in committee.

Context and next steps - Committee chairs and the sponsors said they expect language changes and negotiations to continue before floor votes. Several members explicitly said they were voting to advance bills out of committee despite reservations in order to allow further work on the language on the floor or in subsequent committee steps.

Ending note - The committee recessed for members to cast floor votes; the recorded committee actions will be reflected in the Senate calendar when those bills reach the floor.