Judiciary Committee debates racial- and gender‑balance law during two Pardons and Paroles nominations; roll calls held open

The Judiciary Committee on April 25 took up two nominations to the Board of Pardons and Paroles and spent considerable time debating a statutory requirement that the governor's appointments reflect the state's racial and gender demographics.

Committee Chairman Senator Winfield introduced the nominations and opened the floor for discussion before the committee held roll-call votes on both candidates. Representative Fishbein raised the statutory issue at length, citing the state constitution's allocation of pardon powers ("Article Fourth, Section 10") and a statutory provision he identified as "4-9(b)" that, he said, requires the governor's appointments to "closely reflect the gender and racial diversity of the state according to the most recent United States census population data." Fishbein said the statute was inserted after the 2008 Cheshire home invasion public act and argued the committee must consider compliance with that law when voting.

Fishbein and other members discussed the current composition of the board as presented by staff: two Black females, one Hispanic female, one Hispanic male, two Caucasian females and two Caucasian males. Fishbein said that, with the two nominees pending, the governor's slate would add white appointees and leave the board without any Black males. He said he intended to vote against the nominees on statutory grounds. Representative Kissel and several other members defended the nominees' qualifications and said the committee's duty is to evaluate the individuals before it.

The committee conducted roll-call votes on both nominations. For Aileen (Aileen/Eileen) Keys of Farmington, a motion for a favorable report was made by Senator Winfield and seconded by Senator Kissel; for Alex Sarkov of Hartford, the motion was moved by Senator Kissel and seconded by Representative Stashman. The transcript records multiple members answering individually during the roll calls and the chair announced that "we will hold the votes open till, I guess, at this point, at 03:30" so final tallies were not announced in the committee transcript excerpt.

Why it matters: The discussion touched on the limits of the governor's appointment power, a post-2008 statutory requirement intended to match board demographics to the state census, and the question of whether the current nominees and the governor's overall slate meet that requirement. The committee did not record a final outcome in the transcript provided; the clerk left the roll-call votes open for a later close.

Committee action and next steps: The Judiciary Committee recorded the roll-call votes for both nominees and left the votes open until 3:30 p.m., per the clerk's announcement. Members expressed differing views: some said they would vote in favor based on qualifications; others said they would oppose because the appointments do not comply with the statutory diversity requirement as they interpret it. The committee did not adopt any amendment or take other formal action affecting the statute on the floor during this session.

Quote: "So it would be inappropriate for this body to approve the nominees given the makeup. We are bound by the law," Representative Fishbein said during debate, drawing attention to the diversity provision he cited.

Ending: The committee recorded the roll-call votes and left them open until the clerk closed voting later in the day. Any final confirmation or rejection of the two nominees was not reported in the transcript excerpt.