Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Rights Constitutional Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances constitutional amendment to recognize environmental rights after extended debate
Summary
The Government Administration and Elections Committee voted to send S.J. 36, a proposed state constitutional amendment establishing a right to a clean and healthy environment and a stable climate, to the floor after extensive debate over vagueness, legal consequences and enforcement mechanisms.
The Government Administration and Elections Committee voted to JFS (move to the Floor with Substitute) S.J. 36, a proposed state constitutional amendment that would recognize "a right to clean and healthy air, water, soil, ecosystems and environment, and a safe and healthy stable climate," and to send LCO 6720 to the full legislature for consideration.
Supporters said the amendment would constitutionalize protections that currently exist under the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act and provide a long‑term, durable standard to guide state policy. Senator Flexler, who answered detailed legal questions during the discussion, said the change would mirror protections the state already seeks to provide and would allow courts to require follow‑up action by the legislature and executive branch if the state failed to meet the constitutional standard.
Opponents warned the amendment is written too broadly and risks creating a wave of litigation and unintended outcomes. Senator Sampson, Representative Master Francesco and others argued the language is vague — citing terms such as "safe and stable climate" and "unreasonably infringe" — and said that leaving those terms to courts could transfer policy decisions from elected lawmakers to judges. Sampson pointed to fiscal impacts in other states and said the proposal could invite lawsuits that affect projects, local land use and municipal operations.
Proponents responded that the amendment is intended to be prospective, not retroactive, and that its language includes a reasonableness standard to limit extreme outcomes. Representative Shannon said the amendment would protect communities — including environmental‑justice neighborhoods — and noted that any change to the constitution would ultimately go before Connecticut voters.
The committee record shows sustained questioning on whether the amendment creates private causes of action between private parties or whether enforcement would be limited to suits alleging state action; the chair said existing nuisance and statutory remedies remain available and that constitutional claims generally implicate state action but could inform other legal standards.
The committee debate touched on related topics raised by members: the relationship between a constitutional right and existing statutes (including section 22a‑1 and the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act), whether the amendment would be self‑executing, and the possible fiscal and regulatory consequences. Multiple members asked whether the amendment could be used to block infrastructure or private projects; the chair emphasized that courts would interpret the amendment and that legislative responses would remain possible following judicial decisions.
The motion to JFS LCO 6720 passed in committee. The amendment will next go to the full legislature and, if approved there, would go on the ballot for voter approval.
