About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

2024 Op. Conn. Att'y Gen. 1 (2024)

handle is hein.sag/sagct0078 and id is 1 raw text is: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONNECTICUT WILLIAM TONG ATTORNEY GENERAL January 16, 2024 By Email The Honorable Matthew Ritter Speaker of the House Legislative Office Building, Room 4105 Hartford, Connecticut 06106-1591 Matthew.Ritter@cga.ct.gov Re: Requestfor Formal Opinion Regarding Ranked Choice Voting Dear Speaker Ritter: This formal opinion answers your complex and novel question, which no Connecticut court has examined: whether Connecticut's constitution allows ranked choice voting in general elections for the state legislature and the positions of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of the State, Treasurer, Comptroller, and Attorney General. General elections for federal and municipal office, and all primary elections, are beyond the scope of this opinion, since different constitutional provisions control those elections. In ranked choice voting (RCV)-also known as instant runoff voting-each voter submits a ballot ranking candidates in order of preference. A candidate wins outright if she is the first choice of the majority of voters. Otherwise, tabulators eliminate the last-place candidate, whose ballot preferences are reallocated to surviving candidates according to each voter's preference. Successive rounds of elimination and reallocation can follow until a candidate has a majority. Supporters argue that ranked choice voting increases voter choice and promotes representative outcomes. Whatever RCV's policy merits, though, Connecticut cannot implement it in violation of the state constitution. Our state has never used ranked choice voting; our constitution does not mention it; and I found no evidence that the framers of our constitution intended to authorize it. But that does not end the inquiry, since the Connecticut constitution is a living document and an instrument of progress . . . intended to stand for a great length of time and should not be interpreted too narrowly or too literally so that it fails to have contemporary effectiveness for all our citizens. Kemgan v. Comm'r of Pub. Health, 289 Conn. 135, 156-57 (2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).' 1 Connecticut courts interpret the constitution according to the demands of modern society and the changing needs and expectations of our residents. State v. Webb, 238 Conn. 389, 411 (1996); State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98, 114-15 165 Capitol Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06106 4n~ 4ffrimai e IAcionlEqu/al Opporrzrniy Empoye,

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most