Political Capitol

State Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, was excited Thursday when he received an invitation, along with his Banks Committee co-chairman, Ryan Barry, D-Manchester, to attend the next day’s signing of U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd’s credit card bill at the White House.

But then the Senate became embroiled in an 11 hour debate over the death penalty, which didn’t end until around 4:10 a.m. – about five hours before Duff’s scheduled flight from Newark to Washington D.C.

“I drove home, got home about 5:30 a.m., showered, shaved and left the house about 6:30 a.m.,” Duff said.

Despite his lack of sleep, Duff said coffee and adrenaline kept him awake for most of the day.

“There’s a certain amount of underlying energy and excitement when you’re at the White House,” Duff said.

He was able to shake President Obama’s hand and also met some other prominent Congressional Democrats and Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner.

“I did hit the wall at about 5 p.m.,” Duff said. He crashed in a hotel.

\

When the state Senate voted 19 to 17 at 4:10 this morning to abolish the death penalty after an eleven hour debate some participants and observers said it was the lengthiest discussion of a bill they could recall

Looking back several hours, some sleep and a shower later, I’ve got to say that there is something about seeing 36 individuals of varying backgrounds, appearances, ages and personalities stuck together for almost a half-day waging a battle of words and wills over such an historic piece of legislation.

How at the beginning they were all seated at the Senate circle, politely listening to their colleagues and perhaps rehearsing their own remarks in their heads.

And then, several hours later, how the scene had changed. At any given time only a handful of weary Senators would be listening to one of the 12 pro-death penalty Republicans detail a doomed amendment while others hovered nearby or outside the chamber, chatting, strategizing, complaining to reporters, resting, getting other work done, fretting over the late hour – all waiting for the vote to be called so they could return to their seats, push a “yes” or “no” button, and resume whatever they were doing, hoping the next vote called would be for the actual bill.

I’ve heard some staffers in the much larger House of Representatives on the floor below jokingly refer to the Senate as ‘the House of Lords’.

There is a greater intimacy to the Senators’ debates because they number only 36.

I don’t want to sound all “gee whiz, isn’t democracy great!” because the quality of the death penalty debate varied, depending on the hour.

But it was something to see up close and in person the determination both sides brought to the Senate chamber last night.

Just before 3 a.m. Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, dismissed complaints his members were being unreasonable in insisting to continue the death penalty debate into the wee small hours.

“This is the most important vote we’ve had here,” McKinney said.

He said by supporting the death penalty he knows he could be participating in ending someone’s life.

“I can’t think of a more enormous … vote we could take,” McKinney said.

He also said he takes offense at the suggestion the GOP’s questions and amendments are becoming repetitive, particularly in light of the liklihood the bill will be vetoed by Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

McKinney said if a potential veto means lawmakers should not debate a bill, reporters should ask the Senate’s Democrat-majority why they decided to bring the death penalty out in the first place for a vote?

“We have the right to stand up and speak on issues of importance,” McKinney said. “It’s offensive to suggest members can’t speak freely on issues they feel deeply about.”

Sen. Ed Meyer, D-Guilford, is furious with the Republicans.

“We’ve had eleven hours of a virtual filibuster,” Meyer told reporters.

Asked why the opposing side should not have as much time as necessary to air their views, Meyer asked if reporters were actually listening to what the GOP was saying. He noted they have begun posing questions to one another about their own amendments just to keep talking.

“They’re not airing their concerns,” Meyer said. “Senator Kissel (John Kissel, R-Enfield) started talking about bluefish and his family.”

The vote, when it ultimately comes, is expected to be close – 19 to 17 – in favor of abolishing the death penalty.

McKinney said his caucus was in no way trying to wear down one or two of their “anti-death penalty” colleagues enough so that they would grow too tired and head home. He said there is not one single person he expects to exit the debate before the vote.

A few minutes earlier Sen. Edith Prague, D-Columbia, 83, whom colleagues noted has had a tough week dealing with her daughter’s health issues, sat in the Democrats’ offices and called the Republicans “obnoxious.”

Prague for years has supported the death penalty because a neighbor’s granddaughter was a victim of Michael Ross, the serial killer Connecticut put to death in 2005.

Prague began to have doubts about executions a few years later when the state admitted inmate James Tillman served 17 years in prison for a rape he didn’t commit and was released.

Prague said she was committed to voting to abolish the death penalty this morning, whatever time the debate ended.

“Once you’ve given your commitment, you’re committed,” Prague said. “If you don’t keep your commitments, you’re dead.”

I was getting ready to leave when Prague turned to her aide and said: “All these guys are waiting for me to fall down. I’m as tough as they are.”

“Heinousness.” As soon as the word left his lips a few minutes ago, freshman Sen. L. Scott Frantz, R-Greenwich, questioned aloud whether he’d made a mistake.

Frantz around 1:15 a.m. this morning used the term in raising one of at least 20 amendments he and his Republican colleagues in the Senate proposed as the debate on abolishing the death penalty headed towards its ninth consecutive hour.

That will be two more hours than the much larger House of Representatives took to debate and ultimately pass the legislation last week.

“There’s also a level of heinousness, if that is even a word,” Frantz said.

In fact, it is.

The death penalty is a serious subject and I have no doubt that there are folks on both sides of the debate who have heartfelt opinions.

But you have to begin to wonder…

After eight hours, with no end in sight, what is the GOP’s point here? Why do they feel the need to run the clock longer than their colleagues in the House did?

Is it to filibuster the bill in the hope it will not pass? I might eat these words when I wake up in a few hours but I imagine the “abolish executions” supporters have no intention of walking away and allowing the opposition to, no pun intended, talk this bill to death. It has never gotten this far in Connecticut.

Which leads to the fact that it is quite likely Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell will veto the legislation when it eventually crosses her desk in the coming weeks.

Now in the meantime there are probably going to be e-mails sent, phonecalls made, letters written and perhaps even protests staged to convince Rell to either change her position or stick to her opinion the death penalty should be used to punish the most “heinous” crimes.

But many Republicans, including Frantz himself, earlier this evening lauded the General Assembly for debating the death penalty, so you’d think they would have no problem seeing that public discussion continue for a little bit longer knowing the outcome is still a likely veto.

Perhaps they are nervous Rell will change her mind under pressure? As recently as this afternoon she told reporters she hadn’t.

So what are the Senate Republicans playing at here? Do they want to be able to look constituents who back the death penalty in the eye and say they spent hours and used every trick in the legislative book to try and stop this bill from passing? That they hoped perhaps by their 18th, 19th or 20th amendment they would have swayed the opinion of one or two of those colleagues, Democrat and Republican, who plan to do away with executions?

If so, more power to them. That’s how the General Assembly works, and when you’re the minority party sometimes it’s all you’ve got. Plus I give anyone who can make a coherent speech at 2:00 a.m. credit.

Hopefully, since this debate is being televised and recorded, this is not some marathon effort to come up with multiple takes of pro-death-penalty speeches that can be sifted through at some point in the future with the best and most compelling used in upcoming re-election campaigns.

That would truly be the height of heinousness.

Earlier today Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a death penalty supporter, told reporters she would like the Senate, should it pass a bill abolishing the death penalty tonight, to circumvent the typical length of time it takes for a bill to reach her desk by immediately transmitting the legislation to her.

Rell has not said she plans to veto the bill, but it’s likely. And it’s also likely she wants it ASAP so she can veto it and avoid having to deal with a barrage of appeals from death penalty opponents and advocates over the next couple of weeks.

The Governor’s no fool and I’m sure she probably knew her request would be denied.

I asked Sen. Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven, if he intends to move for immediate transmittal.

“We will not,” Looney smiled. “The Governor wants it so she can veto the bill and get out of any advocacy pressure. We want the advocates to have the opportunity to make their case.”

It’s quarter of ten. The Senate has been debating whether to abolish the death penalty for about four-and-a-half hours.

And I wish I had a panoramic camera to capture in one wide shot a few of the people who have a stake in the outcome and have, for these few minutes, gathered outside the Senate chamber.

Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, the co-chairmen of the Judiciary Committee and the bill’s sponsors, discuss what I assume to be strategy.

A couple of yards away, behind a column, two House members who support the death penalty – Reps. Steve Mikutel, D-Griswold and Tony Guerrera, D-Rocky Hill – huddle. Despite their best efforts the House of Representatives passed the death penalty bill last week.

And a couple of yards from where Mikutel and Guerrera stand, recently retired Rep. Bill Dyson, D-New Haven, who spent his political career fighting to abolish the death penalty, sits on a wooden bench reserved for lobbyists, awaiting the final vote.

Before the legislature adjourns June 3 the Republican minority or state GOP officials or both are going to complain about all the time they’ll say Democrats have wasted debating various pieces of legislation while the state remains without a new, two-year budget.

I’m not sure which bills they’ll use as examples, but tonight I’m declaring at least two off bounds, based on comments some Republican legislators themselves made during today’s debates.

The first statement was made by House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk a few hours ago when that chamber discussed and subsequently unanimously passed a resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation and other racist policies of the past.

“To those who say ‘why now?’ I guess I would say ‘why not’?” an eloquent Cafero told his colleagues.

The second example came just a few minutes ago during the ongoing debate in the Senate over whether to abolish the death penalty in Connecticut.

Freshman Sen. L. Scott Frantz, R-Greenwich, prefaced his remarks by stating he believes the debate, which began last week in the House, has been a good exercise for the legislature and state.

“If this does not pass I would suggest we do bring this up every year,” Frantz said.

A few reporters caught up with Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell this afternoon as she prepared to attend a ceremony at the capitol.

The question of the day? If the state Senate, as is expected, passes legislation later today abolishing the death penalty, what will she do with the bill?

Rell last week, a few days before the historic passage of the death penalty legislation in the House of Representatives, said she supports executing criminals guilty of the most heinous of crimes.

“I haven’t changed my mind,” she said today.

But Rell said if the Senate passes the bill she would encourage the chamber to immediately transmit the legislation to her rather than wait the several days it can typically take for bills to reach her desk for her consideration.

She did not say she plans to veto the death penalty legislation, but it seems to me she is eager to do so and get this high profile matter out of the way.

She may also want to avoid having to deal with letters, e-mails and phonecalls urging her to act one way or the other on the matter.

One reporter noted there has been some speculation Rell would neither sign nor veto the bill, but do nothing and allow it to become law.

“That’s a cop out,” she said.