The top bar is how often a subject comes up in what he is on record saying. The bottom bar is how much his record shows on it. They are not the same measure and are not to scale with each other — one counts things he said, the other counts things he did as governor - acts he refused, orders he issued, proposals he put to the legislature. Each is sized against the biggest row of its own kind. Click any row to go to that subject.
Subjects are sorted by how much he talks about them. A statement is counted under a subject when its words appear in it — Electric bills and energy: electric, energy, utility, ratepayer, nuclear, power, grid; Data centers: data center; The cost of living: afford, cost of living, grocer, price, expensive, and so on. That is a rough sort and one statement can count under more than one subject.
One line each. Tap a row to read his own words on it.
From the official record.
A governor only has to explain himself when he says no. So his 19 vetoes are the only place he wrote down why.
That is 19 bills out of 1,473. They do not stand for the rest.
Signing a bill does not say how much he wanted it.
91 of his 141 executive orders were issued in 2020. No other year had more than 31.
He wants to send families about $400 to help with their energy bills.
I propose sending you an energy rebate, about $400 per family, to help you and your family manage through these trying times.
In his 2026 State of the State address he proposed sending households an energy rebate of about $400 per family. It is a proposal, not a law.
He ordered the state energy and environment department to work out how Connecticut could run its electricity grid entirely on clean power by 2040.
He says new data centers should slow down unless they bring their own power with them.
We extended our Millstone nuclear agreement and said slow down new data centers, unless they add more generation as well.
Nothing he vetoed or ordered is about data centers. He has spoken about them, and what he says is in the other half of this card.
He says he is trying to make life less expensive for working and middle-class families.
we are trying to make life a little less expensive for working families and the middle class, who are getting slammed by higher costs.
His one concrete cost proposal for households is the $400 energy rebate in his 2026 State of the State address. It is a proposal, not a law.
In his 2025 budget address he proposed holding the growth of generic drug costs to the rate of inflation. It is a proposal, not a law.
He is against raising taxes, and says more housing and more local business cut your tax bill.
no to more taxes but yes to more taxpayers, as we work with mayors to reduce your tax bill with more housing and local business.
He has also said big tax cuts and tax credits would leave deficits in later years.
Many of you over here want to add $500 million in tax cuts and over here $500 million in tax credits, leaving deficits in future years.
Nothing he vetoed or ordered changed the income tax or the sales tax. He has sent the legislature four state budgets, and a budget he proposes is not the same as something he did on his own.
He says paying more of the school and town bill keeps property taxes from going up.
By closing funding gaps for our schools and municipalities, we can help communities avoid raising property taxes while keeping classrooms running and local services strong
He vetoed an act that would have stopped town assessors from changing a property assessment set on appeal until the next town-wide revaluation.
He backs the state’s spending cap, and says you cannot spend more than you earn.
I continue to be a strong believer in the spending cap, which simply restates the obvious: you can’t spend more than you earn.
He struck six spending items out of a budget act and signed the rest, so the act became law without them. He said the money had been set aside for named organizations outside any competitive process.
He struck three spending sections out of a budget act and signed the rest, so the act became law without them. The struck sections were grants to nonprofits and community health services.
He struck a $40 million school-funding appropriation out of a budget act and signed the rest, so the act became law without it. He said it would push the budget over the state spending cap.
He says housing is his number one priority.
Housing’s going to be our No. 1 priority
He vetoed the main housing act of the 2025 session. It had passed the House 84 to 67 and the Senate 20 to 15, the closest votes of any act he refused.
He says towns, not the state, should say where housing goes.
Towns take the lead. You tell us, mayors, where you want housing, and where you don’t want housing.
He has also said he does not want towns just saying no.
I don’t want them just to say no. I want them to say yes.
He vetoed an act that would have let residents of more towns force a public vote to overturn a state decision to approve a permit for a facility.
He vetoed the 2025 housing act. He objected to the state setting each town's housing targets and to the act limiting what parking a town can require, and said targets should be set with towns rather than for them.
He vetoed an act that would have put a local resident on the state board that approves energy and telecoms projects, for projects in their own town.
He wants free school breakfast for every student.
our budget provides for free school breakfasts for all of our students. Everybody starts the day right. No shame, no stigma, no empty stomachs.
He created a commission to review how Connecticut pays for K-12 schools and how schools are held to account.
He struck the $40 million special education excess cost grant out of a budget act and signed the rest, so the act became law without that money.
He says the state will move to health care that everyone can get and afford.
We can and will finally move to universal, affordable healthcare.
In his 2025 budget address he proposed capping the growth of generic drug costs at the rate of inflation. It is a proposal, not a law.
He ordered the Office of Health Strategy to set state-wide benchmarks for how fast health care costs may grow, and a target for primary care spending.
He ordered the Department of Social Services to publish more about what Medicaid costs and how good the care is.
He says he backs the right to organize and will fight anything from Washington that weakens it.
I support the right to organize. I’m going to oppose any efforts to interfere with that right coming out of Washington, D.C.
He has also said he is pro jobs and watches for bills that discourage jobs here.
I think I’m pro jobs and I want to watch out for any bill which I think discourages jobs in this state.
He vetoed an act that would have let workers on strike claim unemployment benefits after 14 days. He said it would change what the unemployment fund is for.
He vetoed an act setting up a Connecticut Families and Workers Account, which would have put up to $3 million of unspent money into a separate fund to help low-income workers.
He created the Governor's Workforce Council to coordinate the state's job training programs.
He says police do their best work when they can afford to live where they serve.
Cops are best when they can afford to live in the community where they serve.
He vetoed an act that would have let one town's police take an armoured military-surplus vehicle from another town's police department.
He vetoed an act limiting the use of isolated confinement in state prisons. He said he supported the aim but that the act's limits on restraints put prisoners and staff at risk.
He ordered changes to how solitary confinement is used in state prisons, including more time out of a cell.
He says Connecticut does not want or need the kind of ICE presence it has seen.
Let me be clear: Connecticut does not want, nor do we need, the type of presence ICE has had in our state this week.
He has also said the state works with ICE and the FBI to get dangerous people off the street.
When it comes to dangerous people on the street, we work with everybody — FBI, DEA, ICE — to get dangerous people off the street.
Nothing he vetoed or ordered touches this. One act he partly vetoed did have a part about school staff and immigration agents, but the parts he struck out were spending items. The immigration part became law and he left it alone.
He says the goal is to stand together in November and defeat Trump’s Republicans.
Our goal should be to stand together this November and defeat the MAGA Republicans and the extremism coming from President Trump.
Nothing he vetoed or ordered is about the Trump administration or federal policy. The acts he vetoed are state bills and his orders are instructions to state agencies.
Nothing was found from him on this.
Nothing he vetoed or ordered is about tariffs. Tariffs are set by the federal government, not by a state.
Nothing was found from him on this. He has blamed the war for higher heating oil prices, but he has not said where he stands on the war itself.
Nothing he vetoed or ordered is about Iran or any war. A governor does not decide foreign policy.
He says the right to choose will not change while he is governor.
As long as I am governor of this great state, we’ll never waiver on the right to choose
Nothing he vetoed or ordered touches abortion.
He says you cannot be tough on crime while being weak on guns.
You can’t be tough on crime if you are weak on guns!
Nothing he vetoed or ordered touches guns.
The long version. Every statement found, grouped by subject, each one linked to where it was said. His own words means he said or wrote it, with a date. Campaign platform means his campaign’s website, undated. Reported means a reporter’s summary, not his words. 17 further sources and subjects were checked and produced nothing usable; they are listed in the data rather than left to look as though they were never tried.
Affordability as a regulatory standard: Require affordability to be considered when determining utility profits, ensuring ratepayers are not asked to shoulder unreasonable costs.Ned Lamont for Governor (campaign website) · undated · source
Before you rule out natural gas, due primarily to methane emissions, that’s where most of our power comes from and will for the foreseeable future, especially without more nuclear power.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · January 2025 · source
Nuclear power already provides most of our carbon-free power. That’s why we’re working with the federal government to find ways to expand nuclear capacity here in Connecticut.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · January 2025 · source
Our electricity prices have been among the highest in the country for the last generation or two.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2026 · source
The answer isn’t just more subsidies or moving costs from ratepayers to taxpayers.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2026 · source
We extended our Millstone nuclear agreement and said slow down new data centers, unless they add more generation as well.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2026 · source
Our energy regulatory authority, PURA, requires a constructive relationship with our utilities, but PURA should never be afraid to hold the utilities accountable.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2026 · source
I propose sending you an energy rebate, about $400 per family, to help you and your family manage through these trying times.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2026 · source
Connecticut families pay some of the highest electricity bills in the entire country.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · May 2026 · source
The decision on this rate increase belongs to PURA, Connecticut’s independent utility regulator. That independence is real, and it’s important.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · May 2026 · source
I will keep fighting to make energy more affordable for our residents. That means pursuing a diversified energy portfolio that includes renewable energy and the latest technologyOffice of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · May 2026 · source
The 20th century utility model is no longer built for Connecticut families, it’s built to serve utility shareholders.Ned Lamont for Governor (campaign website) · June 2026 · source
This is an absurd money grab by Eversource, and we won’t stand for it. Our ratepayers cannot afford to pay any more, nor should they have to.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · October 2026 · source
At the same time, we propose some cost-saving reforms, including capping out-of-district costs to private providers.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2025 · source
This fund will be a downpayment on making pre-K and early childhood education affordable and accessible for all of our kids.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2025 · source
I believe the White House attacks on higher ed, including the temporary freezing of federal grants, are short-sighted and very damaging.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2025 · source
Connecticut was a leader in getting these phones out of the classroom. Let’s go one step further – no phones bell to bell in any of our schoolsOffice of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2026 · source
our budget provides for free school breakfasts for all of our students. Everybody starts the day right. No shame, no stigma, no empty stomachs.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2026 · source
We have 207 school districts; that doesn’t mean we have to replicate every overhead function 207 times.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2026 · source
Every Connecticut high school student deserves a running start toward college and we’re going to make sure they get oneNed Lamont for Governor (campaign website) · June 2026 · source
our cops round up the bad guys, regardless of immigration status. We get the bad guys off the street, and we work with any federal authorities to keep us safe.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2025 · source
Connecticut is not a ‘sanctuary’ state. That term has no legal definition, and it is not an accurate description of our laws and practices.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · August 2025 · source
The Connecticut Trust Act prioritizes public safety, and it was adopted with bipartisan support and the Trump administration previously certified that it is in compliance with federal policies.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · August 2025 · source
When it comes to dangerous people on the street, we work with everybody — FBI, DEA, ICE — to get dangerous people off the street.CT News Junkie · January 2026 · source
Our police are proud. They wear body cams. They don’t hide their face behind a maskCT News Junkie · January 2026 · source
ICE, everywhere you go uninvited, violence follows. Go home. We are keeping Connecticut safe without you.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2026 · source
Let me be clear: Connecticut does not want, nor do we need, the type of presence ICE has had in our state this week.CT News Junkie · August 2026 · source
I think we can make it better. I think the only way to really make it work is if you have buy-in from the local communities.CT Mirror · June 2025 · source
I’m not happy with the local regulation. I’m not happy with the, you know, the local red tape, but I want the towns to take the leadCT Mirror · June 2025 · source
I don’t want them just to say no. I want them to say yes.CT Mirror · January 2026 · source
Towns take the lead. You tell us, mayors, where you want housing, and where you don’t want housing.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2026 · source
Some of the people that complained about the housing bill was sort of ‘Not in my backyard’ and ‘Stay away from the green grass, I want to keep it green,’CT Mirror · October 2026 · source
Property taxes relentlessly come due in good times and bad, and they hit the middle-class especially hard.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2022 · source
no to more taxes but yes to more taxpayers, as we work with mayors to reduce your tax bill with more housing and local business.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2026 · source
Many of you over here want to add $500 million in tax cuts and over here $500 million in tax credits, leaving deficits in future years.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2026 · source
By closing funding gaps for our schools and municipalities, we can help communities avoid raising property taxes while keeping classrooms running and local services strongOffice of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · May 2026 · source
Our income tax is one of the highest in the country, if not the highestCT News Junkie · July 2026 · source
Unless you have a better idea, I propose that we cap generic drug cost growth at CPI.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2025 · source
We can and will finally move to universal, affordable healthcare.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2026 · source
This plan will encourage state employees, retirees, and small businesses to go to hospitals where you get the best valueOffice of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2026 · source
If a multi-billion-dollar corporation can afford to operate in our state, it can afford to ensure its workers have healthcare.Ned Lamont for Governor (campaign website) · June 2026 · source
Connecticut’s housing shortage is among the most severe in the country. It is driving up costs for working families, deterring businesses from investing or growing, and worsening homelessness.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · November 2025 · source
It’s related to out-of-state buyers, buying up the market, using that monopoly to jack up rentsCT Mirror · January 2026 · source
I need to get people on board with an aggressive housing agenda.CT Mirror · January 2026 · source
Housing’s going to be our No. 1 priorityCT Mirror · October 2026 · source
Lamont said he supports the expansion of red light and speeding cameras as well as license plate readersCT News Junkie · July 2026 · source
provide more intensive responses to the small number of juveniles with serious and repeated charges, and restructure motor vehicle theft laws to focus on people with prior offensesOffice of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · July 2022 · source
We have perhaps the best trained police force in the world, making Connecticut one of the very safest states.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2026 · source
Cops are best when they can afford to live in the community where they serve.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2026 · source
we are trying to make life a little less expensive for working families and the middle class, who are getting slammed by higher costs.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2026 · source
When costs are this high, I’m not someone who just waits around.Ned Lamont for Governor (campaign website) · October 2026 · source
Families across the U.S. are paying the price for rising heating oil costs driven by President Trump’s war in Iran, and we cannot leave these households out in the coldOffice of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · October 2026 · source
Achieve a 100% zero-carbon grid by 2040 and net-zero emissions by 2050 targets.Ned Lamont for Governor (campaign website) · undated · source
The cost of dealing with climate change is expensive, the cost of doing nothing is immeasurable.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2024 · source
We need more non-gas energy sources to help bring costs downOffice of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · July 2026 · source
These workers are entitled to their day in court.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · July 2019 · source
I support the right to organize. I’m going to oppose any efforts to interfere with that right coming out of Washington, D.C.CT Mirror · May 2025 · source
I think I’m pro jobs and I want to watch out for any bill which I think discourages jobs in this state.CT News Junkie · June 2025 · source
In 2017, the legislature put in place the fiscal guardrails that have allowed us to honestly balance four budgets in a row, and thank you for that.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · January 2023 · source
I continue to be a strong believer in the spending cap, which simply restates the obvious: you can’t spend more than you earn.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2025 · source
This is a balanced, sensible budget that is under the spending cap, provides predictability and stability for residents, businesses, and municipalitiesOffice of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · June 2025 · source
I am asking the legislature to act on our consensus proposal to follow Rhode Island in implementing commercial truck tolls on 12 bridges meeting strict federal criteria.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · December 2019 · source
Connecticut can implement the tractor trailer mileage-based fee, which is already in place in New York and Oregon.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2021 · source
Preference will be given to states that implement user pay models, a.k.a. tolls. You can’t make this stuff up.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2025 · source
You can’t be tough on crime if you are weak on guns!Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2022 · source
guns involved in crimes occurring in our communities are purchased illegally on the underground market, and deterring this kind of straw purchasing will have a major impact on lowering crimeOffice of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · January 2023 · source
As long as I am governor of this great state, we’ll never waiver on the right to chooseOffice of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · May 2022 · source
This is an issue of freedom, and the people of Connecticut can rest assured that we are doing everything in our ability to protect their reproductive rights.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · July 2023 · source
One thing I ask in return: vote. It makes a difference.Office of the Governor (portal.ct.gov) · February 2024 · source
Our goal should be to stand together this November and defeat the MAGA Republicans and the extremism coming from President Trump.Ned Lamont for Governor (campaign website) · May 2026 · source
19 acts vetoed outright and 3 signed with sections struck out, across 8 sessions. 0 were overridden — the legislature never took an override vote on any of them. Each entry carries the chamber votes as the Office of Legislative Research printed them and 41 verbatim passages from his own veto messages. A line-item veto is marked differently because the act still became law.
Let me be clear at the outset: my objection is not to the missions of the organizations named in these sections, nor to the goals the legislature seeks to advance. Many of these programs do meaningful work in communities across our state. My objection is to the process. Over the past year, Connecticut residents have rightly asked for greater transparency and accountability in how legislatively directed funds - commonly referred to as earmarks - are proposed, reviewed, and distributed. When taxpayer dollars are set aside for specific entities outside of a competitive or formula-based process, the public deserves to know exactly how and why those decisions are made, what standards apply, and what oversight mechanisms are in place.
Until meaningful transparency and oversight standards are enacted into law, I will not approve new legislatively directed appropriations embedded in omnibus legislation.
Ensuring the public is heard in these processes is a priority I share. However, it’s important to note that today’s permitting process offers extensive opportunity for public engagement. I am concerned that the mechanism proposed in this bill, [that is] allowing a local referendum to reverse certain permit approvals or denials issued by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), could have unintended consequences that weaken critical protections for environmental justice communities and create harmful uncertainty for our business community that could hamper investment in Connecticut.
All of DEEP’s permitting processes offer opportunities for the public to submit comments and request hearings. In addition to those standard opportunities, CGS section 22a-20a requires applicants seeking to construct and operate certain types of facilities in environmental justice areas to do additional, robust community engagement before submitting an application. Moreover, regulations adopted pursuant to subsection (g) of that law will require careful consideration of cumulative impacts on public health and the environment in our state’s environment justice communities, including small municipalities. In 2023, the Connecticut General Assembly directed DEEP to craft these regulations to ensure that the most overburdened and vulnerable neighborhoods in our state are not left behind in decisions that shape their environmental and health future, while also ensuring that the regulated community has the tools it needs to take cumulative impacts into account at the beginning of its permitting process.
The bill will create uncertainty in an otherwise structured, science-based permitting process that businesses, municipalities, and residents alike rely on for predictability and fairness. The Department’s process, both in its current state and after the adoption of environmental justice regulations, balances the important goal of enabling overburdened and vulnerable neighborhoods to participate in the permitting process, with the need for clear standards and a predictable process to support economic development. Predictability is critical for those seeking to do business in our state. Allowing permitting decisions to be overturned by referenda undermines the principles of objectivity embedded in our state permitting processes, will discourage important investments in infrastructure, and ultimately will drive up cost of living for residents.
The Unemployment Trust Fund exists to provide support to individuals who are out of work through no fault of their own, and its long-term sustainability is critical. Extending benefits to individuals actively participating in labor disputes, even after a period of time, alters the fundamental purpose of the program.
Additionally, the bill’s staggered timelines and reliance on subjective determinations would create implementation challenges for the Department of Labor, potentially resulting in inconsistent administration and legal uncertainty for all parties involved.
As well-intentioned as this bill may be, it requires revision before it can form the foundation of a durable and equitable statewide housing strategy. Most importantly, I believe there is a better path forward—one rooted in partnership, collaboration, and action.
This bill establishes ambitious statewide housing goals—and I agree we need them. But I believe we can better achieve these goals through local engagement and providing towns the tools they need to do the job. I believe we should reward towns that take the lead: for example, by offering relief from 8-30g when municipalities adopt their own middle housing overlays or pre-zone near transit and downtown centers. That’s why I appreciate the proposal in this bill to prioritize discretionary funding for communities that do the right thing. In its current form, however, the bill imposes requirements that do not reflect the complexity or diversity of Connecticut’s towns and cities. For example, it limits the ability of municipalities to manage parking requirements. While I agree that parking mandates have been used to discourage development, we cannot ignore that there are communities that need parking to support additional housing development. Parking requirements should be based on specific needs.
In addition, state-imposed housing goals for each municipality have clearly created a significant amount of anxiety. I believe that unit-based planning goals for communities is an important step forward. But those goals must reflect both ambition and flexibility, and they must be grounded in a renewed commitment to collaboration. The state should partner with municipalities to establish these targets, and then help the towns execute those plans, including through investment in infrastructure.
Our state operates under a constitutional spending cap, designed to ensure fiscal discipline and safeguard taxpayer dollars. The appropriations outlined in these sections circumvent the established budget process, allocating funds without the rigorous scrutiny typically applied to state expenditures. This not only undermines the transparency of our fiscal operations but also sets a precedent for bypassing budgetary controls. By adhering to the spending cap, we maintain a balanced budget that prioritizes essential state services, including education, public safety, and healthcare. Every dollar spent must be justified through a transparent, strategic budgeting process that reflects the needs of all residents. These sections do not meet that standard.
The arbitrary nature of these allocations not only raises questions about fairness but also about effectiveness. Taxpayer dollars should be allocated based on demonstrable need and measurable outcomes, not on political considerations or geographic distribution. I am committed to supporting community organizations that provide essential services to our residents. However, this must be done through a transparent and accountable process that includes clear criteria for funding decisions and competitive grant processes to ensure fairness and effectiveness.
Our state operates under a constitutional spending cap, designed to ensure fiscal discipline and safeguard taxpayer dollars. The appropriations outlined in these sections circumvent the established budget process, allocating funds without the rigorous scrutiny typically applied to state expenditures. This not only undermines the transparency of our fiscal operations but also sets a precedent for bypassing budgetary controls. This line-item veto is about ensuring that we provide for our children without jeopardizing their financial future and the financial future of our state. Including this $40,000,000 would push the budget well over the spending cap, creating a fiscal imbalance that could force cuts to critical programs or lead to higher taxes for hard working Connecticut families.
In addition, this $40,000,000 appropriation was introduced outside the established budget process, bypassing the scrutiny and prioritization exercised by the Appropriations Committee. I cannot endorse an appropriation that follows a dangerous precedent of fiscal irresponsibility. We cannot afford to make budget decisions based on short-term political considerations at the expense of long-term fiscal health.
The allocation of up to $3,000,000 of unexpended funds into a new, separate, non- lapsing account within the General Fund lacks clarity in terms of impact, financial accountability, and oversight. Without a clear mechanism for monitoring the transfer and utilization of the funds, there is a risk of inefficiency, mismanagement, and lack of transparency in their intended allocation. It is unclear how the Comptroller will ensure that the funds are used appropriately and effectively to assist low-income workers.
In addition, the absence of detailed guidelines on how the funds will be utilized or the specific criteria for assisting low-income workers presents challenges in ensuring the effective and equitable distribution of resources. The bill does not provide specific details about how the “Connecticut families and workers account” will assist low- income workers. It does not outline the criteria for eligibility or the specific types of assistance that will be provided. Without clear goals or metrics for success, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of this initiative in addressing the needs of low- income workers.
First and foremost, the [bill’s] proposed amendment to section 7-148v of the general statutes raises the threshold for sealed bidding on certain municipal contracts from $25,000 to $50,000. The threshold of $25,000 was established in 2013, [and] an inflation adjustment would increase [the] threshold to approximately $35,000. This bill has a significant increase above that number.
While the goal may be to streamline administrative procedures and reduce bureaucratic hurdles, I cannot overlook the potential risks associated with reducing transparency and accountability in the awarding of public contracts. Competitive bidding processes are essential to ensure fairness, quality, and cost- effectiveness in public procurement. By increasing the threshold for sealed bidding, we run the risk of limiting competition, potentially leading to inflated costs, reduced quality of services or goods, and even unethical practices such as favoritism or collusion. In an era where transparency, accountability, and efficiency are paramount, it is crucial that our laws and regulations keep pace with best practices to ensure the highest level of integrity and value for taxpayers’ dollars and that adequate safeguards to prevent abuse or misuse are in place.
This bill would create significant administrative mandates for our state agencies and, more importantly, would undermine out state procurement process and standards. At its core, the proposed legislation undermines the principle of competition, which is the foundation of public procurement, as articulated in CGS 4a-57(a): “all purchase of, and contracts for, supplies, materials, equipment and contractual services... shall be based, when possible, on competitive bids or competitive negotiation.”
[The act] would undermine the current successes of the Connecticut Pilot Test Bed Program. Rather than agencies identifying a need to procure innovative products, this legislation reverses this process through a new vendor-driven model. For example, the proposal allows vendors to compel a state agency to review a product that is already in the marketplace or is similar to products already on existing state contracts with public facing price points and contract details. That may result in advantages that allow a vendor to adjust their product or proposal using market- based pricing of current contracts... [The act] further erodes the competitive bidding process by inappropriately expanding the usage of CGS Section 4a-58(b) and not subjecting the proposed product or service to further competitive bidding. In current practice, CGS 4a-58 is triggered when an agency identifies an emergency because of an “extraordinary condition of contingencies that could not reasonably be foreseen and guarded against” or because of an “unusual trade or market conditions.” The Connecticut Innovations Program established pursuant to Public Act 21-76, involves product development, curated to meet an agency identified need. The process proposed in [the act] is not curated to an agency identified need, but rather utilizes products already in production in the marketplace. Thus, a commercially available product identified for operational cost reduction purposes fails to meet the threshold requirements established in CGS 4a-58.
The Connecticut Siting Council is a state entity critical to development of telecommunications, electric, gas, and other infrastructure. When an infrastructure project is proposed, the Council balances the needs of residents of local communities and the needs of the residents of the state as a whole. As such, the Council currently has an impartial membership that evaluates applications in a detailed manner and consults relevant stakeholders to determine its benefits and costs.... The Siting Council was established more than half a century ago to consolidate regulation of energy and telecommunications infrastructure in one statewide body and avoid town-by-town regulation with differing rules and processes. [This act] is exactly at odds with that purpose and should not become law.
Under existing law, municipalities have robust opportunities for participation in Siting Council proceedings. Before applying, every applicant must go through a formal municipal consultation process under C.G.S. § 16-50l. Once a proceeding has begun, a host municipality has an absolute right to participate as a party.... Residents and officials can and do participate in Council proceedings by submitting comments and testifying at public hearings... Public and municipal participation is taken seriously by the Siting Council, leading to changes in applications of conditions on approval that meaningfully mitigate any harm to the public.... Ultimately, the municipality can appeal any decision it disagrees with to Superior Court. The [act] would allow municipalities to participate in Council proceedings from both sides: both as a party and through a representative member who may be privy to privileged or otherwise sensitive information. It is inappropriate for a party to a proceeding who may later file an appeal to also appoint a representative to the decision-making body from which the appeal will be taken.
In addition, the Siting Council has indicated that the fiscal impact of the bill is understated, as it is based exclusively on the number of regular meetings held by the Council and does not take into consideration the number of public hearings and other proceedings held by the Council on an annual basis.... The Council’s budget is funded by energy and telecommunications industry assessments and invoices. Consequently, compensation of public members is ultimately paid for by electric ratepayers and telecommunications customers and could lead to increased costs for those consumers.
[This act] requires [DEEP] to conduct a [RFI] regarding infrastructure for solid waste disposal—that is, discarded material that is meant to be burned in a waste-to-energy facility or buried in a landfill as opposed to recycled or otherwise diverted. While well intentioned, DEEP has already completed an RFI earlier in 2023 for materials management infrastructure broadly, and many of the responses were from developers of solid waste disposal technologies, including gasification technologies. The responses can be viewed on DEEP’s website. Running another similar but more limited RFI would at best be both duplicative for the Department and confusing for the private sector.
Our state adopted the biennial budget process as part of the reforms enacted during the consequential 1991 legislative session to ensure that adequate revenue would be available to fund important, ongoing state programs. This legislation seeks to operate outside that biennial process to prioritize a singular grant program without a complete understanding of the out-year budgetary implications. More problematic, however, is the provision of the bill that constrains legislative and executive power with respect to the budget process by limiting the ability of the Governor and the General Assembly to reduce the annual transfer from the General Fund to the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Fund except pursuant to a declaration of an emergency by the Governor and a two thirds affirmative vote by the General Assembly. State budgeting responsibilities in Connecticut are carried out primarily by the Governor and the Legislature and, given the major fiscal reforms enacted in 1991 and the constitutional requirement for a balanced state budget, both the Governor and the Legislature must have flexibility when developing the budget.
This [act] would expressly restrict the ability of a tax assessor to reassess property until the next valuation, except under very narrow circumstances. If a board [of assessment appeals] unreasonably, or incorrectly, reduces or increases an assessment, that assessment cannot be corrected until the next valuation.... Legislation of this kind should not be used to resolve a local dispute, where the effects will be wide-ranging and disruptive to the rest of our municipalities.
Section 1 makes unobjectionable technical and clarifying changes to the provisions regarding dashboard cameras. Section 2 makes a one-time exception to the Public Act 20-1 bar on acquisition of “controlled equipment” via the Department of Defense 1033 military surplus equipment program (the “1033 program”)... As explained below, I oppose this exception to the military-surplus provisions of Public Act 20-1. Following an extended public debate regarding the militarization of police, the legislature included in Public Act 20-1 a prohibition on acquiring the most militarized equipment available through the 1033 program. MRAPs were included in the list following several national and local instances of inappropriate use of such vehicles. Public Act 20-1 appropriately prevented acquisition of MRAPs, and I believe it is inconsistent with the intent of Public Act 20-1 and the type of community-focused policing my administration supports to make an exception to this prohibition.
The bill does not differentiate between negligence arising out of discretionary versus ministerial acts with a motor vehicle. As explained more fully below, I am not convinced that the legislature fully considered the possible consequences of the bill. Currently, public employees operating municipal vehicles do not have the discretion to disregard motor vehicle laws. They have a mandatory duty to abide by these laws and a municipality may be liable for an employee’s negligent driving. As the Connecticut Council for Municipalities recognized in its submitted testimony “public employees operating municipal vehicles do not have the discretion to disregard motor vehicle laws... they have a ministerial/mandatory duty to abide by these laws. In instances where there is deviance from those laws, government immunity would not apply.” See, The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities’ testimony before the Judiciary Committee, March 4, 2022.
I respect that it is a policy decision well within the purview and authority of the legislature to reject the Supreme Court’s recent statutory interpretation. However, as written, SB 204 [PA 22-22] seems broader: it eliminates completely the doctrine of governmental immunity for a municipality in the operation of a town-owned vehicle. This change could entail, for example, that a police officer’s decision to pursue a fleeing law violator is not a discretionary act and therefore governmental immunity does not apply. In that regard, I am concerned that the bill may inadvertently have gone too far.
Some assert that the legislation will encourage more litigation against municipalities and emergency responders, increase insurance premiums, and result in fewer people agreeing to serve as volunteer emergency responders. Others have said that all the bill does is unite municipal liability with state liability regarding tort responsibility for motor vehicle crashes and return the law to what it was until recent court decisions. Based on the transcript of legislative debate it appears that the legislature adopted the parity rationale. However, it is not evident whether in doing so, the legislature fully considered that unlike the state, municipalities face greater exposure by the simple fact that they have more emergency vehicles on the roads every day. Employees and volunteers operate police vehicles, fire trucks, and ambulances for the approximately 94 municipal police departments and over 300 municipal fire departments. The legislative debate is silent on the many questions raised by both the recent Supreme Court case and municipal leaders. This is a significant and complex area of the law. Before making changes in this area of the law, I suggest that legislators meet with the municipal officials and other interested parties to discuss more fully the purpose and the impact of this legislation.
The $6,000 sales price required by the legislation is less than one quarter of the appraised fair market value for the property. My administration has not been informed of any extenuating circumstances or other justification for turning over a taxpayer asset to a private interest for far less than the fair market value.
This property was originally purchased using federal funds. Except in certain circumstances, federal law requires the sale be for fair market value; not the fair market value less remediation costs. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also requires that the sale proceeds be used as a match toward other federally participating projects. FHWA annually audits and reviews DOT’s property transactions and has the authority to withhold federal funding for current and future projects for being non-compliant with federal law. As a result, DOT cannot use any of the sale proceeds to cover the remediation costs but must find an alternative source of funds.
This bill requires state agencies to recognize, apply, and honor probate court decisions to which they were not a party. In effect, this means that probate court decisions would bind state agency eligibility determinations for various state assistance programs, including the Medicaid program.... The Attorney General has previously testified that this legislation may violate federal and state laws and thus “pose a substantial threat of loss of billions of federal dollars to the State.” Federal law requires the State to designate one single agency that is responsible for administering the Medicaid program and for making eligibility determinations.... In Connecticut, the Department of Social Services (DSS) is the designated agency. This legislation, by requiring that a decision made in a different forum, under different rules be binding on DSS in its determination of Medicaid eligibility could lead the federal government to conclude that Connecticut is not in compliance with the single administrator requirement. Such a determination would allow the federal government to reduce or withhold federal matching grants.
I fully support the purpose of this legislation, to make certain that isolated confinement is not used in any correction facility in Connecticut... Under my [executive order] today, the Commissioner of Correction will increase out of cell time for all incarcerated individuals, including those individuals in restrictive statuses, and he will do so well before the effective dates of this bill... I am not signing this legislation because, as written, it puts the safety of incarcerated persons and correction employees at substantial risk.
This legislation places unreasonable and dangerous limits on the use of restraints. The bill as written only permits correctional officers with the rank of captain or higher to order the use of handcuffs and only permits therapists to order restraints during a psychiatric emergency....To require that a correctional officer wait for the authorization of a captain to restrain an incarcerated person involved in a serious physical altercation risks the lives of incarcerated persons and correction employees.
The bill sets a limit of 72 hours during any 14-day period that an incarcerated person may be limited to less than 6.5 hours out of cell each day. That out-of-cell time and discipline limitation is far out of line with what has been successfully implemented in any other state. For example, if an individual is placed in isolated confinement for 72 hours, returns to the general population, and slashes the throat of a cell mate, under this legislation the Department could not immediately place the incarcerated person back into isolated confinement, even as a temporary, emergency measure... The legislation also creates a safety risk by failing to provide the Department with flexibility to limit visitors who are allowed in the facilities for contact visits with an incarcerated person...Under this legislation, the Department cannot deny a contact visit solely based on the visitor’s criminal history. Thus, an individual convicted of multiple violent crimes or of smuggling drugs into a correctional facility would be allowed into a facility for a 60-minute contact visit with an incarcerated person.
Finally, the bill makes certain changes to the Ombuds program that create security and litigation risks.... Current statutes protect the safety of incarcerated persons and correctional employees by making the Department responsible for limiting the disclosure of sensitive records that could lead to security breaches. There is nothing in this bill requiring the ombuds person to assume the same duty.
1. September 1, 2021, incarcerated persons in the general population will generally be held in isolated confinement only for disciplinary reasons; 2. October 1, 2021, individuals in isolated confinement will generally have an opportunity for two out-of-cell hours each day and no person shall be held in prolonged isolated confinement (i.e., for more than 15 consecutive days or 30 days in a 60-day period) due to disciplinary reasons; and 3. December 1, 2021, individuals, including those in restrictive housing, will be held in isolated confinement only due to disciplinary status and no person will be held in prolonged isolation.
Broadly speaking, the current state regulations addressed by [sections 5 and 7] of the bill govern the minimum wage a restaurant must pay an employee who spends some, but not all, of his or her time engaged in activities for which tips or gratuities are customarily received. Under state law, employers may pay an employee a lower minimum wage if the employee is engaged in work for which such tips are customarily received. If, however, during the course of one’s shift, an employee performs such work but also performs work for which the higher, standard minimum wage is required, the employer must segregate and record the hours spent doing each task and pay the employee the appropriate wage for the respective hours worked. If the employer cannot or does not so segregate and record an employee’s time, the employer must pay the employee the higher minimum wage for all hours worked. Section 7 repeals the regulation setting forth these requirements. Section 5 requires the [labor] Commissioner to adopt new regulations that look to federal law for guidance. Generally, federal law permits an employer to pay an employee engaged in both service and non-service work the lower minimum wage under a broader set of circumstances than the state law. These sections of the bill make significant policy changes to a complex area of the law governing the rights of workers to a fair wage. While it may be reasonable to conclude that state and federal laws should be consistent in this area, that conclusion ought to be made only after sufficient study, debate and input from affected stakeholders. That did not happen here. More problematic, however, is the provision of the bill purporting to make the repeal of the state regulation retroactive to any civil actions pending or filed on or after the bill’s passage. Any such civil actions, of course, would be brought to pursue claims for wages earned at a time when the regulation at issue was in effect. This retroactive attempt to extinguish a worker’s right to recover wages in an amount lawfully required and earned is patently unfair to the affected workers. It also raises serious due process and other constitutional concerns.
This bill would allow, for example, a seller’s agent to negotiate all terms of a purchase agreement without disclosing the fact that they represent the seller, as long as the agent tells the buyer that they do not represent the buyer at some point before the buyer signs the purchase agreement – even as late as the meeting to sign the agreement. Current law requires agents to disclose this fact when they first begin speaking to a prospective buyer. The proposed weakening of this common-sense consumer protection could create confusion and uncertainty for consumers in the residential real estate market, especially those who believe, incorrectly, that a seller’s agent is acting solely as the buyer’s representative or as a neutral broker, with no commission at stake for completing the sale. The risk is even greater for first-time homebuyers and those with little previous experience in the residential real estate market. The current law strikes the right balance between simplicity of transactions and transparency for consumers.
This bill would make the theft of even a de minimis amount of waste vegetable oil or animal fats a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison. The theft of those products is a crime, and should be seriously policed and prosecuted as one. But aggravating that theft to 4th degree larceny regardless of the value of the stolen product, and in derogation of the penal code’s value-based classification of larcenies, privileges the theft of one particular product and the protection of one particular industry over other Connecticut property owners. A person who steals $35 worth of waste vegetable oil should not face the prospect of a prison sentence four times greater than that faced by a person who steals $35 worth of gasoline.
Public acts and special acts numbered in each session, and how many of them he vetoed. 2020 is small because the regular session was cut short in the first months of the pandemic.
| Session | Public acts | Special acts | Vetoed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 204 | 35 | 3 |
| 2020 | 14 | 0 | 0 |
| 2021 | 203 | 38 | 4 |
| 2022 | 147 | 24 | 2 |
| 2023 | 209 | 31 | 5 |
| 2024 | 152 | 24 | 2 |
| 2025 | 178 | 29 | 3 |
| 2026 | 151 | 34 | 0 |
141 orders issued during his terms, of which 120 fall between 10 March 2020 and the end of 2021. An order is the one thing on this page he did without the legislature.
| Year | Orders issued |
|---|---|
| 2019 | 4 |
| 2020 | 91 |
| 2021 | 31 |
| 2022 | 7 |
| 2023 | 1 |
| 2024 | 3 |
| 2025 | 1 |
| 2026 | 3 |
His State of the State and budget addresses, in full, as his office published them. These are proposals, not outcomes.
| Date | Kind | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 4 February 2026 | state of the state | text |
| 5 February 2025 | budget address | text |
| 8 January 2025 | state of the state | text |
| 7 February 2024 | state of the state | text |
| 8 June 2023 | closing remarks to the legislature | text |
| 8 February 2023 | budget address | text |
| 4 January 2023 | inaugural address | text |
| 4 January 2023 | state of the state | text |
| 9 February 2022 | state of the state | text |
| 10 February 2021 | budget address | text |
| 6 January 2021 | state of the state | text |
| 5 February 2020 | state of the state | text |
| 6 June 2019 | closing remarks to the legislature | text |
| 20 February 2019 | budget address | text |
| 9 January 2019 | state of the state | text |
| 9 January 2019 | inaugural address | text |
Four things, stated here rather than left for a reader to work out. Signing is not endorsing. 1,454 acts became law under him and the record carries no statement of why he signed any of them, because a governor is not required to give one. There are no tallies for most of it. The chamber votes on this page exist only for the 22 acts in the veto reports; for the other 1,451 the Office of Legislative Research published no vote.
A veto is evidence he selected. He chose which 1.5% to refuse and which reasons to publish, so the veto record shows what he would not accept and says nothing about what he wanted. Bills he stopped before they passed leave no trace. A governor who tells legislative leaders a bill will be vetoed can kill it without ever vetoing anything, and no public record anywhere captures that.
Most of what he is quoted saying on this page is recent: 56 of the 70 statements are from 2025 and 2026, and only 14 come from his first six years in office. That is a fact about what is findable online now, not about when he said things.
Ned Lamont was sworn in as the 89th governor of Connecticut on 9 January 2019 and re-elected in 2022. He is seeking a third term in the election of 3 November 2026. His opponent is Republican Ryan Fazio, the state senator for District 36, whose record is built the same way from the same sources and asked the same thirteen questions.
This page is deliberately limited to his terms as governor. His career before January 2019 — in business, and as a candidate in earlier elections — is not covered here at all, because this page is about what he did with the office.