Response from Rep. Klarides

OrangeTownBlueDem over at MyLeftNutmeg received the following response from Representative Klarides about her flip-flop on H.J. 11. Quite a long winded response if you ask me.

thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding my
vote against hj 11: A Resolution Proposing An Amendment to the State
Constitution to Allow 17 year old persons who will be 18 years of age at
the next regular election to vote in primaries related to such election.
I am happy to let you know some of the factors that contributed to my
vote.

First, it was widely recognized from the outset that the actual piece of
legislation itself had been poorly crafted. In fact, the first time it
came before us the Democratic supermajority was forced to use the
uncommon option of passing it temporarily so that it could be made fit
for action on the House floor. When it did come time to amend the bill,
two different versions of the same amendment were circulated within an
hour of each other, giving the legislation feeling of shoddiness and
haste. Frankly, none of these things helped to inspire faith in this
legislation on our side of the aisle.

Second, there was such a substantial amount of confusion among both
Democratic and Republican members of the House as to the exact procedure
and the necessary thresholds for this bill to pass that the speaker was
forced to clarify the rules immediately following the vote.

Finally, a Democratic representative sponsored this bill and if the
Democrats felt strongly about passing this it would have passed. In
order for the bill to pass it would require one hundred and fourteen
votes (a 3/4 majority). There are 107 Democrats and 44 Republicans in
the House. 6 Democrats voted against the bill and 8 Democrats did not
even bother to show up for the vote! If the Democrats were truly behind
this measure, then all they would have needed was 7 Republican votes for
the bill to meet the 3/4 threshold. 12 Republicans voted for this bill!

Simple math shows that if the Democrats really believed in this piece of
legislation, they would have had their supermajority lined up, and with
12 Republican votes the measure would have easily met the constitutional
threshold.

I voted against this bill because I did not, and do not, feel that it is
a good piece of legislation. However, the bill did, in fact, pass and
will appear on eh 2008 House Calendar where it will only need a simple
majority to appear on the 2010 ballot.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me, and I hope that our
paths cross soon.

This much is clear: These Republicans recognized an opportunity to kill this bill and they went for it.