By John Schwing
WESTPORT — With less than a week left before voters head to the polls Nov. 8, the six candidates for three seats representing Westport in the General Assembly debated policies and traded barbs Wednesday at a forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Westport.
The LWV forum was the candidates’ last joint appearance before Election Day with contenders in the 26th state Senate District and the 136th and 143rd state House of Representative Districts. It took place in the Westport Library, and also could be viewed online via live-streamed video.
Participants were: Ceci Maher, Democrat, and Toni Boucher, Republican, in the 26th Senate District; Jonathon Steinberg, Democrat, and Alma Sarelli, Republican, in the 136th House District, and Dominique Johnson, Democrat, and Nicole Hampton, Republican, in the 143rd House District.
The debate was framed by questions posed by moderator Jean Rabinow on topics ranging from local vs. state control of housing and education to the economy and job creation to public transportation and local traffic congestion to the environment and climate change.
But there also were pointed exchanges over the records of two candidates’ lengthy legislative records and, perhaps unexpectedly, one candidate’s apparent denial that an “insurrection” took place at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when a crowd of Donald Trump’s supporters stormed the building.
And despite differences on other issues, all six candidates voiced general support for Connecticut’s abortion-rights protections and gun-safety laws, which elsewhere in the country are subjects of heated controversy.
A revealing segment of the forum occurred when the moderator asked the candidates, by showing “yes” and “no” placards, to answer a series of questions with one word.
On highway tolls, the 26th Senate candidates divided along political party lines: Maher in favor, Boucher was opposed, as did the House candidates, Steinberg and Johnson said yes, and Sarelli and Hampton said no.
On the state’s “Safe Harbor” abortion protection law, all six candidates from both parties said “yes” in support.
When the House candidates were asked whether they favor allowing early voting (a question that appears on the Nov. 8 ballot), Democrats Steinberg and Johnson said yes, Republicans Sarelli and Hampton were opposed.
And when Senate contenders Maher and Boucher were asked if they favor Connecticut serving as a “sanctuary state” for immigrants, both objected that the topic is too complex to give a one-word answer.
Connecticut’s economic condition and taxes repeatedly provoked disagreement throughout the eventing.
Boucher, seeking to reclaim the seat she lost to Democrat Will Haskell in 2018, said the state’s lack of “affordability” is the top concern for voters this year.
Sarelli and Hampton joined her in blaming Democrats for what they called the state’s high taxes and sluggish growth. Sarelli, who owns a business with her husband, and Hampton both said the best way to spur growth and improve the economy is “to cut taxes and red tape,” faulting Democrats’ record after decades in control of the General Assembly.
Steinberg, the only Westport district incumbent seeking re-election this year, saw things differently, crediting Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, for leading a budget turn-around, with record surpluses, cutting taxes and paying down long-term debt.
Maher agreed, citing Lamont’s leadership on the economy and urging voters to reject “the doom and gloom” that she said characterized Boucher’s message.
The sharpest exchanges were traded by Hampton and Johnson, seeking to win the seat in a district that spans the Norwalk-Westport border. The seat is now held by Stephanie Thomas, a Democrat who this year instead is running as the Democrats’ secretary of the state candidate.
Hampton accused Johnson, a member of Norwalk’s Common Council, of hiring a city “DEI” aide as a last-minute campaign ploy, adding that diversity-equity-inclusivity initiatives tend only to divide people.
Johnson countered that the council had no role in hiring the DEI aide, who she said was solely a mayoral appointment.
After Hampton repeated the DEI-hiring allegation several times, an exasperated Johnson described her opponent as “detached from reality,” pointing out that Hampton had tweeted there was “no insurrection” at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Hampton, did not deny sending the tweet, but explained it was part of a Twitter exchange over events Jan. 6 and said she “denounces” what took place that day. Although, she added, it was not an insurrection because “not one person had a gun” at the Capitol during that incident.
Both Steinberg, who has served 12 years in the legislature, and Boucher, who spent a total of 22 years in the state House and Senate before being ousted four years ago, emphasized their legislative experience and willingness to compromise as assets.
From opposite sides of the political spectrum, however, their opponents characterized that as negative, saying the long-term legislators share blame for lack of action on intractable problems.
Sarelli said that during Steinberg’s tenure, the tax burden on Westporters had grown sharply “with nothing to show for it,” while Maher said despite Boucher’s many years in office she remain negative about the state and its outlook.
Education, for Boucher, is a prime focus, with parents working through local Boards of Education having the priority to decide local policies. She also suggested that ARPA money be spent on programs to help students make up for challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic rather than “athletic facilities.”
Boucher and Sarelli both opposed what they said is the threat of regionalizing local school districts, which Democrats insisted is not a possibility. All of the candidates, however, acknowledged the Westport school district’s top-notch reputation should be lauded and safeguarded.
Sarelli said she would oppose any new COVID mandates in the schools, while Hampton said books on gay subject matter in the Staples High School library — featured in a recent “banned books” display — featured “pornographic” illustrations.
Maher said her leadership roles in the nonprofit sector, including Sandy Hook Promise and Person-to-Person, help her understand the needs of small business, and the benefits of programs like paid family leave.
The impact of the state’s 8-30g affordable housing law on local policies also was debated. The Republicans generally supported its repeal and replacement, while the Democrats called for the law to be revised and acknowledging a need to provide more affordable units in local communities.
Programs initiated by First Selectwoman Jennifer Tooker drew support from both sides of the political aisle. Hampton said the neighborhood-based traffic survey conducted earlier this year should serve as a guide to help ease local traffic problems, and Johnson supported recently announced plans to hold a series of meetings on local stream-flooding problems.
John Schwing, the Westport Journal consulting editor, has held senior editorial and writing posts at southwestern Connecticut media outlets for four decades. Learn more about us here.
Such a sad debate. Instead of exchanging ideas with their Democratic opponents, the Republican candidates—every one—presented a loopy view of truth and reality. Grand generalities stood in for detailed specifics; they proudly trotted out their deep ignorance of basic legislative process and tried to put a bow on it. It was exasperating and infuriating to watch. To learn that Westport’s Republican selectwomen have now endorsed Nicole Hampton—someone who thinks January 6 was a game of flag football—is sad, too. Which of the other Republican whiz kids in this election will get to kiss the ring? It’s like an episode of “Love Is Blind.”
Dominique Johnson accused her opponent of not knowing how government works. Patronizing for sure. But maybe Dominique is right. In her home city government works by kowtowing to the mayor who in turn kowtows to developers. Why all this kowtowing? The governor wants to double the size of CT’s cities. He’s on record. Frankly, anyone who’s okay with the corrupt sausage-making at home and in Hartford is complicit in the corruption and cronyism. Nicole wants to audit OPM, where the now-disgraced Kosta Diamantis is accused of funneling state money to his cronies. Dominique helped create a new position at City Hall–DEI officer–then denied it, accusing Nicole of not knowing how government works. She may not have hired the rapper out of San Jose, but she DID push to create the position. We need more school teachers. We don’t need more pencil pushers at City Hall with no job description and no performance metrics.
The truth is Dominique Johnson did officially endorse the creation of a DEI position in Norwalk as a member of the Common Council in February of this year. Her denial was painful to watch, especially when her opponent, Nicole Hampton, reminded voters that due to overdevelopment, Norwalk has been pumping raw sewage into the harbor on Dominique’s watch. That’s a pretty damning indicment of a candidate who bills herself a strong advocate to address climate change. Change begins at home, and at home this candidate has been the mayor’s pawn for three years, voting with her party 100% of the time. Yes, many of the criminals who stormed the captial had weapons. Nicole got that wrong, but her assessment of the events of January 6–riot not insurrection–are consistent with most American’s POV. January 6, 2021 was an awful day following months of awful days that saw public and private property destroyed and cities on fire in the name of “peaceful protest”–a delusional euphemism that belongs to dems. Johnson looked the other way while Norwalk sold itself to the highest bidder (or donor). The big developers own the mayor and the mayor owns the Council. She stood silent while the mayor made repeated efforts to stifle public comment at council meetings. Is that what she calls standing up for her constituents? Anyone who thinks Dominique Johnson will go to Hartford and do anything other than what she’s told is delusional.
You’ve got to spin it to win it, I guess. Why do Alma Sarelli and Nicole Hampton oppose early voting? Don’t want those young people and working people and busy people to have another chance to participate in democracy? It’s always a tipoff when you’re afraid of voters. Elitist Republicans need to keep everything tight, right? It’s their best chance.
Nicole Hampton does not oppose early voting. She opposes the potential trouble spots of early voting. In Norwalk, for example, the Town Clerk has already stated that early voting will create problems because there is no system now for facilitating it. A ballot initiative to allow the CGA to create an option for early voting is so vague, no wonder folks are confused about it. I voted NO on that question, and I did so by absentee ballot. Why did I vote NO? Because it was incredibly easy to vote absentee. I didn’t have to leave my home, and I didn’t need a note from my doctor. Most Republicans support extended voting, say the weekend before the first Tuesday, only at City Hall or Town Hall registrars or clerks office in order to NOT burden CT towns and cities with the additional money needed to staff polls more than one day. But it’s really swell that you took your swipe at “elitist Republicans.” If you can find one elitist thing about Nicole Hampton, please share. She’s a single mother who shares an apartment with her teenage daughter. It’s her opponent who’s proud to tell everyone she has a PhD. That’s elitism. “Vote for me because I know better.”
Delores Stanpipe/Marni Mearsheimer/Old Guy Impersonating Women Who Don’t Exist: Education is bad, and ignorance is bliss? Good luck.
Tom Prince, instead of a rational rebuttal, your response is that I cannot possibly exist. Funny, our kids went to school together. I was a Westport mom before I became a Norwalk mom. Education is good, as we both know because our children had the privilege of attending Westport schools. But life in Westport can make even the most open-minded person myopic when it comes to life in the City next door. Westport has all the “Hate Has No Home Here” signs without any of the affordability needed to create a truly diverse community. But back to early voting–that was your false accusation, that the Rs running in the 136th and 143rd support voter suppression–a hard argument to back up once you acknowledge how accessible absentee ballots already are in CT. Guess you’ll have to find another strawman.
I hope that we all thank the League of Women Voters and the Library for the organization and publication of this forum. It is through nonpartisan partnerships such as this that we become an educated electorate. One of the tenets of our democracy. Our democracy to which we must lend our strength and pledge our devotion in these days when a large fascist, hate-spreading faction is either spreading lies or supporting this institutional lying. Though we may find the situation untenable, imagine the future this faction intends to force upon those who follow us.
Stand for DEMOCRACY!
Who is the “large fascist, hate-spreading faction…spreading lies”? We live in a Constitutional Federal Republic. The biggest threat to our institutions today lies with the Executive Branch and the Departments under it. For many years under presidents from both major parties, the Executive Branch has seized more and more power that doesn’t belong to it. That’s a real threat, and we should be talking about it. Perhaps the next Congress will have the will to reclaim its role and purpose to make laws and not leave law-making up to the caprices of a president’s Executive Orders. To wit, we went from 1.4% inflation to 8.5% under this administration, which is now trying to saddle us with half a trillion in student loan debt. As Nancy Pelosi said, the President doesn’t not have the power of the purse. Biden cannot forgive debt under the Constitution–not even by shamefully glomming onto the “Heroes Act.” That he does so and barely a whisper out of his own party or most corporate media is frightening.
I may be wrong here, but I would guess that the “large fascist, hate-spreading faction…spreading lies” is the one that stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021 to attempt to prevent the transition of power to our rightfully elected leader.
The same people who have filed more than 100 lawsuits to dispute *tomorrow’s* election results.
The same people who have their noses up the ass of a guy who spent eight-years lying about the legitimacy of the President who served before him and spent his four years in office claiming that if he lost a reelection bid it was surely because the election was rigged.
If you think it is something else, feel free to inform me.
In case you missed it, a global pandemic and a war in Ukraine and caused financial turmoil throughout the world. Look at how our economy is performing as compared with Europe’s. You might learn something.
It’s amazing how selfish twits are against the forgiveness of *some* student loan debt. Likely people who supported the former idiot-in-chief to whom “bankruptcy” should be a middle name. Let people treat student loan debt the way everyone else in the country can treat every other kind of debt, and student debt forgiveness would be unnecessary.
I’ve never seen chumps as big as the MAGAt’s who think there was something in his policies that were good for them. Make scared white christians think someone is getting something that they aren’t is a shockingly effective campaign strategy.
Why would you assume, Fred, that those who stormed the capitol are the same people supporting Nicole Hampton in the 143rd–a Republican who is cross-endorsed by the Independent Party? Would it be fair to say her opponent, Dominique Johnson, is part of the faction that tried to destroy the country in 2020 with rolling riots? I wouldn’t make that assumption, but it sounds like you would. While most reasonable people recognize that extremists in both major parties are controlling the narrative, we also assume that the 73 mm who voted for Trump are no more or less malicious than the 81 mm who voted for Biden. Maybe I’m missing something but it seems like you’re tarring an awful lot of people with a broad brush. I was a democrat who voted for Hillary in 2016 and I thought that election was stolen for a long time. I voted for Gore in 2020 and I thought the SCOTUS got that wrong. Stacy Abrams believes her election was stolen. It’s not new to quesiton the result of an election whose outcome you disagree with. Guilt by association, which you’ve done here, is as old as questioning election results, and even more dangerous for our democracy. FWIW, Biden does not have the authority to forgive half a trillion in student debt. It should bother us that he believes he has that power. Also, forgive me, but who are the “scared white Christians”? Sounds like a “basket of deplorables” kind of slur. How’d that work out for Hillary?
You not surprisingly missed the point. Republicans are suing to protest elections that haven’t taken place yet.
Did it bother you that Trump held up military aid to Ukraine because he wanted dirt on a political opponent? Did it bother you that he believed he had that power?
A political candidate running under the Republican is running as a Trumpublican. How many Republicans in Congress supported the Congressional investigation of 1/9? They had every opportunity to fully participate but chose not to.
These local GOP candidates simply give cover to the worst instincts of the worst Trumpublicans. I have yet to grasp what issue is so important that they can turn a blind eye to insurrection.
Fine of you to attempt to equate the attempt to prevent the election results from standing to social justice protests. I’m sure you were just as angry about Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem (Trump wanted the NFL to “fire those bastards”). It’s not not any physical damage to which you and yours object, it is the earned equality by those who are different from you to which you object.
So when the moderator asked if candidates supported early voting and Nicole Hampton held up a NO sign, NO really meant YES? It was a game show instead of a debate, right? You and your fellow Republican stalwarts—real, imagined, and otherwise—are really all about nuances and shadings that can’t really be communicated in today’s climate because you’re misunderstood, demonized, and marginalized. You’re just shouting truth into a wind tunnel of gasbag Democrats. Why won’t anyone listen to you? I hope I have that right. And Hampton’s January 6 denial was not a denial—just a lone truth-teller telling very lonely truths?
First, if you were there, you would have seen Nicole Hampton turn her sign around from NO to YES. I saw it. How come you did not? Also Nicole did not deny January 6 happened. She denied it was an insurrection. And according to the definition under federal law, it was not. The truth is the ballot initiative on early voting was too vague. Absentee ballots ARE early voting. At her Norwalk debate, Nicole said, when asked, that she supported early voting. You’re right to point out the ‘game show’ element of that debate with the YES and NO cards, but you can’t hang that on Nicole. But this part is comical–“You and your fellow Republican stalwarts.” I was a Democrat for 40 years. Your anger is puzzling, but less puzzling than your arguments which come from a place of anger, not reason.
If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention.
We need less anger. Anger makes it impossible to listen to a diversity of voices. The two parties work to satisfy their own interests, not the electorate’s. That’s why you won’t see either side come out in favor of ranked choice voting or open primaries–easy steps that would foster more moderation and less divisiveness.
“A political candidate running under the Republican is running as a Trumpublican.” I disagree with this assessment, but I can see why it might appeal to one such as yourself. Labeling all Republican candidates as Trump surrogates gives you permission to not listen to any voice aside from your own or any opinion that might make you feel uncomfortable about your own convictions. Was January 6 an insurrection, a coup attempt, a seige, a riot? Political scholars have been debating this since the events unfolded that day. And they have not been uniform in their assessments. There was violence. Many of the rioters were armed. Many were determined to stop the certification of an election that Trump lost and that he should have conceded the day after the election. AU School of International Service Professor Jay Young is willing to call it an insurrection, but not an act of terrorism. He’s also comfortable calling it a “violent riot.” We saw a lot of violent riots the previous year. He also says,”extreme polarization in the country” is an important factor, and also that “our political system is a winner-take-all electoral system. And that has consequences, where losers feel like they’ve lost a ton.” THAT concerns me. We need election reform. And we’ll never have it if we choose to remain angry at one another and if we’re determined to pigeonhole individuals based on their party of registration. If you’ve ever gone to a local democratic or republican committee meeting or tried to get onto a ballot, you’d know those generalizations are both unfair and untrue.
Consolidating a couple of replies here.
First – I am 100% supportive of “Louisiana-style” all-in primaries. If the top vote collectors or both of one party, that simply represents the locality better than “forcing” two partisan candidates to battle it out, when neither may best represent the will of the local voters. You got no argument with me there.
But when a candidate chooses to affiliate her or himself with a party s/he is saying that the affiliation is more important than issues. So a GOP candidate who is willing to overlook what Trump and his MAGAt followers have done to the democracy is saying “this is more important.” But the GOP has abandoned any “issue platform” since Barack Obama was elected in 2008. It’s why idiot Trump got the nomination in the first place – nobody was pushing an actual policy agenda so it was a dozen nobodies on the stage and the reality TV star. Guess who got the nomination?
So the Republicans who are running under the Party of Trump are saying (at best) “we might not like Trump but there are things that are more important than a seditious attack on the democracy.” Well, I’m waiting for one of them to say what was more important than the democracy. Cutting income tax by a dollar? That seems to be enough to say “screw the democracy” to most of these folks.
I was a registered D until November of 2020. I became an R because I wanted to try to help move my local R party away from Trump. Norwalk has been under single party rule since 2017. Single-party rule allows this mayor to cancel whomever he pleases. And he’s canceled plenty of moderate democrats who fell out of his good graes because they openly disagreed on one issue or another. We joke that our mayor is like Trump–authoritarian, egomaniacal and thin-skinned. Hard to justify a vote for Harry Rilling or Bob Duff based on the Republicans=Trump=Evil formula. That approach is silly and counterproductive and the results have hurt my city and the people who live here, especially poor minorities. Thankfully, we now have an Independent Party in Norwalk (after 20 years dormancy). In my opinion, the 3 Cs in Norwalk–cronysim, corruption and conflicts of interest–under single-party rule are a much more tangible threat to democracy than the tangential association of local R candidates with Donald Trump.
Democrat PACs spent more than $44 mm on political ads created to help Trump-endorsed, right wing extremists win their primaries against moderate Republicans, including Republicans who voted to impeach Trump. In some cases, these PACS (including House Majority PAC, which is aligned with DCCC) spent MORE to help Trump Republicans win their primaries than they did on their own candidates. Thanks to their efforts and money, Trumper Don Bolduc may beat Democrat Maggie Hassan in NH. When it comes to election deniers–which Bolduc is–Democrats have been generous promoters of the thing you say you hate. So you’re saying “don’t vote Republican because of Trump” while your party PACs are helping Trump election deniers win elected office. Well done!
If you don’t think both parties have contributed to candidates who can most easily be beaten in the general, I have a bridge to sell you. ($44m is a drop in the bucket.) I’m not sweating that behavior costing Democrats races any more than Republicans should sweat the same tactics losing races.
If you don’t think voters in open primary states cross over to vote for the most easily beatable opponent in the party they don’t support, I have another bridge to sell you.
Westport’s RTC donated money to the Trump reelection campaign. What does that tell you about who Westport Republicans support?
Don Bolduc lost by 9 points, so I guess your concerns were misplaced. Local voters clearly saw through the local GOP candidates.
“We lose on every level,” said Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman who led an effort of ex-representatives decrying the practice. “We lose the moral ground on democracy as an issue, we lose trust in democracy, and we side with Trump in a primary. This is bad tactics, terrible strategy, and corrosive to our democracy.”
Do feel more or less smug applauding the party of virtue for supporting “election deniers”?
Why don’t you post a link to the whole article where he is quoted?
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/midterm-results-for-election-deniers-supported-by-democrats.html
You can also include other quotes that offer a different take.
“David Turner, the communications director at the Democratic Governors Association — which spent millions in three GOP primaries – said the strategy was not to handpick Democrats’ opponents. “The sense that we were quote-unquote buying for GOP candidates in these states is not how it was operated,” said Turner, whose organization placed ads in Republican primaries in Illinois, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. In these states, the DGA looked for GOP candidates with solid polling leads who were endorsed by Donald Trump — basically the people who were going to win anyway — then bought ads detailing their far-right positions. “We didn’t want to let them be able to pivot,” he said.”
You will surely take consolation in knowing that 200 Republican election deniers and big lie proponents were elected to the House, Senate, and statewide offices nationwide.
Another strawman argument. Democrat PACs are helping elect the people you hate. Your response is, “if you don’t think….” It’s the old, “he started it, ” argument. You didn’t miss the point. You waltzed right past it because that little truth is uncomfortable. You hate Trump and anything with an R because of Trump and instead of acknowledging that it makes you feel a little queasy that we’ll have more Trumpers elected BECAUSE of Dem PAC money, you’re trying to change the subject. Of course all these things are happening with PACs and open primaries. But when the people you like help put the people you HATE into office that must be a pretty uncomfortable feeling.
Don’t blame Democrats for Trumpublicans dominating the GOP. That is absolutely nonsensical.
Republicans voted 175-35 against a congressional investigation of the 1/9 attack on the Capitol. That’s 83% of congressional Republicans who opposed an investigation of a seditious attempt to prevent the peaceful transition of power to the freely elected President. If 83% tells you anything, it should be that if you joined the GOP to stop the Trump wing from taking over your party, that ship has sailed. That is your party.
I might also suggest that you read this article on what has happened to the RTC in Greenwich, of all places. https://nyti.ms/3hjmJZq
You can try blaming Democrats for putting Herschel Walker and Mehmet Oz on the ballot but you know as well as I know that it simply isn’t true. Want to blame Democrats for someone as conservative as Lynne Cheney losing her primary. Nice try.
If one Trumpublican wins one swing seat and ten lose swing seats, tbat will have been a perfectly logical strategy. You already have your Marjorie Taylor Greene’s in congress and can’t blame anyone but the Republicans for that. Stuff your head back in the sand and pretend you aren’t part of the problem.
I will give you credit for one thing. Your dogged persistence in putting words in someone else’s mouth. How does all that anger feel right now?
Not angry in the slightest, just happy to point out your hypocrisy.
Being happy to point out what you falsely label my ” hyporcisy” is no triumph unless the debate scorecard allows you to take credit for putting words in someone else’s mouth. You make a lot of assumptions about my characcter, none of them true. I don’t know why it’s important for you and others to demonize those they disagree with. Our election process is fueled more by hate than by hope. For instance you repeatedly insinuate that someone you don’t know is a “Trumplican” because the idea that I might be right about anything terrifies you. And that’s sad for you as a person holding onto ire and sad for our democracy that the two major parties need hate and vitriol to hold onto their power.