2025 CT Legislative Scorecard
The following scorecard lists several key votes in the Connecticut General Assembly in 2025 and ranks state representatives and senators based on their fidelity to (U.S.) constitutional and limited-government principles.
Share this Legislative Scorecard in your district to inform people about the constitutionality of their elected officials' votes.
HJ67 adopts the “Connecticut Conservation & Development Policies Plan 2025-2030,” prepared by the Office of Policy and Management. This plan adopts climate-change and critical-race-theory propaganda as state policy. Its guiding principles include “recognizing the ongoing impacts of past state, local, and private actions and addressing resulting disparities … and ensuring historically excluded populations benefit from state actions."
The Connecticut Senate passed HJ67 on March 5, 2025 by a vote of 33 to 1. We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill expands the hoax of “climate change” and adopts a state plan that promotes centralized government control. Additionally, the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) movement promotes divisive myths and false historical narratives propagated by critical race theorists, feminists, and LGBTQIA+ activists. States should reject United Nations Agenda 2030-style environmental governance that prioritizes globalist climate goals over individual liberty, voluntary conservation, and constitutional limits on government power.
HJ49 rescinds prior applications for an Article V constitutional convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
The Connecticut Senate passed HJ49 on May 8, 2025 by a vote of 35 to 0. We have assigned pluses to the ayes because this legislation rescinds Connecticut’s previous applications to Congress to “call a convention” under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, including one from 1949 that would propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution authorizing the federal government to participate in a "world federal government.” Connecticut’s Senate Joint Resolution 15 of 1949, in particular, highlights the dangers of an Article V convention. It would have the ability to make major changes to the Constitution, or even completely rewrite it. A convention could not only be used to promote goals contrary and subversive to our nation’s republican form of government and independence, but lead to a runaway convention that would, no matter how well intentioned, reverse many of the Constitution’s limitations on government power. Instead, the Connecticut General Assembly should consider Article VI and nullify unconstitutional laws. Article V was designed to correct potential errors or defects in the Constitution, not to “misconstrue or abuse its powers.”
HB7213 allows minors to consent to reproductive health services related to pregnancy and pregnancy prevention without parental consent or notification.
The Connecticut Senate passed HB7213 on May 27, 2025 by a vote of 31 to 5. We have assigned pluses to the nays because birth control drugs and devices, particularly high-dose “morning-after” pills, can and do prevent uterine implantation of developing preborn children, causing them to function not only as “contraceptives,” but also as abortifacients, thereby resulting in “silent abortions.” Given that the care of human life — not its destruction — is the greatest responsibility of government, Connecticut ought to forbid abortion and other grotesque methods of population control entirely, upholding the sanctity of life for every person. The right to life is the most fundamental, God-given, and “unalienable” right asserted in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, this legislation violates parental rights by permitting minors under 18 to access these services without informing or obtaining consent from their parents, with health care providers prohibited from disclosing any information to the minor child’s parent.
SB1 establishes the Early Childhood Education Endowment to fund early-childhood care and education programs using state budget surpluses.
The Connecticut Senate passed SB1 on May 30, 2025 by a vote of 32 to 4. We have assigned pluses to the nays because education is not the role of government. This legislation expands government control over education by diverting taxpayer surpluses to the Early Childhood Education Endowment, rather than returning those funds to taxpayers. This overreach interferes with parental rights and weakens the family by promoting state-sponsored early-childhood initiatives, fostering dependency on government services. A child’s education is the responsibility of, and a right of choice retained by, his or her parents. Using Connecticut taxpayer funds to expand a compulsory, failing, and government-run K-12 school system violates their individual liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
HB5002 mandates affordable housing units and support for homeless population. Additionally, it removes local control over zoning policy, and requires fair-rent commissions in towns with a population greater than 15,000.
The Connecticut Senate passed HB5002 on May 31, 2025 by a vote of 20 to 15. We have assigned pluses to the nays because the State of Connecticut no business subsidizing “low-income housing.” This legislation misuses taxpayer funds, imposes zoning mandates on local municipalities, and infringes on free-market housing development. Lawmakers should enact policies that reduce regulatory barriers, uphold property rights, and encourage voluntary, free-market solutions rather than socialist central planning.
HB5004 mandates that state agencies reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, funds the renewable-energy industry, and requires a statewide net-zero carbon-emissions goal by 2050.
The Connecticut Senate passed HB5004 on June 4, 2025 by a vote of 26 to 10. We have assigned pluses to the nays because climate-change programs aligned with the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 expand government bureaucracy and undermine both national and state sovereignty. This bill imposes unrealistic energy requirements and forces a costly transition to unreliable renewable energy sources, prioritizing ideological goals and reducing state sovereignty. States should reject UN environmental agendas that infringe on economic freedom and local control.


































