Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
Stuffed into a 48-page bill concerning election security, transparency and "various other revisions related to election administration" is a paragraph that quite literally denies the right of the "Independent Party" to exist in Connecticut.
The addition of Sec. 27 to Raised Bill No. 5498, which was introduced by the Government Administration and Elections committee, would require any party that uses the words "unaffiliated", "unenrolled" or "independent" or antonyms like "affiliated", "enrolled" or "dependent" in their official party designation to change their name by January 1, 2025.
Michael Telesca, the Chairman Independent Party of CT, obviously opposed the change.
He asked legislators why they wanted to eliminate his party's name after the party spent nearly 20 years trying to build a viable third option in Connecticut. He further alleged that, "the SOTS [Secretary of the State] is allowing any group of voters to seize our party name on any local ballot that we are not currently running candidates on..."
"There is no good reason to take our name away from us unless you want to destroy our Party
and deny the voters a real third party on the ballot. And destroy us you will by removing our hard
earned name from the list of Parties in this State and not making any provisions for the 30,000 voters
already registered in our Party name thereby making them "unaffiliated” on the voting rolls," wrote Telesca.
The Treasurer of the Independent Party, John Fahan, lamented, "it is difficult to understand why such a provision with no rationale provided here would be placed in the middle of this bill that has nothing to do with this legislation concerning election transparency and security."
"It is undemocratic and unjust to target a political party and its members in such a flagrant manner," continue Fahan who is obviously frustrated about the proposed change.
Of course, fans of George Orwell pointed out the Democrats' masterful use of "newspeak" with this proposed change.
Newspeak was designed "to narrow the range of thought” and was the preferred language of Big Brother’s enforcers in Orwell's classic dystopian novel, 1984.
Eliminating usage of the word "independent" in the The Independent Party of Connecticut's very name seems a perfect example, doesn't it?
Same political party that insists every fringe identity be respected, won’t let me tick the Independent box?