With the exception of a few recounts, and the issue of the mayor’s race in Bridgeport, “Decision 2023” is now in the history books. For a look back at some of the interesting things that came out of this election cycle, University of Hartford Associate Professor of Political Science Bilal Sekou joined Connecticut Public’s All Things Considered.
JOHN HENRY SMITH
Doctor B, your reaction to Election Day 2023 in Connecticut. What results really stood out to you?
BILAL SEKOU, UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORD
The last couple of years we’ve had a lot of questions about our ability as a nation to actually have elections…free and fair elections. So the number one thing that stuck out to me was that it was a night in which of 168, I think, cities and towns across Connecticut, elections went relatively smoothly. So that’s an important point. I think the other thing is it was a good day for Democrats. Obviously, they were able to flip a few seats, hold on to some seats that were open and up for grabs. And also, just overall, City Council wins and some other things. So it was a good night for them. But it wasn’t a bad night also—completely—for Republicans, who also were able to flip some seats as well.
JOHN HENRY SMITH
Well, Democrats managed to flip 16 seats. I believe Republicans flipped 8. The Democrats seats they flipped included putting an end to two decades of GOP rule in Danbury. Killingly flipped the school board to a 5 to 4 Democrat majority. What do you think drove the success of Democrats in Connecticut? Was it the same as what we saw nationwide, do you think?
BILAL SEKOU, UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORD
I mean, obviously a lot of politics is very local. And I think when you listen to a lot of the candidates who had won that night talk about their communities and what they were thinking about going forward, it was clear that their main concerns with things like public schools, about crime, about housing, about economic development, about property taxes. And so in that sense, it wasn’t an election when people talked about things like abortion necessarily or talked about critical race theory, though these may have come up as issues at the local level, but for the most part it was really about local issues and local concerns. And I think that’s what drove voters to the polls–their concerns about those issues in their communities.
JOHN HENRY SMITH
Starting in 2027, New Haven’s, mayor will serve four-year terms instead of two. Now, that’s after residents voted to approve city charter revisions, which critics said were phrased in a very vague way on the ballot question. Now, what do you make of the move?
BILAL SEKOU, UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORD
I actually think it’s a good move. I think, for a mayor to actually be able to put in place a set of policies, he or she needs an opportunity to see those policies go to fruition. And so when you working on a two year scale, you may spend half of your time just trying to get reelected, which was the case in New Haven. We heard that in the speech he (New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker) gave after he won once again. He said you know I’ve been doing this campaign for a year. You shouldn’t be campaigning for a year when you only have two years, which means that you can really focus only on one year if you’ve got it two years. But with four years, you can maybe focus on three years of trying to get something done and then spend that last year doing some campaigns, some election work.
JOHN HENRY SMITH
In Stamford, voters shot down changes to the city charter, including making it easier to appeal zoning decisions. Zoning decisions, right? Yeah. Loaded phrase in Connecticut! Opponents said the changes would have led to higher housing costs and would have harmed growth in the city. Your thoughts on this?
BILAL SEKOU, UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORD
I mean, what was interesting about this issue? Well, a couple of things. One, the amount of money that went into Stamford to try to influence the outcome of this vote. One group I think raised about $100,000, another about nearly $40,000. So that is highly unusual, but it tells you what’s at stake in local communities when it comes to the issue of zoning. And, in particular, for the group that wanted to see voters vote “yes” on this, their hope was that they wanted to slow down some of the sort of economic development that’s been going on in the city. They’re bothered by the high rises. They’re bothered by some of the businesses. They want to sort of keep the look of the city and not see changes. But especially for folks who want to see, perhaps, the opportunity to build affordable housing, the opportunity to, you know, build more apartment complexes in that community, then voting “no” on this was just really important to do. I was also struck by the fact that this divided the mayor from the Council, which was the other thing that was really interesting about Stamford.
