For your local poll...
According to the information I found there are no local town issues to be voted on. Just the candidates and the two statewide questions. I phoned the town clerk's office to verify this information to be true:
Please note that if you typically voted at the Lanesville fire department in the past, they have switched that District 7 voting location to Sarah Noble School because of the fact that they dead ended that street.
November 4, 2008
The electors and taxpayers of the Town of New Milford are hereby warned to meet at the respective polling places in said town on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, for the following purposes:
I. To cast their votes for Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors, Representative in Congress, State Senator, and State Representative.
II To vote on the following questions for the approval or disapproval of a proposed Constitutional convention and proposed AMENDMENT to the Constitution of Connecticut, a vote of “YES” being a vote for approval, and a vote of “NO” being a vote for disapproval:1. Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the State?
2. Shall the constitution of the state be amended to permit any person who will have attained the age of eighteen years on or before the day of regular election to vote in the primary for such regular election?
The full text of such proposed questions with explanatory text, printed in accordance with §2-30a of the General Statutes, is available at the Town Clerk’s Office for public distribution.
Notice is hereby given that the location of the polling places is as follows:
Voting District Location of Polling Place
District 1 Northville School, Hipp Road
District 2 Catherine E. Lillis Building, East Street
District 3 Pettibone School, Pickett District Road
District 4 Gaylordsville Fire House
District 5 Schaghticoke School, Hipp Road
District 6 Hill & Plain School, Old Town Park Road
District 7 Sarah Noble School, Sunny Valley Road
Voting machines will be used. The polls will be open at six o’clock in the morning (6:00 a.m. and will remain open until eight o’clock in the evening (8:00 p.m.)
Absentee Ballots for electors and Presidential Ballots will be centrally counted in the Loretta Brickley Room in the basement of the Town Hall at 10 Main Street.
The final tally of the election will be in the E. Paul Martin Room in the the Town Hall at 10 Main Street.
Dated at New Milford, Connecticut, this 17th day of October, 2008.
George C. Buckbee
Also, in as far as the two statewide Constitution questions...
On question 1, most of the Democratic leaning Blogs seem to be in agreement that question 1 (having a Constitutional Convention) would be a bad thing and are pushing for a no vote:
The Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG) urges a no vote on the question. As one of the organizations that has lead the fights to open up our political process (Direct Primaries, Campaign Finance and Ethics reforms) we believe a convention would be a waste of taxpayers' money and could be corrupted by the same special interests that our new campaign finance reform laws are designed to protect us from.
Proponents of a convention either do not understand the process or are deliberately trying to mislead the public by saying that the vote on November 4th is about initiative and referendum. If the vote passes it is then up to the legislature to determine the process for selecting delegates to the convention. This will likely be done through a costly special election and primaries. The convention is then convened, which will result in additional costs to the state. The delegates may or may not propose amendments to the constitution, which would be subject to a future popular vote. There is no guarantee that what the proponents of the convention are arguing this vote is about will be included these proposals.
It is plausible that many of the proponents of a convention would mask their real motivation due to the unpopularity of some of their ultimate goals. Connecticut does not want to ban a woman's right to choose or to allow discrimination against same sex couples. Advocates of these and other radical positions realize that they cannot win enough legislative races to accomplish their goals so they are trying to push a convention to create a new avenue for their fight. Their gambit will have significant costs for the state at a time we are facing a huge deficit. I am confident their stealth agenda will ultimately be rejected.
There is a high likelihood that the delegate selection process will be driven by lobbying and other big money interest. It is not surprising that special interests are looking for new ways to exert influence as Connecticut embarks on the first election cycle under our public financing system. The new system has been a smashing success with over 75% of candidates voluntarily participating. It has been praised across the country and will result in a state government more accountable to voters not special interests.
Costly to the taxpayers and could potentially run counter to the spirit and idea of the many recent campaign financing rule changes in Connecticut, and never mind the tendency of radical right wing groups, like the Family Institute of Connecticut (FIC), to push costly campaigns on to the ballot that will never pass in the real world. It is no coincidence that the fringe Heritage front group, FIC, is one of the groups pushing this agenda. They have little in state support or participation from Nutmeggers and the FIC is the quintessential example of an Astroturf group. Their sole purpose is to try and create a false perception of "grassroots support" for generally repulsive legislation that the majority does not support. They use money and vocal twits to agitate the process and create those perceptions.
To put it bluntly, FIC has more money... Yet, I have more readers (both in and out of state...) But the FIC uses out of state soft money and out of state sister group members to finance and create a fake movement and to get media access. And they want to amend the Connecticut Constitution?
I suggest using your middle finger on that "Hell NO!" vote for question 1.
When it comes to question 2, on allowing people that will be old enough to vote in the election to vote in the primaries if they are only 17, it seems like a reasonable way to help ensure our younger generation learns the civic responsibility of voting as soon as possible. If they will be able to vote in the elections, they should be able to help pick the candidate they want to vote for.
Those were my long answers... The short of it is to vote:
- NO on question 1
- YES on question 2