This is the last of a six-part series on the constitutionality of the state’s “budget guardrails.” Here are Parts One, Two, Three, Four and Five.

If Connecticut’s budget guardrail statutes were determined to be unconstitutional, what are the implications for state budget policy? The following outcomes seem most likely and desirable:

1. The guardrails statute in Public Act 23-1 would revert to the status of ordinary legislation, amendable by majority votes and subject to gubernatorial veto.

2. The spending cap in the Connecticut Constitution, including the three-fifths vote “escape clause” and the three adopted definitions in state statute, would remain in force without alteration.

3. The three-fifths supermajority vote requirement in the guardrail statutes would be severable from the remainder of the statute.

4. Absent the severed supermajority vote provisions and the nullified bond covenant, the remainder of the fiscal statutes would continue to be implemented as currently done by the Office of Fiscal Analysis and the Office of Policy and Management, unless and until these statutes are amended.

5. The priority funding of the rainy day fund and prepayment of pension debt would continue under the status quo, unless and until amended by law.

6. The budget impacts of revising the guardrails will be determined by future actions of lawmakers. All the statutory caps in P.A. 23-1 could be amended by a majority vote except to the extent covered by the constitutional spending cap in article Third, Sec. 18c.

7. The General Assembly and governor would be expected to carefully project how their fiscal decisions going forward will impact Wall Street’s credit rating agencies.

8. The bond lock should be recognized as “null and void” by legislative repeal or by exercising the “escape clause” to avoid unintended consequences.

9. The State Treasurer should seek immediate legislation relieving him of the obligation to insert the bond lock covenant in future bond sales.

10. Assuming that there is at least some consensus of good faith acknowledgement of constitutional flaws in the statutory guardrails, the threshold question of whether any changes should be made will have been definitively answered, allowing everyone to move on. In response, House Speaker Matt Ritter, Senate President Martin Looney and Gov. Ned Lamont might convene an “all parties” negotiation to address post-guardrail changes to the FY 26-27 state budget and to hammer out new flexible fiscal policies to replace the old inflexible statutory guardrails.

The prospects for a successful negotiation seem high despite current bickering because there is ample political and policy consensus that some level of fiscal controls should remain in place. The CT Voices report and the Yale Tobin/Connecticut Project report both propose sensible fiscal revisions, but neither group advocate for eliminating fiscal controls all together. Governor Lamont in particular should take credit for the fact that “guardrails” of some type have now become a permanent part of Connecticut’s fiscal infrastructure because of his insistence.

The General Assembly should now approve what it neglected to do in 2017 or in 2023: adopt a “best practices” approach by establishing a new permanent Fiscal Commission of budget experts, stakeholders, and representatives of municipal, business and nonprofit leaders, to monitor on a regular basis the productivity, responsiveness and efficiency of ongoing fiscal policies. The Commission’s reports should contain fiscal analysis on the authoritative level of the OFA’s Fiscal Accountability Reports and recommendations on the data-driven policy level of the recent guardrail reports from the Yale Tobin Center and CT Voices for Children.

Consequences for bond purchasers

What might be the legal consequences for bondholders and the state if the bond lock covenant is unconstitutional?

Experienced bond counsel would need to be consulted about extracting the state from these entanglements. The following assurances could minimize if not eliminate any serious risk to the state from a bondholder lawsuit.

First, bondholder investments are sufficiently protected under the conventional bond covenant from the State of Connecticut to pay principal and interest on the bonds, guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the state. The primary security pledge received by the bondholders has not been impaired.

Second, bondholders will still receive extra protection from the risks of the normal state budgeting cycle by the constitutional spending cap which exempts in article Third, Sec. 18b “expenditures for the payment of bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness” from the cap.

Third, the exercise of a public entity’s sovereignty in limited circumstances has been upheld by courts as a defense or justification for post-sale changes to bond covenants. A well-known example excused a municipality’s non-performance with its pledge to dedicate casino revenues to pay bondholder debt service after the city’s approval of construction of a new casino was rejected by a voter referendum. A finding of unconstitutionality would leave the debt service obligation intact even if the bond lock were nullified.

Fourth and most importantly, the General Assembly was never constitutionally authorized under the “anti-delegation legislative rule” to issue the bond lock covenant in the first place. There is no “breach” for damages if the covenant was void from the start and there is no claim for “damage” if the debt service is paid.

Fifth, future assessments by Wall Street’s credit rating agencies will largely depend on the budget policies adopted in the post-guardrail period. No other state has adopted a bond lock covenant. Wall Street has welcomed Connecticut’s fiscal results but has not been clamoring for other states to replicate the bond lock.

Sixth, a final option for the state to extricate itself from the any bond covenant contract disputes without even the appearance of a technical default is for the General Assembly and the governor to exercise the bond covenant’s procedural “escape clause” for each of the remaining fiscal years on the 2024-2028 covenants and not to renew the covenants in 2029 for the optional second five years.

Conclusion and a note of judicial caution

In this series of opinion essays I have presented a “big picture” analysis of the unconstitutionality of the budget guardrails to stimulate the kind of legal research and discussion that regrettably has been avoided since 2017. As an obvious caveat, these essays were never intended to take the place of a legal brief.

Asking a Connecticut court to declare a state statute unconstitutional can be a daunting task. A 1986 court ruling stated: “It is well settled that a party who challenges a statute on constitutional grounds has no easy burden, for every intendment will be made in favor of constitutionality, and invalidity must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.”

That is why, in the end, it is my hope is that without formal judicial intervention the General Assembly and the governor will find either in these essays or in a legal opinion from the Attorney General or in an advisory opinion from the Legislative Commissioner’s Office enough of a persuasive legal rationale to conclude that the Connecticut Constitution requires a different process to adopt future state budgets, unencumbered by questionable statutory budget guardrails that may be out of date or out of order.

Seeking to have the guardrails recognized as unconstitutional is a weighty matter not to be undertaken frivolously. But continuing to adopt state budgets outside of the bedrock rules enshrined in the state constitution also carries serious risks and is likely to cause damage to trust in government and lead to more factional disunity.

Although the guardrails deserve their share of recognition for addressing the depleted rainy day fund and advancing payments of pension debt, let’s not forget that fiscal performance improved in every state between 2021 and 2023. During that period, 48 states cut taxes, and many built up their rainy day funds. Only Connecticut imposed a bond lock.

Connecticut does not need to choose between respecting its Constitution and enacting fiscally responsible budgets. It can and should do both. The statutes, guardrails and budgets reviewed in this opinion series are important elements of governing, but in the end the most precious commitment that all state elected officials make is the oath they take to “support” the Connecticut Constitution.

The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com

Anna Kellar is the executive director of the League of Women Voters of Maine.

This past November, my 98-year-old grandmother was determined that she wasn’t going to miss out on voting for president. She was worried that her ballot wouldn’t arrive in the mail in time. Fortunately, her daughter — my aunt — was able to pick up a ballot for her, bring it to her to fill out, and then return it to the municipal office.

Thousands of Maine people, including elderly and disabled people like my grandmother, rely on third-party ballot delivery to be able to vote. What they don’t know is that a referendum heading to voters this year wants to take away that ability and install other barriers to our constitutional right to vote.

The “Voter ID for Maine” citizen’s initiative campaign delivered their signatures to the Secretary of State this week, solidifying the prospect of a November referendum. The League of Women Voters of Maine (LWVME) opposes this ballot initiative. We know it is a form of voter suppression.

The voter ID requirement proposed by this campaign would be one of the most restrictive anywhere in the county. It would require photo ID to vote and to vote absentee, and it would exclude a number of currently accepted IDs.

But that’s not all. The legislation behind the referendum is also an attack on absentee voting. It will repeal ongoing absentee voting, where a voter can sign up to have an absentee ballot mailed to them automatically for each election cycle, and it limits the use and number of absentee ballot dropboxes to the point where some towns may find it impractical to offer them. It makes it impossible for voters to request an absentee ballot over the phone. It prevents an authorized third party from delivering an absentee ballot, a service that many elderly and disabled Mainers rely on.

Absentee voting is safe and secure and a popular way to vote for many Mainers. We should be looking for ways to make it more convenient for Maine voters to cast their ballots, not putting obstacles in their way.

Make no mistake: This campaign is a broad attack on voting rights that, if implemented, would disenfranchise many Maine people. It’s disappointing to see Mainers try to impose these barriers on their fellow Mainers’ right to vote when this state is justly proud of its high voter participation rates. These restrictions can and will harm every type of voter, with senior and rural voters experiencing the worst of the disenfranchisement. It will be costly, too. Taxpayers will be on the hook to pay for a new system that is unnecessary, expensive, and harmful to Maine voters.

All of the evidence suggests that voter IDs don’t prevent voter fraud. Maine has safeguards in place to prevent fraud, cyber attacks, and other kinds of foul play that would attempt to subvert our elections. This proposal is being imported to Maine from an out-of-state playbook (see the latest Ohio voter suppression law) that just doesn’t fit Maine. The “Voter ID for Maine” campaign will likely mislead Mainers into thinking that requiring an ID isn’t a big deal, but it will have immediate impacts on eligible voters. Unfortunately, that may be the whole point, and that’s what the proponents of this measure will likely refuse to admit.

This is not a well-intentioned nonpartisan effort. And we should call this campaign what it is: a broad attack on voting rights in order to suppress voters.

Maine has strong voting rights. We are a leader in the nation. Our small, rural, working-class state has one of the highest voter turnout rates in the country. That’s something to be proud of. We rank this high because of our secure elections, same-day voter registration, no-excuse absentee ballots, and no photo ID laws required to vote. Let’s keep it this way and oppose this voter suppression initiative.

While Newton North claimed its third straight Division 1 championship in the fall, on Thursday Sasha Selivan became the first Tiger to be named Gatorade Massachusetts Volleyball Player of the Year.

“Sasha is in a league of her own as far as Massachusetts’ setters go,” said Bishop Feehan coach Heidi Bruschi. “No one else I’ve seen comes close.”

The 5-foot-9-inch sophomore led the Tigers to a 24-1 record with 673 assists, 133 digs, and 115 kills. In the Division 1 final, a 3-0 win over Brookline, she recorded 26 assists and four aces. Selivan is ranked as the nationals’ No. 128 player in the Class of 2027, according to PrepVolleyball, and was the Division 1 tournament MVP and a Division 1 All-State selection.

She maintains an A average in the classroom and volunteers locally as a youth volleyball coach and mentor.

2. DiBiasio keeps scoring for Saugus

While Saugus assistant coach Norma Waggett watched, junior Peyton DiBiasio broke her coach’s all-time program scoring record by netting 27 points to surpass the mark of 1,100 Waggett set in 2013. Saugus lost, 51-40, to Minuteman to fall to 5-2.

3. On to college

In Danvers, St. John’s Prep announced 18 college commitments across eight sports:

Football

Merrick Barlow (Newburyport) to Naval Academy

Graham Roberts (Swampscott) to Harvard

Baseball

Will Shaheen (Portsmouth, N.H.) to Harvard

Nic Lembo (Danvers) to High Point

Lacrosse

Charlie Angell (Winchester) to Pennsylvania

Ryan DeLucia (Winchester) to Georgetown

Luke Kelly (Marblehead) to Michigan

Cameron McCarthy (Marblehead) to Loyola Maryland

JP Sullivan (Swampscott) to Saint Anselm

Jack Weissenburger (Marblehead) to Harvard

Sam Wilmot (Topsfield) to Richmond

Golf

Tripp Hollister (Sudbury) to Bryant

Cross-country

Daniel Padley (South Hamilton) to Holy Cross

Swimming and diving

Kye McClory (Lynnfield) to Holy Cross

Greg Santosus (Marblehead) to Virginia Military Institute

Tennis

Luke Prokopis (Lynnfield) to Holy Cross

Jack Prokopis (Lynnfield) to Holy Cross

Track and field

Noah Kabel (Swampscott) to Sacred Heart

4. Western Mass shuffle

Lots of league movement in Western Mass, particularly in football and girls’ soccer. Check out the reporting from Jesse Koldokin at the Eagle Tribune and Gage Nutter at MassLive.

Here’s the Cliff’s notes version: Chicopee Comprehensive and Holyoke will leave the AA League and be replaced by West Springfield and East Longmeadow. The Tri-County loses Springfield International and gains Belchertown.

In the Suburban South, Wahconah is joined by Pittsfield, Putnam, and Chicopee Comprehensive. The Suburban North will feature Taconic and South Hadley, plus Hoosac Valley, Lee, Easthampton, and Holyoke.

The Intercounty South sees Chicopee, Ludlow, Springfield International, and Northampton join Commerce and Frontier. The Intercounty North remained unchanged.

In girls’ soccer, the Berkshire League’s Grieve division will be Drury, Wahconah, Pittsfield, Lenox, Monument Valley and Mount Greylock. McCann and Hoosac Valley move to the Pioneer South and Taconic, Lee, and Mt. Everett move to the Tri-County North.

5. Thursday’s leaderboard

The top scoring performance of the night came in a defeat as Jacob Klass dropped 35 points for Beverly in a 77-73 loss to Gloucester that saw Nick Deleon score 26 for the Fishermen.

Minuteman’s Muji Vader nabbed 11 steals and added 24 points in a 63-19 win over KIPP Academy, sophomore Divine Egbuta led Lynn Classical with 26 points in a 58-46 win over Somerville, and Notre Dame (Hingham) junior Elle Orlando packed the box score with 25 points, 9 rebounds, and 8 steals in a 72-35 win over Ursuline.

On the ice, Newburyport’s Olivia Wilson netted a hat trick in a 7-3 win over Stoneham/Wilmington and Justin Thibert delivered three goals for Shawsheen in a 9-1 win against Nashoba Tech/Greater Lowell.

Freshman netminder Suki ten Brinke saved all 18 shots she faced to record her first shutout of the season in Lincoln-Sudbury’s 3-0 win over Westford, and Central Catholic junior Sydney Foster made 21 saves in her first shutout of the season, a 7-0 defeat of Wayland.

6. Linked up

Before we bid adieu, a few things we’ve written recently, starting with Trevor Hass’s story on Bishop Feehan honoring the late local hoops legend Mike Babul by wearing black wristbands featuring his initials during a win over Bishop Fenwick.

Brendan Kurie can be reached at brendan.kurie@globe.com. Follow him on X @BrendanKurie.