Connecticut abolished capital punishment in April 2012. That made Connecticut the 17^th state in this country to do so and the fifth state to end the death penalty after 2010.

Soon, the state will have a chance to do what no other abolitionist state has done. In its next legislative session, Connecticut will consider a bill that would ban the sale of drugs or materials for use in an execution by any business in the state.

Two state legislators, Sen. Saud Anwar and Rep. Joshua Elliott, are leading this effort. As they argue: “This legislation is the logical and moral extension of our commitment to end capital punishment in our state. We do not believe in the death penalty for us here in Connecticut, and we will not support it anywhere else.”

This is not the first time the Nutmeg State has tried to lead the way in the campaign to end America’s death penalty.

At the time it abolished capital punishment, its new law only prevented any new death sentences from being imposed. It left 11 men on the state’s death row awaiting execution.

Three years later, in 2015, the state Supreme Court decided by a 4–3 vote that applying the death penalty only for past cases was unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Justice Richard Palmer wrote, “We are persuaded that, following its prospective abolition, this state’s death penalty no longer comports with contemporary standards of decency and no longer serves any legitimate penological purpose.”

The court found that it would be “cruel and unusual” to keep anyone on death row in a state that had “determined that the machinery of death is irreparable or, at the least, unbecoming to a civilized modern state.”

With this decision, not only did Connecticut get out of the execution business, but it also appeared at the time that the court’s decision would, as the New York Times put it, “influence high courts in other states … where capital punishment has recently been challenged under the theory that society’s mores have evolved, transforming what was once an acceptable step into an unconstitutional punishment.”

In fact, courts in Colorado and Washington soon followed the Connecticut example. At that point, it seemed that Connecticut’s involvement with the death penalty had come to an end.

Now, Anwar and Elliott are asking the state to again take the lead in trying to stop executions in states where the death penalty has not yet been abolished. The legislation they plan to introduce would, if passed, “prevent any Connecticut-based corporation from supplying drugs or other tools for executions.”

Before examining the rationale for this novel idea, let’s examine why it would be so significant. The recent history of lethal injection offers important clues.

From 1982, when the first execution by lethal injection was carried out, until 2009, every one of those executions proceeded using the same three-drug protocol. It involved a sedative, a paralytic, and a drug to stop the heart.

However, the post-2009 period witnessed the unraveling of the original lethal injection paradigm with its three-drug protocol. By 2016, no states were employing it. Instead, they were executing people with a variety of novel drugs or drug combinations.

The shift from one dominant drug protocol to many was made possible by the advent of a new legal doctrine that granted states wide latitude to experiment with their drugs. This doctrine began with a decision that said that legislatures could take whatever “steps they deem appropriate … to ensure humane capital punishment.”

Subsequently, developments in Europe and the United States made it very difficult for death penalty states to get reliable supplies of drugs for lethal injection. This was the result of efforts by groups like the British anti–death penalty group Reprieve, which launched its Stop Lethal Injection Project and targeted pharmaceutical companies and other suppliers of lethal injection drugs.

Companies selling drugs for executions found themselves on the receiving end of a shaming campaign. As a EuroNews report notes, in 2011, the European pharmaceutical company Lundbeck decided to stop distributing the drug pentobarbital “to prisons in U.S. states currently carrying out the death penalty by lethal injection.”

Later that year, the European Union banned the export of drugs that could be used for “capital punishment, torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” EuroNews explains that “among the drugs that the EU banned in 2011 was sodium thiopental, another drug commonly used in US lethal injections as part of a three-drug method of execution.”

Around the same time, Hospira, an American company that produced sodium thiopental, issued a press release announcing that it had “decided to exit the market.” It did so, according to EuroNews, “amidst pressure from Italian authorities as the company’s production plant was based there.”

In 2016, as the New York Times notes, “the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced … that it had imposed sweeping controls on the distribution of its products to ensure that none are used in lethal injections, a step that closes off the last remaining open-market source of drugs used in executions.” That brought to 20 the number of American and European drug companies that have adopted such restrictions, citing either moral or business reasons.

The result was that death penalty states had to improvise to get the execution drugs they needed. As Maya Foa, who tracks drug companies for Reprieve, explained, “Executing states must now go underground if they want to get hold of medicines for use in lethal injection.”

By the end of 2020, states had used at least 10 distinct drug protocols in their executions. Some protocols were used multiple times, and some were used just once. Even so, the traditional three-drug protocol was all but forgotten: Its last use was in 2012.

Other death penalty states, like Alabama, have adopted new methods of execution. A few have revived previously discredited methods. Some, like Ohio, have stopped executing anyone, although the death penalty remains on the books.

This brings us back to Connecticut.

In an op-ed published in April of this year, Anwar and Elliott pointed out that Absolute Standards, a drug manufacturer based in their state, was supplying the execution drug pentobarbital to the federal government and other states. Pentobarbital, either alone or in combination with other drugs, has become a popular alternative to the traditional three-drug cocktail.

“Thanks to Absolute Standards, in his last year in office, Donald Trump was able to end a 17-year hiatus on federal executions and carry out a horrifying spree of 13 executions,” Anwar and Elliott wrote. “The company supplied the Trump administration pentobarbital, a drug that, when used in excess to kill, induces suffering akin to drowning.”

“Absolute Standards,” they explain, “is not a pharmaceutical corporation—it’s a chemical company that makes solution for machines. That’s why it’s flown under the radar since it began producing and supplying lethal injection drugs in 2018.”

Anwar and Elliott’s innovation in the campaign to end capital punishment has already paid dividends. Last week, the Intercept reported that the president of Absolute Standards told the publication that his company had stopped manufacturing pentobarbital.

However, the two legislators are going forward with their plan to introduce their bill during the 2025 legislative session.

As Anwar says, “I think that laws last longer than legislators and issues, and I feel that irrespective of [Absolute Standard’s] commitment, I am interested in having a law in the future … to make sure that we don’t have another similar situation that we learn about indirectly or directly five years, 10 years, 20 years from now.”

Connecticut should adopt the Anwar/Elliott proposal, and legislators in other abolitionist states should follow suit. They should prohibit pharmaceutical corporations, gas suppliers, medical equipment manufacturers, and other businesses in their states from letting their products and services be used in executions. If they do not believe that the death penalty is right for their state, they should not support it anywhere else.

Legislators in abolitionist states should use their power to block businesses from disseminating the instrumentalities of death. They should join Anwar and Elliott in saying, “There is no profit worth a human life.”

National Democrats on Wednesday announced that they’re looking to flip two seats in the state Senate that are currently held by Republicans.

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, the party’s official campaign arm, said it’s offering support and resources to Democrats in Districts 15 and 20, representing Augusta and Auburn, respectively. Those seats are currently held by Republicans Matthew Pouliot and Eric Brakey, who are not seeking reelection.

The group is expected to provide campaign support and channel national donors to the Democratic challengers in those races: Rep. Raegan LaRochelle in District 15 and Bettyanne Sheets in District 20.

The announcement is part of the DLCC’s “Summer of the States” campaign. Launched last week, the campaign is supporting hundreds of Democrats running in state-level races to help secure Democratic majorities and prevent “MAGA control of state legislatures,” referring to Trump’s Make America Great Again movement.

DLCC President Heather William said in a written statement that the seats “are crucial for defending Democratic power.”

“Legislative victories in Maine have protected a slate of fundamental freedoms, and these candidates are challenging GOP incumbents to strengthen Democratic majorities and protect Mainers from a dangerous Republican agenda,” Williams said. “Mounting strong campaigns to fight GOP extremism is what the DLCC does best, and the victories of these candidates will help Maine remain an outstanding example of Democratic achievement.”

In addition to candidate spotlights, the DLCC also contributes funds directly to Democratic committees. But a spokesperson said it’s too soon to say how much the party is planning to invest this year.

In 2022, which included a gubernatorial election, the DLCC invested nearly $1.4 million in Democratic campaign committees here, which helped maintain Democratic control of both Legislative chambers and the Blaine House.

Maintaining the Democratic trifecta allowed for the expansion of abortion access later in pregnancy and protected access to health care, including for those seeking and providing abortion and gender-affirming care.

Those efforts have been applauded by Democrats nationally, especially as they seek to keep reproductive rights at the forefront of voters’ minds. Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe V. Wade two years ago, effectively ending national abortion protections, Republican controlled states have enacted restrictions and outright bans. But Maine was one of the few states to buck that trend and expand access.

Control of the state legislature is also on the radar of the Republican State Leadership Committee, which announced on Tuesday that it was spending $38 million to help secure and flip control of state legislatures. Maine is among seven states where Republicans hope to make “meaningful gains in liberal strongholds.”

“As we head into the upcoming election, our focus remains on securing majorities, but we will also continue to lay the foundation for long-term success in these blue states,” the group said. “We are strategically investing in key states to break Democratic strongholds and build new majorities that will endure through the decade.”

Democrats currently hold 22 of the 35 seats in the state Senate.

In District 15, LaRochelle, who is finishing her second term in the House, is running against Rep. Dick Bradstreet, a Vassalboro Republican who is finishing his fourth term in the House.

Sheets is in a three way race for the District 20 seat, which she nearly won two years ago in a close race with Brakey. She’s running against Bruce Bickford, an Auburn Republican who served six terms in the House, and independent Dustin Ward, who currently serves on the New Gloucester Select Board.

Ranked choice voting will be used in District 20. If any candidate fails to receive a majority in the first round, an instant runoffice will be held and the second place votes on the ballot’s of the third place finisher will determine the winner.

This story will be updated.

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Massachusetts Department of Children and Families has consistently ranked among the worst child welfare systems in the United States. The systemic failures are the focus of “Broken,” a documentary film by Bill Lichtenstein.

“Broken” delves into the systems designed to protect children, which too often fall short — sometimes with fatal consequences. In advance of a special concert to raise funds for the film, Lichtenstein joined Boston Public Radio on Tuesday to speak about the documentary.

“The project looks at the state of the Massachusetts child protection, foster care and family court systems set against child welfare nationally. It’s a story that I’ve wanted to do for some time,” Lichtenstein said.

His passion for child welfare issues dates back to his early career at ABC News.

“In the early ’80s, [I] spent nine months undercover in Oklahoma, where they had a system where children, if they couldn’t live at home for any reason, were put into these state institutions … and because of our reporting, completely overhauled the whole system,” Lichtenstein said.

He spoke of the alarming secrecy around child welfare proceedings in Massachusetts.

“You can’t get the names of the attorneys. You cannot get the judges [names]. The attorneys are forbidden to discuss it,” he said. “So that secrecy, I think, creates a system where there’s very little accountability.”

He spoke of a recent case to emphasize the system’s flaws. Harmony Montgomery, a 5-year-old girl, was killed by her father after the court gave him custody despite his violent criminal history.

“The question is, how could that have happened?” Lichtenstein said. “What went on in that custody hearing that the judge decided, despite all that, to give custody to that father? The answer is ‘We can’t tell you. It’s secret.’”

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has since agreed to hear arguments for access to the transcript of Harmony Montgomery’s custody hearing.

“There’ll be oral arguments in October,” Lichtenstein said. “We believe, for the first time, it will help open up the system.”

“Broken” is expected to feature at festivals early next year, followed by a limited theatrical release and a rollout through public television in 2025.