Chief judge fight sets election year tone

HARTFORD — The vote came in the dead of night.

During most of the 15 hours preceding it, Republican members of the Judiciary Committee spent hours peppering Supreme Court Justice Andrew J. McDonald on legislative and judicial issues, including his support for repealing the death penalty, as well as his frayed relationship with a former Senate colleague.

McDonald was cool, patient and occasionally witty during a long day of interrogation.

In the end, the entire united Republican front on the committee voted against his nomination to become chief justice, resulting in a tie and setting the tone for an election year.

Elsewhere, in their caucus nerve centers within the Legislative Office Building, House Minority Leader Themis Klarides and Republican Senate Leader Len Fasano spent the day watching the events unfold.

Democrats said it was payback against Gov. Dannel P. Malloy that motivated the vote against his nominee for chief justice of the state Supreme Court. They claimed the rejection of McDonald was based not on his experience and record on the court, but on partisan politics and, possibly, the jurist’s sexual orientation.

“These antics undermine the integrity of our process — a process that should be based on an objective analysis of issues and facts,” Malloy said. “They would also impact the behavior of Connecticut judges who would now live in fear of a partisan legislature intent on distorting their positions through a political lens.”

Senate President Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, said Connecticut Republicans were taking a page from the national playbook.

“I think the vote that was almost entirely on partisan lines yesterday was really unfortunate and it shows that some of the hyperpartisan from Washington is seeping into Connecticut in a way that I think is destruction,” Looney said.

Klarides and Fasano denied that politics resulted in the rejection, charging that gay or straight, McDonald is a bad candidate for becoming the head of the Judicial Branch.

“This job is to interpret the Constitution and figure out what the legislature meant when they make a law,” Klarides said. “It is based on whether they believe he is well-suited to be the chief justice of the Supreme Court. We did a lot of research in regard to his decisions ... It is interesting that when the Democrats don’t get their way, it’s politics.”

Fasano called charges of political opposition to McDonald “outlandish,” and said that if his nomination gets to the Senate, it will stand on its merits.

While GOP lawmakers labeled McDonald as an “activist” jurist, during the hearing, McDonald said the term doesn’t exist in the legal lexicon.

“Judicial activism is apparently in the eye of a person who dislikes an opinion,” McDonald said under questioning from Rep. William Tong, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the committee.

For hours at a time, punctuated by a few breaks for copying documents that Republican committee members had failed to provide fellow panelists, McDonald replied, matter-of-factly to his former committee colleagues. He stressed that jurists don’t withdraw from hearing cases on many issues of potential conflict, while admitting that he has recused himself from about 80 cases during his five years on the Supreme Court.

Rep. Tom O’Dea, R-New Canaan, whose law firm has a case pending in the high court, recused himself. A Democratic Hartford lawmaker who often tangles with judicial nominees, sided with Republicans.

The 20-20 tie vote means an “unfavorable” report will reach the House of Representatives sometime in March

If the House approves it, the nomination moves on to the Senate.