JP Appointments

Our Services » Advocacy » JP Appointments

Connecticut’s Political System

Each state with marriage-performing justices of the peace has a different process. In Connecticut, JP appointments are political – even though there is nothing political about the role. Complaints about loss of Commissions or an inability to get appointed abound.

When we met with State Representative Jonathan Steinberg, he asked JPus to submit a report that summarizes the problems. Then, in January 2023, JPus met with Rep Steinberg, Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas and her staff. We were thrilled that as a result of our work, Secretary Thomas’ office proposed legislation to establish a working group to create a holistic solution to the problems we identified.

It is frustrating that the same political maneuvering that led to our research on Connecticut’s appointment process is what ultimately killed the bill to raise the qualifications of marriage officiants in Connecticut. Nonetheless, we’re making progress. We had tons of participation on our Zoom Q&A presentation in March. Secretary of State Stephanie Thomas was persuaded by our white paper, and she proposed the initial legislation to create a working group to evaluate JP Appointments in Connecticut. Now an ally, we are working together along with some legislators to reintroduce a bill in 2024.

2025 Legislation

Connecticut’s lack of qualifications for marriage officiants is making headlines. Unscrupulous JPs are knowingly performing fraudulent marriages. These problems illustrate why qualifications for officiants are urgently needed.
In December 2024, Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas is convening a meeting to plan legislative action. Invitees include JPus’ Loretta Jay, State Representatives Cristin McCarthy-Vahey, Sarah Keitt, Eleni Kavros DeGraw and Andre Baker. We will develop a strategy to address the problems identified in JPus’ white paper (including the recently exposed marriage fraud) through stand-alone legislation to be submitted in the 2025 session.

2024 Activity

Because it was a “short session”, only bills that are related to the budget, revenue or financial matters may be introduced. Therefore, we had to hold off until next year for any action.
While we waited, JPus’ Loretta Jay met with Connecticut State Representative Cristin McCarthy-Vahey, Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas and Gabe Rosenberg (SOTS’ Chief of Staff) to brainstorm strategies for 2025.

2023 Legislation

On March 10, 2023, JPus managing member Loretta Jay testified to Connecticut’s Planning & Development Committee, endorsing the SOTS’ working group proposal. (See video above.) In addition, written testimony was submitted, supporting our position.
Then, Secretary Thomas testified in person and in writing before the legislature. She referenced her office’s collaboration with the Justice of the Peace Association and our shared support for SB1140 with the working group addition.
Secretary of State Stephanie Thomas’ office submitted language to establish a working group to address the problems with Connecticut’s JP appointment process.
On March 24, 2023, The Planning and Development Committee voted unanimously in favor of SB1140 with a Joint Favorable Report.
In an end-of-session power-play, a “strike-all” amendment was issued. Consequently, Section 3, that included the working group, was removed from the bill. Our part of the bill was killed.

Research

The culmination of research during 2022 was released in February 2023’s white paper.
JPus surveyed officiants to determine their opinion about qualifications and training. We also sought stories about the appointment process. See the survey results.

Stakeholders

In order to capture a complete perspective of the JP appointment process, we sought engagement from a broad range of stakeholders.

JPs and members and non-members
Online marriage officiants
Marriage officiants (in-state & out-of-state)

Secretary of State’s Office
Town Clerk Association
Town clerks

Democratic State Chair
Republican State Chair
Green Party leadership and members
DTC and RTC chairs

Solutions

Conducting research to fully understand a situation is a lengthy process. Following lists the problems identified in the research with possible remedies.

Disparity Between Municipalities

To address the current disparity between municipalities, it is essential that the ratio of JP slots to jurors (or population or other quantifiable value) is consistent between municipalities.

Disparity Between Political Parties

Creating an abundance of JPs slots would ensure that minor political parties could appoint representative JPs. By the same token, if there are plenty of positions, then the unequal number of slots between registered voters and political affiliation is also a non-issue.

Political Influence

To eliminate the politically motivated rewards and punishment related to JP appointments, either increase the number of slots so the position cannot be used as leverage or remove the political parties from the process. If the political parties are no longer involved, the Governor’s office could manage the appointment process without interference.

Vacancies

A uniform policy to fill vacant JP positions should exist no matter the candidate’s political party.

Portability

Justices of the peace are the only locally elected officials who serve the entire state. Yet, their appointments do not transfer if their residence (and voter registration) change. Therefore, to address portability, either the state can manage the JP appointments as in NH and MA, so they are not associated with each town, or increase the number of JPs in each municipality, so there are always sufficient vacancies. Either option will ensure access to individuals in their new hometown if/when they move.

Qualifications

Requiring JPs who perform marriages to participate in training will enhance the skills of marriage officiants in the state, improving the public’s experience and ensuring vulnerable populations have knowledgeable officiants to support them.

Management

Whether the JP appointment process remains under local control or if it is moved to the state level, a statewide digital database of civil officiants is needed. In addition, the database can track any required training.

Diversity

Creating additional slots for JPs will improve accessibility so more culturally and linguistically diverse candidates can fill the role. In addition, an awareness campaign will let different populations know to apply for the position.

Other States

Both the appointment process and qualifications to be an officiant differ from state to state. These differences are not of concern, but a lack of parity within a state (like in Connecticut) is!

In Massachusetts, the Governor appoints justices of the peace for seven-year terms before the Governor’s Council confirms them. The appointment transfers between municipalities in the state during the term.
The Governor and Executive Council appoint JPs in New Hampshire; JPs serve a five-year term.
Vermont JPs are nominated by party caucus or town committee, then elected at a general election; they can also be appointed to fill a vacancy. Terms are for two years. Their primary duty is to work elections, and performing marriages is secondary.
Instead of JPs, Maine and Florida appoint notaries to perform marriages. Notaries have numerous other responsibilities besides officiating marriages.