Two candidates, Devin Carney and Vicki Lanier, are running in the Republican Primary on Tuesday for the right to be the party-endorsed candidate for the 23rd District State Representative.  The 23rd District covers Lyme, Old Lyme, Old Saybrook and the southern portion of Westbrook.  The seat was previously held by Marilyn Giuliano, who is retiring.

We asked each candidate to submit a biography of 100 words or less and to answer each of three questions in a maximum of 250 words.

The questions are:

1. Why are you running for this position?
2. What do you consider is the greatest challenge currently facing the state? What suggestions can you offer for solving it?
3. What is your opinion on the recent ‘Hobby Lobby’ decision by the Supreme Court?

We thank both candidates sincerely for responding to our questions by the specified deadline.

Voting will take place Tuesday, Aug. 12, in Old Lyme and Lyme at the Cross Lane and Hamburg Firehouses respectively from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.  Only registered Republicans may vote in this Republican Primary.

DEVIN CARNEY

Biography

I was raised in Old Saybrook, but my family has been in the district since the 1950’s when my grandfather, Art, bought a home in Westbrook. I went to Old Saybrook High and graduated from Brandeis University.

I have worked on statewide and local Republican campaigns. I have experience in public health, real estate, and most recently starting a home-based business in the voiceover profession.

I am a passionate volunteer in the community and lector at Grace Episcopal Church. I live in Saybrook, but am in Old Lyme all the time as my long-time girlfriend her wonderful children live there.

1. Why are you running for this position?

The 23^rd District encompasses everything I love in Connecticut, from its beaches to its forests to its wonderful people. But, for all of the reasons that bind me to Connecticut, there’s much work to be done to make our state affordable and prosperous for all.

Connecticut has lost a lot of our 25-34-year-old population. Folks my age have opted to go to other states because our economic climate is so bad. It’s very simple – when the youth can’t work then they can’t stay here. They can’t buy homes and start families. Parents and grandparents lose out because their children and grandchildren are forced to leave the state because it’s unaffordable, and that’s wrong.

I never had it easy and have been working since I was twelve years old, when I decided to take up a paper route to help my mother with expenses.  I understand the value of a hard-earned dollar. It’s simply unfair that so many people are forced to leave their homes because the cost of living is too high here, in the state they chose to live, work, and retire in.I’m running because I believe Connecticut is at a crossroads – we can stay where we are or we can work together to reinvent the way our government works.  I believe it’s time for fresh ideas and innovation up in Hartford, which is what I promise to provide as your next state representative.  I want you, your kids, your business, and your quality of life to thrive.

2. What do you consider is the greatest challenge currently facing the state? What suggestions can you offer for solving it?

The greatest challenge facing the state is improving business confidence so that our economic climate is healthy.  When private industry is successful there are more job opportunities available and more people staying in the district.  In order for business confidence and industry to improve, taxes must be lowered, roadways must be fixed, and Connecticut needs to be affordable.I would look at alternative programs that can provide better results at lower costs, particularly in areas like long-term care and corrections. I would promote improvements to fiscal planning that would work to reduce long-term unfunded liabilities, particularly with pensions. I would seek to avoid any tax increases that would harm our economic recovery thus encouraging employers to invest in Connecticut.

Our roadways must be improved for tourism and business to thrive. The government often takes tax dollars from the transportation fund and puts it in the general fund, which does our businesses no good. Too often I hear of the issues with I-95 in terms of traffic and safety – it’s about time we focus on this instead of kicking the can down the road.

Our state government must ensure state funding commitments to small towns, so as to avoid unfunded municipal mandates that raise property taxes. This requires the state to help with funding of education, particularly special education, and transportation. Another burden on many is the energy costs and, in some areas, flood insurance costs – I would work to help consumers by promoting innovation and competition in these areas.

3. What is your opinion on the recent ‘Hobby Lobby’ decision by the Supreme Court?

The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision is now federal law.  The state government may choose to try to nullify the law, as Minnesota is trying to do, independent of federal mandates. If Connecticut chooses this route, then it may find itself in court, but likely with more liberal conditions since Connecticut courts are more liberal than the US Supreme Court.  It is not likely that many of our businesses, here in the 23^rd, will be affected by the ruling at all since the Affordable Care Act (or “Obamacare”) exempts businesses with fewer than 50 employees from the ‘employer mandate’.

I do believe strongly in freedom of religion as stated in the First Amendment of the Constitution.  Thus, I do not think that anyone’s religious liberty should be abridged so long as it doesn’t take away anyone else’s Constitutional rights. Employment is not a Constitutional right, but I do believe that it may be necessary for companies like Hobby Lobby to at least make it very clear of their beliefs, which is my main concern with the decision. Something like a church or a religious non-profit may be easily recognizable, so one must assume there may be company policies that reflect a particular religious viewpoint. But, Hobby Lobby is a large chain of craft stores, so it may not be reasonable for one to assume they are religious.

It is very clear is that Obamacare has many unanswered questions. We are likely to see issues regarding it for many years.

VICKI LANIER

Biography

Vicki lives and works in Old Lyme and is the mother of four children aged 7-22.   She owns a general practice law firm focusing on family and child protection law.  An involved member of the community, Vicki has served on the Old Lyme Republican Town Committee since 2007.   She was elected to the Lyme-Old Lyme Board of Education in 2009, serving as its treasurer from 2011-2013.  A room parent at Mile Creek Elementary School, Vicki is also actively involved with her children, who keep her busy with their participation in Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and recreational sports.

1. Why are you running for this position?

I am running for state representative in the 23^rd district because I am committed to being part of the solution in Connecticut.  Our bloated and ineffective state government has made Connecticut one of the worst states for businesses, retirees, and working families.  If we have any hope of turning Connecticut around, we must insist on real change in Hartford.  Real change starts by electing qualified candidates who offer relevant experience, with a reputation for delivering real results.

Because I believe in public service, I am running for state representative.  After serving on both the Old Lyme republican town committee and the Lyme-Old Lyme Board of Education, I want to serve the community in another capacity.  Utilizing my experience as an effective attorney, skilled negotiator, and creative problem solver will enable me to tackle the difficult issues facing our state.   I am running because Hartford needs fewer career politicians (seasoned or aspiring) and more practical, results-oriented leaders with the demonstrated fortitude to make difficult decisions.

I believe the people in the 23^rd district want a representative that will defend our constitutional rights, reduce and repeal unnecessary legislation and regulation, insist on fiscal responsibility, promote local decision making, and reduce the size of state government.  I am running because I am the candidate with the personal, professional, and political experience necessary to further those goals in Hartford.

2. What do you consider is the greatest challenge currently facing the state? What suggestions can you offer for solving it?

The greatest challenge currently facing our state is our sluggish economy.  Connecticut’s economy is suffering because of our government’s inability or unwillingness to balance the state budget, the state’s onerous tax structure, and excessive regulation and taxation on business.  Our state legislators must stay focused on the role the state government plays in promoting a healthy economy.

The most effective way for state government to stimulate the economy is through prudent fiscal management of the state budget – including addressing the state’s unfunded pension obligations, reducing taxes on businesses and eliminating unnecessary regulations so that private industry can thrive.  Therefore, I am not a proponent of creating “new programs” to stimulate our economy.  Rather, I am a proponent of smaller state government.  I favor repealing the nearly 300 taxes that contribute less than .001% to our annual revenue.  This includes repealing the small business entity tax and other nuisance taxes.  I also support reducing the gas tax and eliminating the tax on retiree pensions.

In order for Connecticut to become a more business friendly state, legislators must examine current legislation, repeal unnecessary regulation and be thoughtful about enacting new legislation.  Before enacting any legislation, we must ask ourselves, “what is the problem this legislation is solving, does it effectively solve the problem without unintended consequences, and can we afford it?”  Our economy will not recover until our state government acknowledges that it must right size government, reduce our revenue requirements, and allow free enterprise to flourish with limited government intervention.

3. What is your opinion on the recent ‘Hobby Lobby’ decision by the Supreme Court?

I support the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Burwell, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al.  This case addressed whether the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) could require closely held corporations to provide its employees health insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violated the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners.

The Supreme Court held that such a requirement would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).  The RFRA prohibits the federal government from taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.  While the Supreme Court found the regulations of the HHS to serve a compelling government interest (providing health insurance – including coverage for contraceptive methods that are abortifacients), it did not find that the mandate was the least restrictive means of serving that interest.

Instead, the Supreme Court found that there were other ways that either Congress or HHS could ensure women access to the particular contraceptives at issue in this case.  Specifically, employees of any closely held corporation where the religious beliefs of the company owners prohibited offering such coverage for contraception could be offered coverage through the same coverage already available to religious non-profits.  This decision represents the appropriate balance between honoring our constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion with the current federal law (whether you agree with it or not) commonly known as “Obama-care”.