Holding power accountable gets exhausting after awhile, doesn't it?

I was at a recent event talking about the importance of voting and how important it is to encourage others to view voting more than annual chore but as a secular sacrament.

The room was filled with the most diehard activists --  the kind that stand on town greens in any kind of weather to protest the war in Iraq and the kind groups like Common Cause depend on to push for reform. They were energetic and eager to the hit the streets in the name of democracy.

Then, something happened.

It turns out a good defense does make a pretty good offense.

The Connecticut Legislature wrapped up its 2008 session early Thursday morning. Although it was generally dubbed a "Do Nothing" session, Connecticut Common Cause was able to pass one essential bill and make sure a number of other bills aimed at either turning the clock on reform didn't head to the governor's desk.

Sure, it's easier to kill a bill than push a bill, but in the crush of the final days of session it is always possible to sneak a rat into a marginally related bill. Connecticut Common Cause checked every bill passed by the Legislature. While we chuckled at "An Act Concerning Beer Cooler Accessibility," which passed both chambers unanimously, we found nothing that would chisel away at any hard-fought reforms. 

That said, there were a number of bills that didn't make the cut this year and a few that did. For a short session where only supposedly essential are to be called, it was a good year.

The Connecticut General Assembly concludes its 2008 legislative session at midnight tonight, and for the first time in a long time, Connecticut Common Cause is playing defense as opposed to trying to shoehorn a reform at the last minute (in 2006, a critical campaign finance reform bill passed in the last two minutes.)

Bills that we were pushing for have either passed and been enacted into law, been tied down on the calendar with no hope of salvation or caught in internecine feuds between the House and Senate.

Now, we have to make sure that the so-called "Do Nothing Session" does nothing to turn back the clock on important reforms.

So far, attempts by proponents of Voter Photo ID to spark a debate have been stymied by a lack of opportunities. The state Senate has one bill on the calendar that could be called for a debate but hasn't for several days. Other election related bills have been relegated to the foot of the calendar, which is the legislative word for Limbo.  There was some scuttlebutt that the opponents of Voter Photo ID, pining to fight a good fight, might call an election bill, but it never happened. There's a lot of bills on the calendar and not a lot of time left. This is one time the clock is working in our favor. Keep the e-mails coming. Let's keep the pressure on until the Voter Photo ID threat is gone.

There's only three days left in the 2008 legislative session.  Proponents of Voter Photo ID could float their amendment on any of those days, depending on whether or not the Senate or the House calls an elections bill.

In the Connecticut General Assembly as opposed to Congress, for those following from out-of-state, in order for an amendment to be called and debated, it must be germane to the underlying bill. There are a few elections bill left on the calendar, but who knows when, let alone if, they might be called. All the more reason to keep the e-mails coming.

I did a little research on the whole subject of voter fraud in Connecticut. It exists, but it is apparent that Voter Photo ID would do little to prevent it from occurring.

The Connecticut State Senate unanimously approved the 17-year-old primary voting rights bill. The expected Voter Photo ID amendment and debate never materialized.

With the exception of a mini debate on an amendment that would put to state voters a proposal for referenda, the talk regarding the primary voting rights bill was friendly.

Stronger words came outside the chamber immediately after the vote. Senate Minority Leader John McKinney said proponents of Voter Photo ID didn't raise the amendment on the primary voting rights bill because they supported the underlying legislation. He promised a debate on Voter Photo ID before the session ended.

A day after amendments to require voter photo IDs in Connecticut, a group of elected officials -- including Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, Senate President Pro Tem Don Williams and GAE chair Gayle Slossberg -- voiced their strong opposition to the proposal.

Calling it "sad" that some senators wanted to "turn back the clock on voting rights," Sen. Williams said "this is Connecticut in 2008, not Alabama in 1963."

Although such a show of opposition from high ranking elected officials suggests the amendment probably doesn't have much of a shot at success. The Senate has just called the 17-year-olds primary voting bill. If the proponents of voter photo ID are still bent on calling the amendment, we could have an interesting debate. Tune in.

Keep the e-mails coming. Tell your senator to oppose this modern-day poll tax.

In what is no doubt a strong demonstration of what can only be called obstinacy on the matter of voter photo ID, a state senator has proposed amending the Connecticut Constitution to require voters to present a valid photo ID.

It's one thing to propose muddying the waters of the state's election laws, but it's quite another to defile the state Constitution -- the oldest in the nation -- with a modern poll tax. That takes nerve.

The amendment is a variation of a proposal that has been filed on three separate bills. It appears that one way or another, the proponents of voter photo ID intend to put their plan out there. Already, the move has generated a buzz in the Connecticut blogosphere. 

The bill the amendment targets is a resolution that would amend the state constitution to allow 17-year-olds who will be 18 on Election Day to vote in primaries. It's a good bill. Year after year, high school students come up to the Legislative Office Building, make their case for primary voting rights and are received warmly by legislators from both sides of the aisle. Guess what happens? Year after year, there is usually some bit of parliamentary chicanery that derails the legislation.

Last night, the state Senate had plans to call the bill, which has already been approved by the House, 135-12, but caught wind of the amendment and decided to postpone the vote -- perhaps fearing a drawn out debate into the wee hours of the morning.

I spoke to Sen. Gayle Slossberg, chair of the state's Government Administration and Elections Committee, and she assured me and other pro-democracy activists that she's ready to fight against this modern poll tax. We'll be at the Capitol today rallying senators in opposition to these amendments. For those keeping score in Connecticut (and I know you are), help us out by writing an e-mail to your state senator urging him or her to oppose the photo ID requirement for voting.