Judiciary Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: HB-6665
AN ACT CONCERNING THE REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
BASED ON RACE AND ELIMINATION OF THE RACE DESIGNATION ON
Title: MARRIAGE LICENSES.
Vote Date: 4/6/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 3/31/2021
File No.: 582
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
Rep. Craig C. Fishbein Sen. Gary A. Winfield
Rep. Jason Rojas Rep. Jason Doucette
Rep. Steven J. Stafstrom Rep. Kimberly Fiorello
Rep. Robyn A. Porter Rep. Travis Simms
Rep. Mark W. Anderson Rep. Brian Lanoue
Rep. Mike France Rep. Anne Dauphinais
Rep. Doug Dubitsky Rep. Patricia A. Dillon
Rep. Jeff Currey Rep. John Fusco
Rep. Devin R. Carney Rep. Nicole Klarides-Ditria
REASONS FOR BILL:
This bill voids unlawful restrictive covenants, which are covenants or provisions in instruments
affecting the title to real property that purport to restrict ownership or occupancy based on race. Under
the provisions of this bill, after receiving a form or affidavit notifying them of an unlawful restrictive
covenant, town clerks are required to record such, and, to the extent practicable, notate the land
records. This bill further requires the Office of Policy and Management to develop a standardized form
to report unlawful restrictive covenants to town clerks, and makes a conforming change allowing the
affidavits by December 1, 2021.
This bill requires town clerks to (1) make the form available on the municipalitys website and in the
town clerks office where land records are kept and (2) post a notice informing the public of the bills
provisions in the town clerks land records office. In accordance with current law, marriage licenses
must include certain demographic information on the applicants (i.e., the people getting married). This
bill effectively removes race as one of those categories.
SUBSTITUTE LANGUAGE
The substitute language changes the procedure for when an unlawful restrictive covenant is identified
on a deed. When an individual discovers an unlawful covenant, they may report it to the town clerk,
who must then record it and to the extent practicable notate the land records. The language also
requires OPM to adopt a form for such reporting and for Town Clerks to make the form available on
their website.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities; is in strong support of this bill. The CHRO
emphasizes that despite intervention by the United States Supreme Court and the United
States Congress, racially restrictive covenants remain within the land records in Connecticut.
Support is stated for the removal of race from the demographic information required on Connecticut
marriage licenses. It stresses that Connecticut is one of only eight states that still requires this
identification of individuals upon applying for a marriage license, and that there is no legitimate reason
for such a requirement. The CHRO believes that the current license requirement harkens to the time of
miscegenation laws that prohibited individuals of different races from marrying.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Connecticut General Assembly, Speaker of the House, State Representative, Matthew Ritter;
supports this bill underscoring the existence of covenants that restrict the use of property based on race
within the deeds of properties across the State of Connecticut. It is stated that while these clauses have
no legal effect today, they serve as a testament to racism's historic pervasiveness in our laws, its effect
on our housing policies, and the persistent inequalities we see today. It is stated that the declaration of
race upon an application for a marriage license recalls prohibitions of interracial marriage. At present,
this requirement has no legal purpose or practical effect, and therefore the continued use of such a
declaration exposes Connecticut to constitutional challenges. It is also stated that Connecticut will be
one of the final states in the country to remove the license requirement.
Connecticut General Assembly, House Majority Leader, State Representative, Jason Rojas; supports
this bill including the establishment of a mechanism for homeowners to clear the land record
associated with their home(s) from racially restrictive covenants. The current requirement for
identification of race prior to obtaining a marriage license was enacted within the context of regarding
interracial marriage as a public health crisis. It is stated that the Department of Public Health does not
use this racial data, nor do they collect such data. This outdated statute should therefore be amended
under the provisions of this bill.
Connecticut Chapter of the Community Associations Institute, Executive Director, Kim K.V.
McClain; supports this bill and requests that the bill is amended for community association
boards to also have a simplified process to remove discriminatory restrictions contained
within covenants without a vote of the owners. Such an amendment would be congruous to
ten other states that have passed simplified processes for association boards, and nine other
states that have introduced consideration of such provisions. Support is also stated for the
proposal of complementary legislation that would mandate the removal of discriminatory
restrictions of an individual owners petition to the government.
Page 2 of 3 HB-6665
University of Connecticut School of Law, David K. Ware; supports this bill stating the
continued existence of racially restrictive covenants within Connecticuts land records is an
irritant that cannot escape the attention of groups and individuals who care about equality,
fairness, and inclusion. As covenants announce a formal legal norm that reinforces social
norms of racial exclusion, it is imperative to amend these provisions. It is stated that even though the
present-day demographic of Connecticut and its town are more diverse than when these
racially restrictive covenants were enacted, this does not permit the denial, excusal, or
justification to forget how racial segregation and inequalities have shaped history.
West Hartford, Connecticut, Town Historian, Tracey Wilson: supports this bill stating that in
order to remove racially restrictive wording from covenants and deeds a lawyer is required, of
which is costly. It is stated that this bill provides a way for homeowners to remove this
wording more effectively. It is also stated that it provides a method for researchers to study
restrictive covenants by stipulating that the original deeds are sent to the State Library for
filing.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Connecticut State Library, State Librarian, Deborah Schander; opposes the procedure of this
bill and while the Library supports the intent of this bill, it will require the development of
workable procedures in order to successfully carry out, as well as the formation of a working
committee. Three concerns regarding this bill are stated: (1) the procedures appear in direct
conflict with state statutes on land recording; (2) the State Library and municipalities will be
unable to carry out the procedures contained within this bill; and (3) the procedures may lead
to unanticipated results. It is stated that for the content of this bill to be written effectively, the
procedures for Connecticut require input from many stakeholders. The State Library offers to
join a working group established by the Judiciary Committee to develop these procedures for
Connecticut.
Connecticut Town Clerks Association, Inc., North Haven Town Clerk and Tax Collector, J.
Stacey Yarbrough; Supports the provision of this bill related to removing race designation
from all future marriage licenses However strong concerns are expressed related to the
procedure prescribed under this bill that would seek to remove/redact parts of land record
documentation from what was originally presented for recording. It is stated that these land
records are historical documents that assist in telling a narrative of how each town, the State,
and the Country, have grown. Removal of racially based restrictive covenants needs to be
addressed in a way that does not destroy the authenticity of the record, nor impede normal
business activities. It is recommended that it should be mandatory for the Grantees attorney to
review and modify the objectionable restrictive covenants with the consent of the Grantors attorney
for the property sales to remove offensive language. The addition of a such a procedure will effectively
eliminate the discriminatory language from carrying forward, as well as being careful to avoid setting a
precedent that land records can be altered and eliminated, thus forever removing and losing a part of a
municipalitys history.
Reported by: Jessica Topper Date: April 28, 2021
Page 3 of 3 HB-6665


Statutes affected:
Raised Bill:
JUD Joint Favorable Substitute:
File No. 582:
File No. 683: 47-70a, 47-236
Public Act No. 21-173: 47-70a, 47-236