This Article reflects on the anomaly of the superior court's decision in Sheff in light of this recent history and recommends that the Connecticut Supreme Court use an alternative, analytical framework based on the Connecticut Constitution to decide the Sheff appeal. This independent approach is equally available to all state courts seeking to resolve fundamental issues under their own constitutions. Only by speaking in a clear, state voice can state courts balance the constitutional vision of the federal courts and fulfill the promise of the state constitutional law movement.
Gayl Shaw Westerman, The Promise of State Constitutionalism: Can It Be Fulfilled in Sheff v. O'Neill?, 23 Hastings Const. L.Q. 351 (1996), http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/226/.