HB 6948 would substantially revise Connecticut’s fair housing laws to limit how housing providers may use criminal history in rental decisions. The bill generally prohibits landlords and other housing providers from asking about an applicant’s criminal record before making a conditional offer, requires written disclosure if criminal history will be reviewed, and restricts what convictions may be considered after a conditional offer is made. It bars reliance on arrests, charges not resulting in conviction, erased convictions, and offenses committed as a minor, and it requires individualized review of mitigating factors such as the nature of the offense, the applicant’s age, the time elapsed, and evidence of rehabilitation.
The bill also creates procedural protections and administrative requirements. Housing providers would have to give applicants notice, time to respond, written reasons for any withdrawal of a conditional offer, and retain records of the decision-making process for three years. Background screening companies would be limited to reporting only conviction information that housing providers may lawfully consider. The bill directs the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities to publish model notices and forms and to provide mandatory training, and it requires the state’s Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division to publish a guide to felony maximum sentences to help housing providers apply the law. It also creates immunity for landlords who rent to people with criminal records or choose not to conduct criminal background screening, while preserving liability for conduct during the tenancy.
The bill’s impact on state law is broad because it amends multiple sections of the Connecticut General Statutes governing housing discrimination, complaint procedures, remedies, and public housing eligibility. It adds a new protected category tied to criminal conviction status in the state’s housing discrimination framework, changes CHRO complaint timelines and enforcement procedures for these claims, and expands available damages and court remedies. It also narrows the circumstances under which public housing authorities may consider criminal history, while preserving existing federal restrictions for certain public housing applicants, including methamphetamine-related offenses and lifetime sex offender registration requirements.
Overall sentiment in the available materials appears supportive of the bill’s purpose, which is to reduce collateral consequences of criminal records and expand housing access for people with convictions. The stated purpose and structure suggest a rehabilitation- and reentry-oriented approach, emphasizing fair consideration rather than automatic exclusion. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee opposition in the supplied materials.
The main points of contention likely concern public safety, landlord discretion, and administrative burden. The bill still allows consideration of certain serious felony convictions within defined time windows, but it limits that review and requires individualized assessment, which may be viewed by opponents as constraining housing providers too much. Supporters are likely to favor the bill’s anti-discrimination protections, reentry focus, and standardized procedures, while critics may focus on the complexity of compliance, the recordkeeping and notice requirements, and the reduced ability to screen applicants based on criminal history.
The bill would amend Connecticut’s fair housing and human rights statutes to create a new set of housing discrimination rules based on criminal conviction status, including limits on pre-application inquiries, restrictions on the convictions that may be considered, notice and documentation requirements, and new complaint and remedy procedures. It also changes public housing eligibility standards, CHRO enforcement timelines, and related statutory definitions and remedies, while adding training, guidance, and immunity provisions for housing providers.
The available materials indicate a generally reform-oriented and supportive posture toward the bill’s goal of reducing housing barriers for people with criminal records. The bill is framed as a fair-housing and reentry measure, with no recorded votes or committee testimony provided to show formal opposition or amendment debate. Because no transcript or voting history was supplied, the level of support or controversy cannot be measured from the record here.
Likely areas of contention include whether landlords should be barred from asking about criminal history before a conditional offer, how much discretion they should retain after an offer is made, and whether the bill sufficiently protects other tenants and property owners. Opponents may argue that the bill imposes compliance burdens, limits risk-based screening, and creates uncertainty around individualized assessments and documentation. Supporters are likely to emphasize rehabilitation, housing access, and the need to prevent blanket exclusion of applicants with criminal records.