Senate Joint Resolution 57 proposes a constitutional amendment to replace gendered references to individuals in the Connecticut Constitution with gender-neutral language. The resolution systematically revises numerous provisions by changing terms such as “men,” “man,” “his,” and “him” to “persons,” “citizen’s,” “the accused,” “such person’s,” or other neutral formulations. The changes touch a wide range of constitutional sections, including equal rights, free speech, criminal procedure, access to courts, the right to bear arms, jury trial rights, equal protection, legislative apportionment, executive powers, succession, judicial age limits, voter qualifications, religious liberty, and compensation rules for elected officials.
The measure is primarily stylistic and clarifying in nature rather than substantive, but because it amends the state constitution, it would permanently update the text governing core rights and state institutions if adopted. It would not appear to alter the underlying legal standards in those provisions, but it would modernize the constitutional language and make the document explicitly gender-neutral throughout the sections listed in the resolution. The proposal also includes ballot language directing voters to decide whether the Constitution should be amended to make all references to individuals gender-neutral.
The available voting history shows the bill received a Joint Favorable vote in the Government Administration and Elections Committee on March 26, 2025, by a 13-6 tally. That result suggests the proposal had majority support in committee, but not unanimous backing. No committee transcript was provided, so the broader discussion record is limited.
Overall sentiment appears generally supportive of the goal of gender-neutral constitutional drafting, with enough agreement to advance the resolution out of committee. At the same time, the 6 nays indicate some opposition or hesitation, likely reflecting disagreement with the scope, necessity, or symbolic nature of amending the constitution rather than with the concept of neutral language itself. The bill’s main point of contention is therefore not a policy change in rights or powers, but whether a broad constitutional cleanup amendment is the appropriate vehicle and whether it should be advanced to the next stage for voter consideration.
If adopted, this resolution would amend multiple provisions of the Connecticut Constitution to replace gender-specific pronouns and nouns with gender-neutral terms. The practical legal effect is largely textual and interpretive, but it would update constitutional language across provisions governing civil rights, criminal procedure, legislative structure, executive authority, elections, religion, and public office. It would affect how the Constitution is read and cited by courts, lawmakers, and the public, while leaving the substantive framework of those provisions largely intact.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable treatment in committee, as reflected by the 13-6 Joint Favorable vote. That suggests a majority of members supported moving the resolution forward, likely viewing it as a modernization and inclusivity measure. The presence of six nays indicates some members were not persuaded, but no transcript is available to show detailed arguments. Overall, the sentiment seems supportive but not unanimous.
The main contention is whether a broad constitutional amendment is needed to replace gendered references with neutral language across many sections of the state constitution. Supporters likely view the proposal as a non-substantive modernization that improves clarity and inclusiveness, while opponents may see it as unnecessary, overly expansive, or symbolic rather than legally meaningful. Because the resolution touches many constitutional provisions at once, any concern about unintended drafting effects or the scope of constitutional revision could also have contributed to the dissenting votes.