But Reiss pointedly added that “any such proposal, however, must be designed to avoid and withstand endless legal challenges.” That means Lamont’s support is contingent on the tribes agreeing to share off-reservation sports betting.

“We would be forced to oppose that. We believe we have exclusive rights to to sports betting,” said Chuck Bunnell, the chief of staff to the Mohegan tribe and one of the officials who met Monday with the governor. “We would be forced to litigate.”

Rodney Butler, the chairman of the Mashantucket Pequots, said the governor made clear that his position was final.

“I think the governor was firm in his position — that this is his position and there is no discussion, literally to the point of throwing up his hands and saying, ‘This is just too hard and we’ll wait another year,’ ” Butler said.

The tribes and the administration have been at a stalemate over sports betting, with the tribes claiming that their exclusive rights to casino games in Connecticut cover sports betting if legalized in the state.

A bill proposed by Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, and endorsed by Senate Democratic leaders, would give the tribes exclusive rights to sports betting at the casinos and online throughout the state, plus the rights to “iGaming,” which is the ability to offer virtual casino games on smartphones and computers.

Osten’s bill and a measure reflecting the governor’s position were up for a public hearing today before the legislature’s Public Safety and Security Committee, which has jurisdiction over gambling legislation. Osten said she was aware of the governor’s message to the tribes, but she would continue to push her bill forward.

Each side has significant leverage.

Under the exclusivity deal struck by Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. in the early 1990s, the tribes pay the state 25% of the gross gaming revenue generated by slots machines. If the exclusivity is violated, the tribes no longer have to make the payments, which totaled $255 million last year.

While tribal casinos generally are allowed to offer any form of gambling otherwise offered in their home states, that is not automatic. If the legislature legalizes sports betting in Connecticut, the tribes could not offer sports books at the casinos without the governor negotiating amendments to their gambling compacts with the state.

Osten’s bill directs the governor to negotiate amendments to the compact, but the administration’s legal position is that cannot be enforced.

Rep. Joe Verrengia, D-West Hartford, the co-chair of the public safety panel, asked Butler at the hearing if the tribes would withhold slots payments if the measured favored by Lamont became law.

“We would have to, correct,” Butler said.

It won’t be necessary. The Lamont administration has no intention of going forward with sports betting without an agreement with the tribes.

The lawmakers quizzed Butler and other tribal officials about the basis of their claim that sports betting was covered by agreements finalized in 1994, when sports wagering was illegal outside Nevada.

The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 did not address sports betting, but the National Indian Gaming Commission has defined it as a Class III game under federal law, a category that includes what generally are seen as casino games, as well as keno.

The state and the tribes successfully negotiated a deal that allows the Connecticut Lottery to run keno, giving the tribes a share of the net profits. That raised an obvious question Tuesday: If a negotiated deal on keno was acceptable, why not sports betting?

“It was acceptable, because it was a collaborative process,” Butler told reporters. “And this, this hasn’t been.”

George Henningsen, the chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot gaming commission, told legislators that if the state and tribes took the exclusivity question to court, a judge would have to consider, “What did the parties intend in April of 1994?”

He suggested an answer: “Well, certainly in 1994, the only place that anyone could address sports betting was in the casinos in Nevada.”

The administration and the tribes have been trying for more than a year to negotiate a path forward, a conversation opened by Lamont’s predecessor, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.

“For years now, Connecticut’s gaming economy has been declining and stuck in litigation while our surrounding states continue to expand and prosper,” Reiss said. “Last legislative session, the governor worked to achieve a comprehensive solution to Connecticut’s ongoing gaming quagmire. Unfortunately, neither tribe accepted that proposal.”

Osten said she has yet to hear directly from the administration about its opposition to her bill.

“Let’s at least start focusing just on sports betting,” Lamont told reporters after a public event today. “That’s something we can do. We can do that on a finite basis, we get that rolled out, and then we grow from there. But let’s get something done.”

Ostein proposed her bill at a neews conference in January that underlined lawmakers’ frustration about the inability of the tribes and the administration to come to terms on sports betting. To generate broader support in the legislature, Osten’s bill would direct a greater share of gambling revenues to cities and towns.

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal law that limited sports books to Nevada. At least 14 states have since legalized sports betting.

MGM Resorts International, which operates casinos in Springfield, Mass., and Yonkers, N.Y. that compete with the Connecticut casinos, has lobbied for years to block the state from awarding greater gambling rights to the tribes, arguing it could get a better deal on a new casino with open bidding.

The bill endorsed by Lamont would not open bidding to MGM.

The legislature voted in 2017 to give a joint tribal venture the authority to build the casino in East Windsor that would compete with MGM Springfield. MGM is suing to block the project, claiming that the federal Department of Interior erred in accepting necessary amendments to the tribes’ gaming compacts with Connecticut. A zoning dispute in East Windsor also is yet to be resolved.

”‘We’re going to vote on Thursday.’ Everybody said that to me not less than five days ago,” Lamont said. “Here it is, Thursday is tomorrow, and they said, ‘Not yet, maybe next week.’ I’ve heard that in this building for the last year, and I think you’ve all heard it for 30 years. This is a place that specializes in kicking the can down the road, and I don’t accept it.”

Lamont said he was unsure how the setback on his first-year priority would affect his relationship with Democratic legislative leaders.

“We’ll see,” he said. “Look, I’m a little disappointed. I think you are elected to make choices. And if we make good choices, we really get this state going again. You’re not elected to say, ‘I can’t make up my mind’ or ‘I don’t want to vote this week, I want to vote next week’ and just push it off — something we’ve done in this building for a generation.”

The Republican minority leaders, Sen. Len Fasano of North Haven and Rep. Themis Klarides of Derby, whose caucuses were uniformly opposed to any form of tolls or new transportation revenue, said the issue of tolls was almost certainly dead for the rest of a three-month session that ends May 6.

Fasano said legislators were ready to tackle other issues and set aside a fight that had “sucked the oxygen” out of the Capitol, and Klarides said she hoped the governor learned a lesson about trying to keep pushing an issue that clearly had run around.

Neither Republican was willing to say the governor had suffered a fatal blow undermining his ability to govern.

“We all know that your enemy today is your friend tomorrow in this building, so I wouldn’t read too much into this,” Fasano said.

Legislative Democrats, however, can expect blowback from their allies in organized labor.

Dave Roche, the president of the Connecticut Building Trades, said the Democratic majority was outmaneuvered by Republicans and had failed construction workers. He said Fasano was correct when he repeatedly said that Senate Democrats did not have the votes for passage.

“To be honest, I think the Republicans did a good job of fending off at least the Senate Democrats,” Roche said. “Len was right. If you have the votes, run it. If they weren’t going to run it, why not get in a room and work something out?”

Nate Brown, the political director of the Operating Engineers and vice president of the building trades, had been quietly skeptical for weeks that the plan ever would come to a vote. But he said Wednesday’s announcement still was hard to take.

“It’s disappointing that the legislature will not take a vote on the governor’s transportation plan — the only plan that responsibly takes advantage of federal loans, toll revenue from heavy out-of-state trucks and results in 23,000 jobs over the next decade,” Brown said. “The governor said it best: This proposal would create a recession-proof jobs program for thousands of workers in our state, allowing middle class families to flourish during a possible economic slowdown.”

Don Shubert, president of the Connecticut Construction Industry Association and an advocate for tolls, said he could appreciate the governor’s frustration with legislators.

“At this point it’s difficult to tell if Connecticut has a long-range plan to start addressing its transportation problems,” Shubert said. “I think everyone agrees that Connecticut has a shortfall in transportation funding.”

Lamont said his administration would now turn to other funding sources to address a backlog of transportation maintenance and improvements, including leaning more heavily on general obligation bonding, a step that could deprive funding for other capital projects. Whatever the administration pursues, the governor will need the Democratic majority.

House Democratic leaders deferred to the governor Wednesday, withholding comment until after he addressed reporters.

But Senate Democratic leaders rushed to release a statement before Lamont spoke, insisting they still could deliver on a transportation financing plan relying on truck tolls — if only Lamont and the House Democratic majority could give them another five days. They seemed intended at avoiding blame for a major policy and political setback for a Democratic governor.

“We are still confident that Senate Democrats have the votes to pass a comprehensive transportation plan which includes 12 toll gantries on eighteen-wheeler trucks only. We are prepared to hold a session next week to vote on a bill to make the necessary transportation investments for Connecticut’s economic development, residents, and businesses,” said Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney and Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff in a joint statement.

Kevin Coughlin, a spokesman for the Senate Democratic leaders, later clarified the Senate had no plans for a vote next week.

“The governor put a pause on it, so there is no vote,” Coughlin said.

Aresimowicz, the House speaker, said the Senate had struggled to find the votes, noting Looney’s awkward statement after a Democratic caucus about a “contingent” majority. Aresimowicz acknowledged he never was confident in the Senate leaders’ assurances that they could win final passage if they House took up the bill first.

“It would be irresponsible for me, given everything that’s happened in the last month to vote for a bill and put it on the Senate floor, to have no guarantee it would pass if we sent it to them,” Aresimowicz said.

Looney could not be reached for comment.

Connecticut currently directs fuel taxes and various other revenues into a Special Transportation Fund to pay debt service on transportation projects, as well as the operating expenses of the Department of Transportation and Department of Motor Vehicles. But the fund is projected to become insolvent in the next five years, and the state has a significant backlog of infrastructure maintenance.

Connecticut borrowed nearly $800 million last fiscal year for highway, bridge and rail upgrades by issuing special tax obligation bonds, notes to be repaid from the Special Transportation Fund. That $800 million was complemented by approximately $750 million in matching federal grants.

But that $1.55 billion falls far short of the $1.9 billion-to-$2 billion that DOT Commissioner Joseph Giulietti says the capital program needseach year, to maintain a state of good repair and to begin to make strategic improvements that the Lamont administration says are necessary for economic growth.

The administration has said it would need to redirect about $200 million of general obligation bonding to complement the $1.55 billion already earmarked for transportation.But even with those funds, a $1.75 billion annual investment in transportation work would fall short of the $2 billion annual target DOT officials have set.

State law required Secretary of the State Denise Merrill to announce the list of candidates precisely at 10 a.m. on Friday, the 74th day preceding the April 28th primary.

The secretary of the state decides who makes the ballot based on a low bar set in state law: A candidate must be “generally and seriously advocated or recognized according to reports in the national or state news media.”

Guided by that law, Merrill said, she opts for access.

“We don’t make any determination requiring any measure of viability, or whether or not someone is going to win,” Merrill said. “That is not the measure we use.”

J.R. Romano, the state Republican chairman, said Merrill is imposing a primary on a Republican Party that doesn’t want one, and she did so without consulting him, a snub he called petty.

“I don’t think she did her due diligence,” Romano said. “We are actually looking at challenging it.”

Nothing in state law suggests the secretary of the state should consult with party leaders, make a judgement about the viability of candidates, or the consider the cost to the towns of printing ballots for a primary challenge of a sitting president.

“What J.R. calls pettiness, we call democracy,” said Gabe Rosenberg, a spokesman for Merrill. “Our office followed both the letter and spirit of the law, and let the voters decide.”

Anyone paying moderate attention to the campaign will recognize the eight Democrats placed on the ballot by Merrill. Another path to the ballot is gathering signatures from one percent of the party’s enrollment.

No one is suggesting the Trump’s renomination is in jeopardy. But should Republican challengers be allowed to try? And should Republican voters not enamored with the president be afforded the opportunity to signify that in a primary?

Romano said the answer is no. Merrill says state law indicates otherwise.

Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts, is offering himself as the leading alternative for GOP voters who cannot abide a second Trump term. De La Fuente is making his second run, but his first as a Republican.

Weld finished second in the Granite State’s crowded primary with 9.1%. De La Fuente garnered 146 votes, good enough to finish ninth with one-tenth of one percent.

Ballot access in New Hampshire is purchased by paying a $1,000 filing fee. (Mark Stewart Greenstein of West Hartford, who also ran for governor in 2018, was the first to sign up for the New Hampshire primary in 2016 primary and again in 2020.) He won fewer than 50 votes each time.

Four years ago, De La Fuente petitioned his way onto the Democratic ballot in Connecticut. He lives in California, but De La Fuente also has run in primaries for the U.S Senate in nine states. He went 0-for-9, hitting a high-water mark of 12.3% in a two-way R.I. primary.

By Merrill’s reckoning, De La Fuente has attracted sufficient press coverage to qualify in Connecticut this year. Besides, he has a habit of suing for access. (He won a suit against Connecticut years ago over its requirement that only state residents circulate his petitions.)

“He is a very persistent candidate,” Merrill said.

Connecticut is one of six states participating in what is variously dubbed the I-95 or Acela primary on the eastern seaboard. The others are Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

Trump won a four-way Connecticut primary in 2016 with 123,523 votes. John Kasich, then the governor of Ohio, was second with 60,522. Sen. Ted Cruz and Ben Carson also were on the ballot.

Hillary Clinton beat Sanders in a three-way race, 170,045 to 152,379. De La Fuente was third with 960.

The Senate then voted along straight party lines, 53-47, to defeat an article that charged the president with contempt of Congress for blocking witnesses and withholding documents requested during the two-month long House impeachment inquiry. Once again, 67 votes were needed to approve the article and remove the president from office.

“While many Republicans admitted what the president did was wrong, they chose to vote not guilty. There comes a time when you must put the country ahead of politics.  The Senate failed to do that today,” said Rep. John Larson, D-1st District.

Trump was defiant after his acquittal, retweeting a meme that showed him winning reelection, not only in 2020, but deep into the 22nd century.

Before today’s historic vote, every senator was allotted 10 minutes to explain the way he or she was going to vote.

With the exception of Romney, many Republicans said the president did nothing wrong — a position adopted by Trump — while others said even if he did something “improper” or wrong, his actions did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah was the only Republican to vote to remove Trump from office.

“I listened to the evidence. Or really, the lack of any evidence whatsoever, and I was convinced — President Donald Trump did not commit any crime,” said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. “Now we can all get back to what we’re supposed to be doing here — working on behalf of the American people.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal used his time before the Senate to continue an argument he’s made since the president’s dealings with Ukraine were revealed in September — that Trump’s actions were violations of criminal laws that are specifically cited in the U.S. Constitution.

“The president solicited a bribe when he sought a personal benefit, an investigation of his political opponent, a smear of his rival in exchange for an official act, in fact two official acts — the release of military funding for an ally and a White House meeting in return for that personal benefit,” Blumenthal said.

“They were a violation of criminal law at the time of the Framers. And that’s why they put it in the Constitution, bribery and treason are specifically mentioned.”

Blumenthal also spoke of the bravery of the public servants who defied the White House and testified in the House impeachment inquiry, including Ukrainian Ambassador William Taylor. He also praised the anonymous CIA whistleblower who touched off the impeachment inquiry with a complaint about Trump’s phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

And, like many Democrats, Blumenthal decried the refusal of most of his GOP colleagues to allow Democrats to introduce new witnesses, especially former national security adviser John Bolton, and seek other evidence at the Senate trial.

“I will remember … the shame and sadness that I felt when this body, supposedly the greatest deliberative body in the history of the world, voted to close its eyes, to put on blinders to evidence, witnesses, and documents, firsthand knowledge, eyes and ears on the president, black and white,” Blumenthal said. “Documents don’t lie.”

Like many Democrats, Sen. Chris Murphy said there would be dire consequences in acquitting Trump.

In the 10 minutes allotted to him, Sen. Chris Murphy said the president’s actions threatened the nation’s fragile and unique democracy.

“Democracy is unnatural,” Murphy said. “It’s rare. It’s delicate. It’s fragile. And untended to, neglected or taken for granted it will disappear like ashes scattering into the cold night.”

Murphy said the 100-member U.S. Senate is “given the responsibility to keep it safe from those who may deign to harm it.”

“The difference between a Democracy and a tin pot dictatorship is that here we don’t allow presidents to use official levers of power to destroy political opponents, but that’s what president Trump did,” Murphy continued. “And we all know it. Even the Republicans who are going to vote to acquit him today know that.”

In his speech, Murphy said the Senate had put on a “show trial” and delivered a “gift-wrapped present for a grateful party leader.”

“We became complicit in the very attacks on democracy that this body is supposed to guard against,” Murphy said. “We have failed to protect the republic.”

Murphy, who gave his speech Wednesday afternoon, was upstaged by Romney, who followed him.

“The president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust,” Romney said.

Romney’s vote not to acquit the president of abuse of power prevents Trump from maintaining the impeachment was completely partisan.