Good morning and welcome back to the Tip Sheet, a weekly newsletter from Tom Dudchik’s Capitol Report written by Mike Cerulli.

Here we go again…

Another snowstorm is pounding the whole state. We hope everyone is digging out safely and staying warm.

To start your snowy week, we’re taking a look at some of the most unique legislative proposals making their way through the process during this condensed session.

Let’s dive in…

UFOs, roaming dogs and other curious proposals of the 2026 legislative session

Just because it’s a short session doesn’t mean there’s a shortage of creative legislative ideas.

Tucked within the rosters of bills jockeying for a chance at passage this year are several quirky, thought-provoking and even eyebrow-raising ideas that are sure to generate unique debates this year.

What kind of proposals, you ask? How about a concept being reviewed by the Appropriations Committee to study so-called “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” or UAPs, which is another term for those mysterious things in the sky that the rest of us call UFOs? Ever wondered if it would make sense to hold municipal elections during even-numbered years? There’s a bill addressing that. And what should the state do about the scourge of roaming dogs? The Judiciary Committee will be the venue for a debate over a proposed solution.

Of all these proposals and more, there is no doubt as to which one is the most out there (pun intended).

The idea of directing an entity of the state government to study UAPs might sound ridiculous, but a string of federal disclosures about unexplained observations in the sky and subsequent sightings of mystery drones over sensitive sites has triggered a very real public policy debate alongside the age-old discussion of otherworldly questions.

In the broadest sense, the term UAP as the Appropriations Committee uses it describes exactly what its name would imply: anything observed in the sky that is not readily identifiable.

Manmade drones could fit the definition of a UAP. So could unidentified, manned aircraft. Rare weather events and even optical illusions could be UAPs, too.

In fact, the Appropriations Committee’s concept language uses an outdated form of the acronym. Both NASA and the Department of Defense, which have been tasked with investigating UAPs, have adopted a broader term: Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. The change is said to reflect an expanded scope of unexplained observations that might not have taken place strictly in the air. Observations of submerged phenomena, for example, would fall under the scope of the government’s UAP review.

Most of the contemporary discourse about UAPs – and the public awareness of the acronym – originated in 2017. Reporting in the New York Times revealed to the world footage from the infrared targeting cameras of U.S. Navy fighter jets which showed something that flummoxed elite aviators, radar operators on a guided missile cruiser and the staff of a once-secret Pentagon unit tasked with probing the encounters.

The Times’ reporting served to legitimize the asking of questions that were once associated only with the tinfoil hat crowd. The 2017 story touched off a deluge of reporting and congressional inquiries.

In the years since the original Times story, there have been a surge in reports of unidentified aircraft over sensitive military installations.

Reporting by the Wall Street Journal in 2024 described one such incursion in the skies over an Air Force base in Virginia that houses stealth fighter jets. These objects seemed dissimilar from the fast-moving, ovular craft described by the Navy pilots who captured the infamous videos published by the Times. Rather, a now-retired Air Force general described to the Journal swarms of slower-moving drones of unknown origin making multiple incursions into the airspace over the base before flying in the direction of two naval installations – one which serves as headquarters of SEAL Team 6 and the other the homeport of four aircraft carrier strike groups.

Of course, it’s easy for the mind to jump to the fantastical, especially when seeking an explanation for those UAP videos published in 2017. The wide-eyed recountings of veteran Navy pilots who spoke to 60 Minutes suggested that these levelheaded, highly-trained aviators genuinely entertained the idea that they were viewing something extraterrestrial.

Other expert analysis suggests a range of earthly explanations from observational errors to weather balloons. As for the drone sightings over military installations, foreign adversaries poking around for valuable intelligence are strongly suspected.

Regardless of explanation, all of these UAP sightings illustrate a public policy and national security conundrum that undoubtedly touches state governments. In response to drone flights over sensitive locations like military bases and nuclear power plants, some states, Connecticut among them, have taken steps to punish civilian drone operators who fly too close to critical infrastructure. Physically enforcing such boundaries is another matter entirely. The Connecticut State Police have a specialized unit that focuses on detecting drones but bringing them down in a manner that doesn’t pose additional threats to civilians is often difficult (see: the quixotic closure of El Paso’s airspace when federal agents apparently fielded a new anti-drone laser at the border).

These questions confronted federal authorities as they watched a Chinese surveillance balloon traverse the continental United States in 2023. Ultimately, the decision was made to have an F-22 Raptor (flying out of the same Virginia base that would later experience drone incursions) blow it out of the sky over coastal waters.

If it moves forward, the legislative debate over a UAP study would likely be characterized by the same type of wisecracking that some previous legislative proposals have fallen prey to. Who can forget last year’s push by State Rep. Devin Carney to ban marriage between first cousins? Carney’s proposal, along with Senate President pro tempore Marty Looney’s attempt to make movie theaters advertise the actual start times of films, was one of the only stories out of last year’s session to garner national news coverage.

On the other hand, the nature of peoples’ reactions (recall the public freak out when people thought they saw mystery drones over Connecticut) to the subject of UAPs might be the best argument for having a panel of experts analyze the relevant public policy questions in a methodical, informed manner.

Such is the paradox of a legislative idea that elicits equal parts laughter, frenzy and thought. The same can be said of the bill to beef up the penalties for allowing a dog to roam. On the surface, it’s the type of bill that’s sure to be the subject of some tongue-in-cheek remarks or maybe even a humor-tinged news story. But dig a little deeper and you’ll find a rather interesting debate that affects rural and urban communities alike.

And then there’s the font of interesting ideas that is the Government Administration and Elections (GAE) Committee. Granted, there’s nothing quite as headline-grabbing as a study of UFOs on the docket for the members of GAE this session. But the proposal to establish an opt-in process for municipalities to elect their governments in even-numbered years poses interesting questions about the nature of democracy at the local level. 

If you’ve spotted any other unique and quirky legislative proposals, feel free to drop us a line. Email: Michael.Cerulli@protonmail.com.

And, as always, we’ll see you next week for another edition of the Tip Sheet!