Share on WeChat
https://www.powervoter.us/joe_courtney
Copy the link and open WeChat to share.
 Share on WeChat
Copy the link and open WeChat to share.
 Share on WeChat
Scan QRCode using WeChat,and then click the icon at the top-right corner of your screen.
 Share on WeChat
Scan QRCode using WeChat,and then click the icon at the top-right corner of your screen.
Congress Bills
Quick Facts
Personal Details

Joe Courtney (Democratic Party) is a member of the U.S. House, representing Connecticut's 2nd Congressional District. He assumed office on January 4, 2007. His current term ends on January 3, 2021.

Courtney (Democratic Party) is running for re-election to the U.S. House to represent Connecticut's 2nd Congressional District. He declared candidacy for the Democratic primary scheduled on August 11, 2020.

Courtney was first elected to the United States House of Representatives in 2006. He was most recently re-elected in 2018. In addition to running as a Democratic Party candidate, Courtney also ran with the Working Families Party through cross-filing.

During his tenure in the House, Courtney has served on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Committee on Agriculture, and the Committee on Armed Services.

In 1998, Courtney made an unsuccessful bid for Lieutenant Governor.

Based on analysis of multiple outside rankings, Courtney is an average Democratic member of Congress, meaning he will vote with the Democratic Party on the majority of bills.

Below is an abbreviated outline of Courtney's academic, professional, and political career:

  • 2007-Present: U.S. Representative from Connecticut's 2nd Congressional District
  • 1987-1994: Connecticut House of Representatives, District 56
  • 1978-1981: Public Defender
  • 1978: Graduated from the University of Connecticut, Storrs, with a J.D.
  • 1975: Graduated from Tufts University with a B.A.

Education

  • JD, University of Connecticut School of Law, 1978
  • BA, Tufts University, 1975

Professional Experience

  • JD, University of Connecticut School of Law, 1978
  • BA, Tufts University, 1975
  • Partner, Courtney, Boyan and Foran, Limited Liability Company
  • Partner, Flaherty, Meisler and Courtney Limited Liability Company
  • Town Attorney, Town of Vernon
  • Assistant Public Defender, Rockville Superior Court, 1978-1981

Political Experience

  • JD, University of Connecticut School of Law, 1978
  • BA, Tufts University, 1975
  • Partner, Courtney, Boyan and Foran, Limited Liability Company
  • Partner, Flaherty, Meisler and Courtney Limited Liability Company
  • Town Attorney, Town of Vernon
  • Assistant Public Defender, Rockville Superior Court, 1978-1981
  • Representative, United States House of Representatives, District 2, 2006-present
  • Candidate, United States House of Representatives, District 2, 2002, 2018
  • Candidate, Lieutenant Governor, State of Connecticut, 1998
  • Assembly Member, Connecticut General Assembly, District 56, 1987-1994

Former Committees/Caucuses

Co-Chair, Congressional Shipbuilding Caucus, present

Co-Chair, Primary Care Caucus, present

Former Member, Congressional Arts Caucus

Former Co-Chair, Congressional Dairy Farmers Caucus

Former Member, Education and the Workforce Committee, United States House of Representatives

Former Member, Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee, United States House of Representatives

Former Member, House Agriculture Committee, United States Congress

Former House Chair, Public Health Committee

Former Member, Readiness Subcommittee, United States House of Representatives

Current Legislative Committees

Member, Armed Services

Member, Education & Labor

Member, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions

Member, Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Investment

Chair, Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces

Member, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces

Other Info

— Awards:

  • 2010 Health Care Hero Award, Patient Advocate Foundation; 2009 Legislator of the Year Award, Connecticut Veterans of Foreign Wars; 1994 Most Conscientious, Connecticut Magazine; 1994 Democrat Most Admired by Republicans, Connecticut Magazine; Meritorious Service Award, Connecticut National Guard; Distinguished Public Service Award, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus; Golden Triangle Award, National Farmers' Union; Friend of the Farm Bureau, American Farm Bureau;' Legislator of the Year Award, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers

Spouse's Occupation:

Pediatric Nurse Practitioner

Elections

2020

Some 2020 election dates and procedures have changed as a result of the coronavirus. For the latest in your state, .
General election

The primary will occur on August 11, 2020. The general election will occur on November 3, 2020. General election candidates will be added here following the primary.

Democratic primary election
Democratic primary for U.S. House Connecticut District 2

Incumbent Joe Courtney is running in the Democratic primary for U.S. House Connecticut District 2 on August 11, 2020.

Joe Courtney (D)

Republican primary election
Republican primary for U.S. House Connecticut District 2

Justin Anderson and Thomas Gilmer are running in the Republican primary for U.S. House Connecticut District 2 on August 11, 2020.

Justin Anderson (R)

Thomas Gilmer (R)


2018


General election
General election for U.S. House Connecticut District 2

Incumbent Joe Courtney (D) defeated Dan Postemski (R), Michelle Louise Bicking (G), and Daniel Reale (L) in the general election for U.S. House Connecticut District 2 on November 6, 2018.

Joe Courtney (D)
62.2%
179,731 Votes

Silhouette Placeholder Image.png

Dan Postemski (R)
35.4%
102,483 Votes

Michelle Louise Bicking (G)
1.2%
3,595 Votes

Silhouette Placeholder Image.png

Daniel Reale (L)
1.1%
3,305 Votes

Total votes: 289,114

Democratic primary election

The Democratic primary was canceled.

Republican primary election

The Republican primary was canceled.

2016

rated this race as safely Democratic. Incumbent Joe Courtney (D) defeated Daria Novak (R), Daniel Reale (L), and Jonathan Pelto (G) in the general election on November 8, 2016. No candidate faced a primary election in August. Courtnet won re-election in the November 8 election.

U.S. House, Connecticut District 2 General Election, 2016

Party Candidate Vote % Votes
Democratic Green check mark transparent.pngJoe Courtney Incumbent 63.2% 208,818
Republican Daria Novak 33.7% 111,149
Green Jonathan Pelto 1.6% 5,332
Libertarian Daniel Reale 1.5% 4,949
N/A Write-in 0% 9
Total Votes 330,257
Source: Connecticut Secretary of State

2014

Courtney won re-election to the U.S. House in 2014. He ran unopposed in the Democratic primary election on August 12, 2014. He defeated Lori Hopkins-Cavanagh (R), William Clyde (G) and Daniel Reale (L) in the general election on November 4, 2014.

U.S. House, Connecticut District 2 General Election, 2014

Party Candidate Vote % Votes
Democratic Green check mark transparent.pngJoe Courtney Incumbent 61.6% 141,948
Republican Lori Hopkins-Cavanagh 36.2% 83,386
Green William Clyde 1.1% 2,602
Libertarian Daniel Reale 1.1% 2,543
Total Votes 230,479
Source: Connecticut Secretary of the State

2012

Courtney won re-election in the 2012 election for the U.S. House to represent Connecticut's 2nd District. Courtney ran unopposed in the Democratic primary on August 14, 2012. He defeated Paul Formica (R), Dan Reale (L) and Colin D. Bennet (G) in the general election on November 6, 2012.

U.S. House, Connecticut District 2, General Election, 2012

Party Candidate Vote % Votes
Democratic Green check mark transparent.pngJoe Courtney Incumbent 68.2% 204,708
Republican Paul M Formica 29.4% 88,103
Green Colin D. Bennet 1.2% 3,638
Libertarian Dan Reale 1.2% 3,511
Total Votes 299,960
Source: Connecticut Secretary of State "Official Election Results, 2012 General Election"

Full history


Policy Positions

2018

Abortion

Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
- Pro-choice

Budget

1. In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
- Yes

2. In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending?
- Yes

Education

Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards?
- Unknown Position

Energy & Environment

1. Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, thermal)?
- Yes

2. Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
- Yes

Guns

Do you generally support gun-control legislation?
- Yes

Health Care

Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
- No

Campaign Finance

Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
- Yes

Economy

1. Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
- Yes

2. Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth?
- No

Immigration

1. Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border?
- No

2. Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
- No

Marijuana

Do you support the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes?
- Yes

National Security

1. Should the United States use military force in order to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a nuclear weapon?
- No

2. Do you support increased American intervention in Middle Eastern conflicts beyond air support?
- No

Articles

Letter to President Donald Trump, Mark Esper, Secretary of Defense, and Peter Gaynor, Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency - Leahy Is Part Of A Group Of Bipartisan Lawmakers Calling On Administration To Ensure Benefits To Guard Members Earned On COVID-19 Front Lines

May 22, 2020

Dear Mr. President, Secretary Esper, and Administrator Gaynor: We write today to raise a number of issues impacting the National Guard personnel deployed in support of the fight against Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The National Guard has been critical in executing the nation's pandemic response efforts. Thousands of National Guard servicemembers have been providing invaluable support for testing civilians and Guard personnel, logistics and warehouse distribution, planning for Emergency Operations Centers, homelessness outreach, and much more. We also recognize that National Guard servicemembers have been supporting state efforts in high threat and high risk areas, namely, medical support to prisons; frontline testing at hot spots and critical infrastructure locations; supporting tracing operations; and providing direct care to COVID-19 positive citizens, including at care facilities like Veterans Living Centers and homeless populations. Our national success in flattening the curve will not be possible without the contributions of the National Guard. We believe it is critical to ensure that all National Guard personnel are taken care of during this crisis and after, recognizing that the threat of COVID-19 will not immediately go away and the National Guard is likely to be called on again in the future. Therefore, we urge you to consider our recommendations for addressing the following concerns immediately. Federal Status: We ask that you consider keeping all National Guard servicemembers supporting the COVID-19 mission on 502(f)(2) status rather than transitioning to State Active Duty (SAD) orders regardless of future FEMA reimbursement. This will ensure healthcare commensurate with the work they are performing is available. This will also ensure they are able to continue support to the nation's effort without uncertainty of status. If orders are to be extended on a month-to-month basis, we ask that all orders are 31 days or longer in duration and that the announcement of extensions be made early in the month in order to allow for preparation by each state's leadership teams.Leave: We are encouraged by the recent change that will allow National Guard members to sell back unused leave without penalty or roll over accrued leave to another activated status. We ask that you continue to provide National Guard members with flexibility in how they may utilize leave accrued during the COVID-19 response, and ensure necessary federal funding to support the different leave usage options.Healthcare: We ask that you ensure the National Guard members activated in support of COVID-19 are provided Transition Assistance Management Program (TAMP) benefits for 180 days after coming off orders, similar to their Reserve counterparts.GI Bill and Retirement Benefits: We believe that the service of National Guard members during this unprecedented emergency is deserving of the recognition intended by educational and retirement benefit programs in the spirit in which they were created. We encourage you to be inclusive of pandemic response affiliated military service to ensure that National Guard personnel are not being inappropriately prevented from accessing the benefits earned by their service.We are proud of the incredible contributions of the National Guard. They have been a critical team member in the nation's fight against COVID-19. We welcome your support in ensuring they are kept safe, healthy, and receive the benefits they deserve. Sincerely,

Letter to the Hon. Jerome Powell, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Hon. Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of the Dept. of the Treasury - Reps. Peter Defazio, Lloyd Doggett, Senator Elizabeth Warren Urge the Federal Reserve & Treasury to Put Workers First, Ensure Accountability in Corporate Bailouts

May 20, 2020

Dear Chairman Powell and Secretary Mnuchin: We write to strongly urge you to reconsider use of the Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (PMCCF) program to bail out large corporations without any guardrails. Taxpayer assistance should include essential corporate accountability provisions and put workers and taxpayers first. In 2008, the federal response to the financial crisis provided hundreds of billions of dollars in a bailout with virtually no conditions. The results for Wall Street were tremendous -- a quick return to profitability, large executive compensation packages, major stock buy-back programs, and more. For working families, the results were unacceptable. For years after the crisis, American families struggled to return to financial stability, and many still have not. Workers lost jobs, hard-earned pensions, benefits, and homes, and never fully recovered. Now, faced with an unprecedented economic crisis unleashed the Administration's failed response to COVID-19, millions are concerned that they will once again be left behind. The taxpayer protections for corporate bailout funds included in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act do not go far enough, but the legislation does take steps to correct some of the mistakes made in 2008 by ensuring that relief to corporations comes with minimal guardrails. The CARES Act was signed into law on March 27 and required recipients of direct loans from Federal Reserve programs or facilities to agree to suspend stock buybacks for the life of the loan, plus one year; stop dividends and other capital distributions for the life of the loan, plus one year; and restrict pay increases for corporate officers (and reduces overall pay for the highest-paid CEOs) until one year after the loan is repaid. Before the CARES Act was passed into law, on March 23, 2020, the Federal Reserve unveiled the PMCCF program offering both direct loans and bond purchases to corporations. On April 9, two weeks after the new restrictions in CARES went into effect, the Fed modified the PMCCF to exclude direct lending, thereby ensuring that large corporations will be able to access taxpayer funding without any strings attached. The Fed did not provide any explanation for the removal of the direct lending from the facility -- but the functional effect appears to create a loophole that allows corporations to accept Federal Reserve loans without requiring that they abide by the CARES Act requirements put in place by Congress and the President. Without these guardrails, we are concerned that this aid will result in massive giveaways with no accountability or protections for workers or taxpayers. To the extent that the Federal Reserve considers assistance to particular corporations, we seek some accountability rather than a blank check. To that end, we urge you to ensure that Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility program terms include appropriate constraints for those corporations accepting taxpayer funding, including at the very least: -Tax dollars must not be used to reward wealthy shareholders and executives. No stock buybacks, dividends, or executive bonuses until federal funds are repaid in full.-Tax dollars must not be used to fuel out of control CEO-to-worker pay ratios. To ensure these funds should be used to support workers and not line the pockets of corporate executives and officers, there should be a cap on executive compensation for companies that accept bailout money.-Workers must come first. Corporations must use federal assistance to maintain their payrolls without implementing concessions on wages, hours, or benefits. Workers and collective bargaining agreements must be protected in the case of bankruptcy, no funds should be used for anti-union campaigns or to undermine collective bargaining efforts, and all companies receiving aid should guarantee a $15 minimum wage for all workers, contractors, and subcontractors no later than January 1, 2021. -Workers must have a seat at the table. Corporate recipients of public assistance must reserve at least one seat on their board for a representative elected by workers.-Companies must be transparent. All companies receiving aid should disclose how federal aid funds are being used to help its workers as well as country-by-country tax reporting information.-No bailouts for "inverted companies." The current rule in the most recent version of the Fed's term sheet that corporations must be headquartered in the United States to be eligible for assistance must be strongly enforced.