The legislature can do whatever it wants. The purpose of the task force was for a bill for e-cert.
This means that there will not be any further hearings. I'll take them at their word for it right now, although I have spoken to Sharkey's aide several times to voice my opposition to an e-cert and his aide has stated that Sharkey is not so sure he would sign off on an e-cert.
I am going on the assumption that a judge will conclude that the need for such a bill process was an "emergency" (although its more likely that this will not happen but it would go all the way to our commie supreme court which may say "its OK") and that Sharkey will OK an e-cert.
Then you have 2 choices: 1) argue the law's provisions are unconstitutional or 2) argue that the other processes violated our rights during the processes of the law's creation
In respect the #2 I see several issues including:
1) lack of proper notice regarding many of the committee meetings & hearings
2) preferential treatment of the people from Newtown v. others in the state
In respect to the meetings in January of the task force, I will have filed 4 FIC complaints regarding the 28th Jan meeting, the 30th Jan meeting, the 13th FEB meeting, and the 5th of March meeting. I did not see anyone else file any complaints with the FIC in respect to our open meetings requirements. This would be in consideration of the 1st, lack of proper notice, issue. The FIC could null a law because of violations of our meeting rights ... I doubt that they would because of 1 litigant arguing .. 100 maybe. Seems like folks in CT are not willing to explore this avenue as little interest has been shown regarding the filing of FIC complaints (although they are free, no cost, to file). Has a 30 day requirement to file...so the January meetings are now out, although filing as an intervenor is still appropriate and available. My Jan 28th argument is unique as I refused to answer questions to gain entry into the bldg .. and my 30th Jan is somewhat unique as I am arguing that the opportunity to testify equates with being able to attend & only 60 folks signed up to speak outside of Newtown folks. But the Feb ones should apply to all.
The preferential treatment of Newtown people would have to be addressed via a court case in all likelihood. Courts have struck down laws because of just this reason in the past. If a court would do it for any law passed in this instance is unknown.