felon disenfranchisement, either regulatory or punitive. Instead, Article 120 merely lays out the substantive voting requirements, including the newly enacted exclusion of incarcerated felons. Beyond the language of the provision, it is possible that the “broader structure” of the provision may provide some indication of its purpose. Id. The majority relies on the placement of Article 120 within the Commonwealth’s civil voter qualification provisions, rather than in its criminal code, to infer a regulatory purpose. But while manner of codification is certainly one factor relevant to ascertaining the nature of a provision, the Supreme Court has held that ion of a statute as ‘non-penal’ would not alter the fundamental nature of a plainly penal statute.” Trop, 356 U.S. at 95, 78 S.Ct. 590 (<HOLDING>); see also One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465
recognizing that because  the drafters of the connecticut penal code relied heavily upon    the penal code of new york  it is appropriate to look to new york statutory and case law for guidance in interpreting connecticut penal code holding that in presence of any doubt a penal statute is to be strictly construed holding that a statute stripping army deserters of citizenship is a penal law despite its codification amidst the regulatory provisions of the nationality act holding that the provisions of the federal fair housing act 42 usca  36013631 1977 which are similar to the provisions in the dade county code are not penal in nature or effect holding that fha claim survives death of a defendant because the provisions are remedial not penal