Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Connecticut, with its history of dirty elections, intensifies debate over easier voting

Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim

Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim's re-election campaign is at the heart of the debate over voting rights legislation in Connecticut.

Paula Dunham Darlington/Flickr

Connecticut, already among the easier states for casting a vote, would give its citizens even smoother access to the polls under legislation Democratic legislators are hoping to put on a fast track.

Thirty of the state House's more progressive members are pressing Gov. Ned Lamont, a fellow Democrat, to call the General Assembly back to Hartford this fall to resurrect legislation of his that died under the threat of a Republican filibuster in the state Senate this spring.

Fueling arguments both for and against making it easier to vote in the state are the suspicions of fraud dogging the election for mayor of Connecticut's biggest city, Bridgeport.

GOP legislators say what's happened there shows that a state with a history of corrupt politics is in no position to increase the potential for fraud. But voting rights advocates say expanding the franchise is what really matters. They estimate as many as 250,000 people in the state are eligible to vote but are unregistered — equal to about 10 percent of the 2.4 million who are registered.


Republicans are mainly opposed to a pair of provisions in the legislative package.

One would be to restore voting rights to convicted felons as soon as they're released from prison, which is now the law in 17 states including most of the others in New England. Connecticut and 20 other states restore the franchise to felons only after their parole has ended, and GOP leaders say that's as it should be.

The other would add the state to the roster of 16 where eligible people are automatically added to the voter rolls (unless they ask not to be) whenever they do business with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Some GOP lawmakers say this could spurn fraudulent registrations and that the current system, which invites people at the DMV to register, is sufficient.

"At a time when many states are implementing restrictive policies that turn voters away, Connecticut has a unique opportunity to become a progressive leader on elections," one-third of the 90 Democrats in the state House wrote last week in urging the governor to recall the lawmakers before February. "It is crucial that we act in special session to ensure many of the protections you included in your package are in place in time for the 2020 elections, especially in light of threats to our voter enfranchisement."

Other aspects of their bill are not very controversial, including expanding online registration by permitting electronic signatures and expanding the number of places where people could both register and cast ballots on Election Day. Connecticut makes more robust use of same-day registration than many of the other 18 states that allow it, and long lines especially on college campuses prompted many would-be voters to walk away in the last two statewide elections.

It took seven hours to vote last year at some precincts in New Haven. That won't happen Tuesday, when only some minimally contested local elections are on the ballot.

In Bridgeport, meanwhile, Mayor Joe Ganim lost at polling places by 350 votes but was declared the winner of the Democratic primary by 270 votes, which is tantamount to re-election in the deep blue city, after absentee ballots were tallied in September. His challenger, state Sen. Marilyn Moore, is alleging fraud and the state Supreme Court is conducting a hearing this week to determine whether to order a do-over primary.

Prominent Democrats including the top elections official, Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, say the controversy underscores the need for the Lamont package and additional legislation adding Connecticut to the rosters of 39 states with in-person early voting and 28 states (plus D.C) that permit "no excuse" absentee voting. Residents must now offer one of six eligible excuses before getting an absentee ballot.

But Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano says what's happened in Bridgeport proves the state's rules are already too permissive. "Can we run one election ... when we don't have any problems so people can have confidence?" he told Hearst Connecticut. "It's like having a business and messing up on your basic business and saying, 'I want to expand to other areas.'"

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less