Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Voters lining up to vote.

Voters line up at the Oak Lawn Branch Library voting center on Primary Election Day in Dallas on March 3, 2026. Republicans' decision to hold a split primary from the Democrats and to eliminate countywide voting forced Dallas County voters to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood precincts, leading to confusion. Republicans have now decided to use countywide polling locations for the May 26 runoff election.

Shelby Tauber for The Texas Tribune

Dallas County GOP Will Agree To Use Countywide Voting Sites for May 26 Runoff Election

Dallas County Republicans will agree to allow voters to cast ballots at countywide voting sites for the May 26 runoff election after a switch to precinct-based voting sites caused chaos, the county party chair said Tuesday.

Dallas County Republican Chairman Allen West supported the use of precinct-based sites earlier this month, but said using precincts again for the runoff would expose the county party to “increased risk and voter confusion” because the county is planning to use countywide sites for upcoming municipal elections and early voting.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less