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

Republican, Democratic and independent checkboxes, with the third one checked

Analysis of California’s open primary system, political reform, and voter empowerment amid gubernatorial tensions and calls to restore party control.

zimmytws/Getty Images

California Schemin’

Both before and after Eric Swalwell’s resignation, the California Gubernatorial race has partisan insiders screaming that California’s innovative, voter-friendly, open primary system should be scrapped. Why? Seven Democrats and two Republicans are running. If all the Democrats stay in the race, and none surges, there is a statistical possibility that the two Republicans advance to the general election.

The attacks are pure opportunism, from people who oppose open primaries, period. Never mind that seven million independent voters have been enfranchised and elections are much more competitive, according to these critics, the fact that the Gubernatorial race might feature two Republicans is absolute proof that the old system needs to be restored.

Keep ReadingShow less
Official ballots with a chain and lock over them, and the USA flag behind them.

The impact of election fraud claims and voting laws on democracy in the United States. Daniel O. Jamison examines voter suppression concerns, mail-in ballot policies, and the broader political struggle over election integrity.

Getty Images, JJ Gouin

If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It

For nearly ten years, claims that our elections are riddled with fraud have threatened the foundation of our democratic republic.

It is alleged that Democrats have flooded the country with illegal immigrants who then illegally vote for Democrats. Purportedly to protect the country from this, Republicans seek legislation that would, among other provisions, restrict vote-by-mail, require potentially expensive and onerous proof of citizenship to register to vote, and require potentially expensive photo identification to vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Fahey Q&A with Elizabeth Rasmussen

An in-depth interview with Elizabeth Rasmussen of Better Boundaries on Utah’s redistricting battle, Proposition 4, and the fight to protect ballot initiatives, fair maps, and democratic accountability.

The Fahey Q&A with Elizabeth Rasmussen

Since organizing the Voters Not Politicians 2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge of drawing Michigan's legislative maps, Fahey has been the founding executive director of The People, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. She regularly interviews colleagues in the world of democracy reform for The Fulcrum.

Elizabeth Rasmussen is the Executive Director for Better Boundaries, a Utah-based organization fighting for fair maps, defending the citizen initiative process, preserving checks and balances, and building a better future. Currently making headlines in the state, Better Boundaries is working to protect Proposition 4, and with it, the rights of Utah voters.

Keep ReadingShow less
A sign that reads, "Voter Registration," hanging from the cieling, pointing to an office with the words, "Voter registration," above its doorway.

The voter registration office at the Nueces County Courthouse in Corpus Christi, Texas on Sept. 11, 2024. Voting rights groups are challenging the state's use of a federal database to check the citizenship status of people on the state's voter roll.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Voting Rights Groups Challenge Texas’ Removal of Potential Noncitizens From the Voter Roll

What happened?

Voting rights groups are suing the Texas Secretary of State’s Office and some county election officials to prevent the removal of voters from the state’s voter roll based on use of a federal database to verify citizenship. They also claim the state failed to crosscheck its own records for proof of citizenship it already possessed before seeking to remove voters.

Keep ReadingShow less