by Jamil Ragland
Rep. Matt Blumenthal, D-Stamford Credit: Screengrab / CT-N
HARTFORD, CT – During a mostly virtual meeting Thursday, Republican members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee took issue with what they described as confusing language regarding a ballot initiative to change the state’s constitution to allow for no-excuse absentee voting.
The committee’s only agenda item was consideration of explanatory text for the ballot question, which would be shared with the public through distribution of the text to local registrars prior to the November election. The text will be displayed in polling places during voting periods.
The explanatory language, as read by state Rep. Matt Blumenthal, D-Stamford, states “Under the current state constitution, qualified voters may cast an absentee vote only if they are unable to vote in person at their polling place on election day due to, 1) absence from their city or town; 2) sickness or physical disability; or 3) their religious beliefs prohibiting secular activity on a day. If this amendment is approved, the state constitution would no longer limit the reasons why absentee voting may be used. Therefore, it would expand the state legislature’s authority to pass laws regarding voting by qualified voters who will not appear at their polling place on election day.”
Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, began by expressing unease with the committee’s statutory inability to change the language of the explanatory text, which was authored by the General Assembly’s nonpartisan staff in the Office of Legislative Research.
“I just think it’s unfortunate because I think we’re in a situation where we want to get this right, and leaving the nonpartisan staff to the job of drafting something that is going to be used in the process of making a constitutional change in our state without the participation of lawmakers, other than an up or down vote, I think is difficult for me to accept,” he said.
Sampson also said that he believed the new ballot question was less clear than a similar ballot initiative that failed in 2014. The previous ballot question would have authorized no-excuse absentee voting as well as early voting before election day.
“And I’m here to state for the record that it’s obvious to me that this new question has been drafted and adopted as part of the constitutional amendment resolution for the express purpose of making it less clear and less simple,” he said. “Although I will give the chairman credit, it is short. And I do agree on that. It is shorter than the previous question. But it is not clear or simpler or more edifying as far as how the Constitution will be changed, in my opinion.”
Sampson read the 2014 ballot initiative into the record, which stated, “Shall the Constitution of the state be amended to remove restrictions concerning absentee ballots and to permit a person to vote without appearing at a polling place on the day of election?”
For comparison, the ballot question this November reads, “Shall the Constitution of the State be amended to permit the General Assembly to allow each voter to vote by absentee ballot?”
Rep. Gale Mastrofrancesco, R-Wolcott, echoed Sampson’s complaints about the language of both the explanatory text and the ballot question, but also shared her concerns about Republican involvement in drafting legislation for no-excuse absentee voting in the case that the ballot measure is approved in November.
“When [Democrats] passed early voting, our party, our ranking members on this committee, were given no input from the beginning on any legislation and to any policy. We were not involved in the process, which is very, very concerning,” Mastrofrancesco said. “We have always said that when it comes to elections, we should always be bipartisan 100%. That did not happen with early voting, where we asked for changes, certainly toward the end, but that was after the bill was drafted. The public hearing had already passed. We were not involved in the process from the beginning, and I certainly hope something like this, if this passes, that we are involved in the process from day one, because when anything has to do with elections, it should be bipartisan 100%.”
The explanatory language was approved on an 11-6 party-line vote, with two members absent or not voting.
Committee Discusses Low Turnout For Early Voting
Toward the end of the meeting, Rep. Christie Carpino, R-Cromwell, asked if the passage of no-excuse absentee voting could replace Connecticut’s new early voting system, which has seen low turnout in two different primary elections where it has been available this year.
Carpino echoed concerns from Republican registrars about the cost of low-turnout early voting for municipalities.
“I will actually take it a step further and put the challenge out there to the members who are fortunate enough to take this up in January that although a lofty goal, our municipalities are seeing a very low turnout and if [no-excuse absentee voting] is available to our eligible voters to exercise in the future, that we really need to examine what is best for our communities and our voters and perhaps the early in-person voting should be reevaluated,” she said.
Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas said in remarks on Tuesday to the press that the state may need to reconsider the number of days that early voting is available prior to election day. Reporting by CT Public found that municipal poll workers complained of long hours and limited resources to staff mandatory polling places just to see low turnout.