by Karla Ciaglo The New Haven independent
Amid Connecticut’s ongoing efforts to expand voting access through early voting and absentee ballot reforms, a new bill before the state legislature is drawing attention to a largely invisible group of voters: incarcerated individuals who remain legally eligible to vote but face daunting barriers to exercising that right.
The legislation – House Bill 7229, An Act Concerning Accessibility to Absentee Ballots for Electors in State Custody – seeks to close this gap. The proposal, which was the subject of testimony on Friday before the Government Administration and Elections Committee, aims to establish a clear, consistent absentee ballot process for individuals detained pretrial or serving sentences for misdemeanor offenses. In other words, people who have not lost their right to vote under Connecticut law.
The public hearing drew impassioned testimony from civil rights advocates, formerly incarcerated individuals, and voting rights organizers, all pointing to a central issue: while these individuals retain the legal right to vote, most are effectively shut out of the process due to confusion, lack of outreach, and administrative hurdles.
“I spent nearly eight years in our correctional system,” said Gus Marks-Hamilton, campaign manager for the ACLU of Connecticut’s Smart Justice initiative. “Legislation was passed by the Connecticut General Assembly and signed into law that impacted the length of my sentence and when I was eligible for release – and that happened twice. Yet I never had the ability to vote for the people making those decisions. That seemed to toy with my freedom.”
A 2022 report by the Connecticut Sentencing Commission noted that in 2019, there were 640 misdemeanor inmates and 3,677 unsentenced inmates in the custody of the Department of Correction. Together, these two groups comprised approximately 30% of the prison population and were legally eligible to vote – yet many did not cast a ballot
Marks-Hamilton attributed the low turnout to “administrative complexities, information gaps, and frankly an unwillingness from people who should support voting accessibility,” underscoring how the current system often fails to facilitate basic participation.
James Jeter, director of the Full Citizens Coalition, a nonprofit that works to dismantle the legacy of felony disenfranchisement, argued that expanding voting access in correctional settings is critical for both justice and civic inclusion.
“Our communities have been disengaged with a criminal legal system. How equitable is it that we re-engage at the very nexus of civic disengagement?” Jeter asked lawmakers. “Voting in jail … and having access to a ballot, will provide an incarcerated person with valid community engagement that they’ve never known and ownership that they have never had.”
Jeter also addressed pretrial incarceration – a key focus of the bill – and the issue of wealth-based detention. In response to a question from Rep. Matt Blumenthal, D-Stamford, who asked about the voting rights of those detained without conviction, Jeter replied:
“It’s a case of poverty. Not being able to afford bail is the only reason why they can’t vote,” Blumenthal said. “We’re talking about barriers that are there simply because they can’t afford to make bond.”
He highlighted the geographical and racial inequities at the heart of the issue.
“Roughly 4,000 people are incarcerated in Connecticut right now. Most of them come from just four cities – Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, and Waterbury,” Jeter said. “The ability to engage at that level can shift how entire communities engage completely.”
Indeed, the racial disparity is striking. According to the state Department of Correction, Black residents account for about 41% of the incarcerated population, despite making up just 12% of the state’s overall population.
“We are communities that are over-arrested, over-convicted, and over-sentenced,” Jeter said.
Advocates also pointed to Connecticut’s progress on voting rights as a foundation upon which to build.
In the last couple of years, the state has enacted some of the most expansive state-level voting rights acts in the nation, including passage of a constitutional amendment.
“We now have early voting, and voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing no-excuse absentee ballots,” said Anderson Curtis, a policy organizer with the ACLU of Connecticut.
Curtis recalled a voter registration drive he joined inside the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution, organized by the Secretary of the State’s office. What struck him most, he said, was the sheer lack of awareness among incarcerated individuals.
“Most people didn’t even know if they had the right to vote,” Curtis said. “Roughly one in three incarcerated individuals in Connecticut are still eligible. And more than half are parents – they deserve to have a voice in the decisions shaping their children’s futures, regardless of their own status.”
Supporters of the bill argue it would create a streamlined absentee ballot request process, mandate voter education materials in correctional facilities, and require coordination between election officials and the Department of Correction. Crucially, the bill would clarify that individuals should vote based on their last address before incarceration – an existing legal standard that has often gone unenforced in practice.
But not everyone agrees on its feasibility.
Rep. Gale Mastrofrancesco, R-Wolcott, raised concerns about the administrative burden and the logistics of verifying voters’ residency, asking whether incarcerated individuals would be expected to register using the address of the prison.
Marks-Hamilton responded that the bill would require registrars to work with incarcerated voters based on their previous home address – not the correctional facility – and acknowledged that coordination between state agencies and local election officials would be essential.
“Part of the process would involve reaching out to the registrar of voters in the town where their last address was before incarceration. This would necessitate clear communication and coordination,” Marks-Hamilton said.
Callie Heilman, co-director of the nonprofit Bridgeport Generation Now, said the system must not place undue burdens on voters to defend their rights.
“If you do not create a system where absentee voting is strictly between voters and election officials, it continues to place the burden on the voters to identify wrongdoing. This is unsustainable given the resources and time needed to bring complaints,” Heilman said.
Opponents of the bill have generally not disputed that many incarcerated people retain the right to vote, but some warn about voter fraud risks, identity verification concerns, or broader philosophical objections about voting access in correctional facilities.
As of the hearing, no testimony offered specific evidence of fraud risk under the proposed bill.
If it passes, Connecticut would join a small but growing group of states working to guarantee voting access behind bars.
Jeter pointed to Cook County, Illinois, home to the nation’s largest jail, as a model for jail-based voting reform. After a 2019 law established a polling place inside the facility and mandated voter education, turnout among eligible detainees jumped from under 7% in the 2018 primary to 25% in 2022, outpacing Chicago. The success, Jeter said, shows what’s possible for states like Connecticut.
For supporters, the bill is not just about policy mechanics – it’s about dignity, equity, and long-overdue civic inclusion.