Social Networks We Use

Categories

CT Tech Junkie Feed

Nonprofit Promotes Safety Online With Two-Step Campaign
Aug 19, 2014 12:20 pm
Convenience is the enemy when it comes to staying safe online. That’s why a nonprofit organization was spreading...more »
VIDEO: Hartford Event to Focus on Online Safety August 18
Aug 16, 2014 12:24 pm
The National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA) is hosting a free event at the Connecticut Science Center at 9:00 a.m....more »

Our Partners

˜

Constitutional Questions Raised Over Early Voting Pilot

by Hugh McQuaid | May 7, 2013 5:29am
(4) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Election 2013, Election Policy

Christine Stuart photo

Rep. Roland Lemar, D-New Haven, center of photo.

Despite constitutional concerns, lawmakers advanced a bill Monday that establishes a pilot program for municipalities to test early voting in this year’s town elections.

Over the past few years, the legislature has jumped through considerable hoops in an effort to broaden its authority over the state’s voting system. That’s because the state constitution is unusually specific when it comes to the administration of statewide and federal elections.

For the second consecutive year, lawmakers are mulling a constitutional amendment that could give them more leeway to enact policies concerning no-excuse absentee ballots and early voting.

The bill that the Planning and Development Committee passed on a 12-6 vote Monday would allow an early voting test run in a handful of municipalities during their town elections scheduled for November of this year.

Proponents of the bill argue it does not run afoul of the state constitution, which has little to say with regard to town elections.

But opponents point to an informal opinion issued by then-Attorney General Richard Blumenthal in 2009. The Government Administration and Elections Committee had asked that year for an opinion regarding whether lawmakers would need to amend the constitution to enact no-excuse absentee voting or early voting. Blumenthal responded in the affirmative.

“We conclude that an amendment to the state constitution would be required to permit no-excuse early voting in Connecticut,” he said.

In the memo, Blumenthal supports the conclusion and cites court rulings concerning statewide elections, but he did not specifically mention municipal elections.

Susan Kinsman, a spokeswoman for current Attorney General George Jepsen, said Blumenthal’s opinion did not address the issue of early voting in municipal elections. Kinsman said the Attorney General’s Office has not been asked for a formal opinion on town elections.

Blumenthal’s opinion likely helped set in motion the ongoing process of amending the state’s constitution, which requires that the General Assembly pass a resolution two years in a row by a simple majority, or once by a three-fifths majority, to put it on the ballot for voters.

Both chambers passed the bill last year. This year’s resolution passed the House but still needs to clear the Senate before going on the ballot in 2014.

The legislation allowing the municipal pilot program was co-sponsored by three New Haven lawmakers and has now passed out of the Government Administration and Elections Committee and the Planning and Development Committee.

But there are lingering questions on whether it passes constitutional muster. On Monday, Rep. Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, opposed the bill, pointing to Blumenthal’s memo.

“Given that there probably isn’t a legal possibility to do this and that we really don’t have the state resources to begin this type of a pilot program, I think that we are better off delaying this type of proposal,” he said.

Sen. Steve Cassano, co-chairman of the committee, said the bill’s constitutionality “is an issue.”

Cassano said the Government Administration and Elections Committee asked them to move the bill forward in the legislative process, hoping to iron out the constitutional questions along the way.

“Obviously, if it isn’t constitutional it’s not going to go anywhere, but they’re hoping to get some resolution that we can adopt on the floor,” he said. “Clearly, everybody wants early voting, but we want to do it legally.”

Secretary of the State Denise Merrill also has entered testimony supporting the bill. But on Monday Merrill spokesman Av Harris said said that the support should not be construed as an opinion on the legislation’s constitutionality.

Harris said that Merrill, as the state’s top elections official, is a strong supporter of both early voting and the constitutional amendment before the legislature. But he said she leaves questions of constitutionality to the Attorney General’s Office and the courts.

“It’s a question that is sort of up in the air in [Merrill’s] point of view,” Harris said. “. . . The secretary would not presume to be able to determine the constitutionality of particular laws or proposed legislation.”

Rep. Roland Lemar, a New Haven Democrat who co-sponsored the legislation, said he agreed that the constitution barred the state from enacting early voting for statewide elections, but did not see it as prohibiting towns from doing it.

“In the fact that they left that part of it silent, I think it provides great authority for municipalities to consider early voting,” he said.

At the end of the day, Lemar said he was looking to increase voter turnout during municipal voting season, an election cycle that doesn’t benefit from the increased attention focused on the process during federal and state election years.

“We have very low turnout at the municipal level, in New Haven, but also across the state. Voter turnout is much lower during municipal election season,” he said. “. . . We know that our current system does not allow for folks with two or three jobs, taking care of multiple kids, to make it to the polls on a random Tuesday in November. This is a smart way to improve turnout.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(4) Comments

posted by: Noteworthy | May 7, 2013  7:27am

How can Merrill support something this constitutionally suspect? She’s the top elections official in this state. Such a position is lame and frankly, shallow and indefensible. That said, why any politician would approve a questionably legal proposal is very troubling. That they would do something that once again will cost local taxpayers money without the funding is another negative. And finally, why in hell would you authorize a “pilot” with something as precious as voting? This major change should be vetted, funded and tested. It should not be an experiment. Or is this really just a way for unions to turn out voters in New Haven for an extended period of time?

posted by: ASTANVET | May 7, 2013  9:12am

Early Voting, online registration… I wonder why this state makes it ever easier to introduce fraud into our election process… oh wait.  Maybe they want power more than they want just and legal elections.  Voting should not be easy - it should be safeguarded at all costs or we become a bananna republic.

posted by: ConnVoter | May 7, 2013  12:05pm

Rep. Lemar, it’s not a “random” Tuesday in November.  It’s on the same Tuesday in November every year.

You can’t increase interest in the municipal election process until you increase interest in the candidates.  With so many crappy choices, don’t blame the scheduling of the election on low voter turnout.

posted by: jimoco | May 7, 2013  2:55pm

The reason that the voter turnout in New Haven is low during municipal elections is not that people have trouble getting to the polling places on Election Day but rather that there is no contest on Election Day.  The voters of New Haven have gotten what they desire - a one party town totally controlled by the Democrats.  Allowing “Early Voting” will enable the local Democratic party to pressure even more voters to vote.  The current law allows people who are unable to get to the polling location on Election Day to request an absentee ballot.  With all the troubles caused by absentee ballot fraud over the years, one can only imaging what troubles “Early Voting” will bring. 

This is just another show of abuse by the Democratic Party like the ballot position question last year.  The Democrats didn’t like the unanimous decision by the State Supreme court last fall so they are currently muscling a law through the General Assembly that will give them the top line in next year’s state elections.  Don’t believe for one minute Rep. Lamar’s altruistic view that Early Voting will improve turnout.  It will only serve the interest of the Democratic Party.