Bridgeport Ballot Debacle Prompts Legislation
by Christine Stuart | Dec 28, 2010 12:40pm
(9) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Election 2010, State Capitol
Two lawmakers made good on their promise to introduce legislation, which requires that the state order one ballot for every registered voter in an effort to ensure the mistakes of 2010 never happen again.
Reps. Ernest Hewett and Don Clemons filed the bill last week. It asks the state to pay for the ballots through the Citizens’ Election Fund, which currently funds publicly financed candidates.
Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz suggested earlier this year that the state may want to consider legislating how many ballots are ordered, even though there aren‘t any states she knows of that operate that way. In Connecticut it is up to the Registrar of Voters in each city and town to order the ballots prior to an election. The shortage of ballots in Bridgeport led to long lines and confusion at many polling places. It also delayed the certification of Gov.-elect Dan Malloy in the gubernatorial contest.
The state Elections Enforcement Commission is currently investigating what happened in Bridgeport and if any voters were disenfranchised because of the ballot shortage.
Cheri Quickmire of Common Cause Connecticut has said she thinks taking money out of the Citizens’ Elections Fund is a terrible idea. She said the fund continues to be a target for plugging other budget holes when it should be used to help fund clean elections.
Common Cause has rallied in the past against raiding the fund for fear there won’t be enough money for qualified publicly financed candidates. The organization supported campaign finance reform to help get special interest money out of politics.
The Citizens’ Election Program paid out a total of $27.3 million in 2010. Of that $17.8 million went to candidates running statewide campaigns and $9.5 million went to candidates running for the state legislature. The balance left in the fund for fiscal year 2011 will be $12.6 million once close to $15 million is transferred back to the state to help balance the budget.
It’s likely the bill will be debated by the General Administration and Elections Committee.
Tags: clean elections, Bridgeport ballots, Citizens' Election Program
(9) Comments
posted by: Tessa Marquis | December 28, 2010 2:22pm
“one ballot for every registered voter” is overkill when voter turnout is usually under 60% of registered voters.
“In this past election, November 2010, Statewide, the average turnout at the November elections was about 57.5 percent. That’s about 2.5 percentage points lower than the 2006 turnout.”
http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Roxbury-records-highest-Conn-voter-turnout-871443.php
posted by: ... | December 28, 2010 9:34pm
Well if it goes through the CEF, that might not be terrible, but I agree with you Teresa.
They should review the past 20 years of elections and the average turnout for each one, and then order maybe 5-20% more than expected turnout.
Ex: Say presidential elections get 65% turnout on average. We only need 70-85% turnout ballots.
Either that or we could consider mandatory voting so we always need 100% turnout ballots, but that is an extreme option.
posted by: hawkeye | December 28, 2010 9:59pm
Taking money out of the Citize’s Election Fund, is not a good idea, but unfortunately, it will be a target, for plugging other holes, in our massive budget short-fall.
posted by: William Jenkins | December 29, 2010 11:59am
I have a better idea, if legislators from Bridgeport and New London think that we all cannot live without this legislation, then they can pay for it with less state subsidies for their cities.
It doesn’t really matter anyway, I’m one of the Registrars in my town and we’re going to continue to order less ballots then registered voters.
posted by: meridenite | December 29, 2010 6:20pm
What happen to all the absentee ballots, especially the 250 or so the father and son with an address of a vacant lot signed out for???
posted by: redlady | December 29, 2010 10:52pm
Are we sure that the number of ballots was the only issue?
posted by: Dempsey Dem | December 30, 2010 12:05am
To Meridenite: The ‘ballots’ you refer to were not ballots, but rather blank absentee ballot applications, perfectly legal, misdirected by a single digit in the address from a political headquarters.
To the others, the problem with state mandated ballot production numbers is that turnout differs drastically from town to town; With Bridgeport turnout around 10% to 20% depending on type, and most other towns reporting 35% for municipal, 55% for state or general elections, and 80-90% for Presidential. Primaries and referrendum can range from 5-70% depending on the candidate or issue.
Before we raid or denude the Citizens Election Fund, Let’s see what happens in the first Legislative election after redistricting
posted by: Dempsey Dem | December 30, 2010 4:19pm
To Redlady: No, Ballots or lack of same were not the prime issue. The prime problem was and is the lack of trained polling place workers and the lack of enforceable regulations from the SOTS as to moderator procedures regarding ballot handling and reporting.
The Secretary of The State needs to immediately institute the training program mandated ten years ago by the Legislaturre and virtually finished by her committee more than a year ago.
The Legislature needs to pass the election management technical bills they have left undone for the past four sessions. These bills update the regulations and statutes to bring election operation into line with the current tabulator system. Without this legisl;ation the SOTS has been forced to issue unenforceable ‘advisories’ to Registrars and Moderators as to procedures.