By Meghan Peterson, Ph.D., and Sharon Challenger.
Editor’s Note: This is Part 2 of a two-part series seeking to understand what voting will look like in the upcoming 2020 primary and general elections in Connecticut broadly; Haddam & Killingworth specifically.
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” United States Constitution, 15th Amendment
In Part 1 of this series, we explored some of the key features in CT Secretary of State Denise Merrill’s 2020 election plans, such as increased attention to sanitation procedures at polling places, heightened cyber security, and expansion of the absentee ballot to every registered, eligible voter in the state for the Aug. 11 primaries. In this article, we explore further the idea of absentee ballot expansion, the topic of voter fraud, and the recent legal challenge filed in CT Supreme Court against Merrill and CT Governor Ned Lamont.
Absentee Ballot expansion in CT
As mentioned in Part 1, Merrill sent absentee ballot applications via mail to every registered, eligible voter for the Aug. 11 primaries for the president, House of Representatives, and CT General Assembly. Primaries in our state are closed, meaning that only registered Democrats and Republicans can vote in these elections. Unaffiliated voters cannot. They can, however, choose to join one of the two major parties if they want to participate in the primaries. The cut-off date for making such a decision is Monday, Aug. 10 at noon (last day before the primary).
According to various news reports, there are 1.2 million registered Democratic and Republican voters in CT; so 1.2 million absentee ballot applications were mailed.[1] This mailing constitutes the first time absentee ballot applications have been sent en masse in Connecticut’s recorded history.
Will absentee ballot applications also be sent to all registered, eligible CT voters for the general elections on Nov. 3? Yes.
On the one hand, Merrill’s authority under Gov. Lamont’s executive order EO7QQ to issue the absentee ballot applications ends when the order expires: Sept. 9.[2] Without renewal, she will no longer have the power to expand the absentee ballot application. On the other hand, the state’s legislative body, the General Assembly, can pass a law amending current CT voter legislation to expand the absentee ballot. For example, State Representative Christine Palm (D-36th District, which includes Haddam) is part of a working group seeking to write and pass legislation that would permit every eligible CT voter to vote via absentee in the general elections on Nov. 3 by expanding the reasons an individual can use an absentee ballot. Palm explains, “Our right to vote is foundational to democracy, and we can’t let the coronavirus put our civic health at risk along with our physical health.” The legislation was voted on during the special legislative session, which began on July 23. The CT House passed the bill 144-2 to permit all CT voters to vote by absentee on Nov. 3. It headed to the CT Senate on Tuesday, July 28, where it passed, 35-1.[3]
Voter fraud: phantom fear or tangible possibility?
As is the case with discussion in any election cycle, the topic of voter fraud occasionally arises. With the expansion of absentee and/or mail-in balloting occurring nationwide, people may be wondering about the security and integrity of such methods. The concept of voter fraud is anything but new.
Signs of vote tampering date to 487 B.C. in ancient Greece. During that period, it is believed that Cleisthenes introduced Ostracism to the people of Greece. This practice allowed all eligible voters (free males only) to vote to remove a person deemed to be a threat to Democracy. It was an attempt to prevent any person from having ambitions to set himself up as a tyrant.
Archeologists found heaps of ostracon, pottery shards used as ballots, with the same person’s name carved into the surface by what appears to be one individual. It is speculated that individuals who could not read or write were coerced by others to vote for someone they deemed a threat.[4]
Today in the U.S. some officials and voters are expressing concerns about the possibility of absentee ballot fraud in the upcoming elections. Are their concerns warranted? Many press outlets have reported that absentee ballot fraud does not occur. The two major political parties take a different position on this matter (within each party, there are of course a variety of nuanced views). Democrats believe that absentee ballots provide more voters access. Republicans do not trust that the absentee ballots will be handled properly.
In an ongoing sampling of election fraud instances within the United States, the Heritage Foundation reported that there have been 1,290 proven instances of voter fraud to date, with 1,112 convictions. 26 of those cases happened here in Connecticut between 1988 and 2018. Crimes ranged from false voter registrations to fraudulent use of absentee ballots.[5]
Voter fraud in Connecticut: a sampling of examples
In April 2018, Bridgeport, Conn. resident Betty Chappell was charged with second degree forgery and making a false statement on an absentee ballot application. Her boyfriend, Troy Stevenson was charged with second degree forgery and misuse of an absentee ballot. In 2017 the couple were working for Stratford Mayoral (Democratic) candidate, Stephanie Phillips. The couple forged the names on at least three ballots according to police. Chappell was reported to have requested 25 absentee ballot applications from the Town Clerk’s Office.[6] Were those mishandled as well? Police were investigating the possibility. Stevenson was found guilty of 2nd degree forgery (Class D felony). He was sentenced to three years in jail, execution suspended, conditional discharge 3 years. No fines or fees were levied against him.[7] Chappell was found guilty and charged with Forgery 2nd degree. She was sentenced to five years jail, execution suspended, conditional discharge 3 years. No fines or fees were levied against her.
The New Haven Register reported that during the 2015 election, Vincent J. Spaduzzi, a Republican East Haven councilman, asked an East Haven resident who was working as a checker in the Election Day registration office to submit three absentee ballots to the town clerk’s office, according to a witness statement given to SEEC legal investigator Scott Branfuhr. The resident agreed to meet Spaduzzi. “The witness stated she did not know nor was she related to the three absentee voters. The SEEC launched an investigation into the matter after the New Britain Democratic registrar of voters filed a complaint stating he identified an elector who allegedly voted in both New Britain and East Haven during the 2015 municipal elections, according to the SEEC complaint. The elector in question was identified as one of the absentee ballot voters in East Haven.”[8]
On Sept. 26, 2014, State Representative Christina Ayala, D-Bridgeport, surrendered to CT State Police on multiple charges of voting fraud. Ayala was charged with eight misdemeanor counts of fraudulent voting, ten felony counts of primary or enrollment violations and one felony count of tampering or fabricating physical evidence. She faced up to five years in prison on each of the felony counts and a $500 fine. Ayala pleaded guilty to two counts of providing a false statement and was sentenced to a suspended one-year prison term followed by 2 years conditional discharge. No fines or fees were levied against her.[9] As a condition of her plea deal, she was barred from seeking elected office for two years.[10]
In 2009 the State Elections Enforcement Commission ruled that State Representative. Minnie Gonzalez (D) was “knowingly present” while four voters fraudulently filled out absentee ballots at Bridgeport City Hall during the 2006 election. She was fined $4,500 by the Commission. She appealed the fine but lost her case in Superior Court in 2019. She has been a State Representative since 1997 and is currently serving as Deputy Majority Leader in the General Assembly. She is up for re-election in Nov. 2020.
Lydia Martinez, a Bridgeport councilwoman admitted to illegally assisting in the filling out of absentee ballots as well as encouraging those not eligible to vote absentee to do so. Martinez targeted residents in the assisted living home, Harborview Towers in Bridgeport. She was ordered to pay a fine of $500.[11] Martinez has also been accused of targeting residents in the 2019 Democratic primary between Bridgeport Mayor Ganim and Marilyn Moore. A lawsuit was filed by an organization, known as Bridgeport Generation Now Votes. The lawsuit claims some of Ganim’s supporters pressured voters into voting for him. Bridgeport City Clerk Lydia Martinez is among the people named in the lawsuit, which alleges she targeted one of the city’s affordable housing complexes, where she sought absentee voters. Others named in the lawsuit include Bridgeport Democrat Registrar Santa Ayala, mother of convicted former State Rep. Christina Ayala. In 2014, Santa Ayala, was accused by the SEEC of possibly helping her daughter break the law in the 2014 elections. Despite these circumstances, Ayala was nominated by Bridgeport Democratic leaders in 2014 for another term as registrar. She retired in Dec. 2019. In response to the lawsuit filed against him, Ganim was quick to point out that his opponent’s team included none other than Betty Chappell who was convicted of voter fraud in 2017.[12] State election officials are currently investigating the claims.
Prenzina Holloway was convicted of using another person’s absentee ballot in the 2004 Democratic Primary.[13] She was ordered to pay a fine of $10,000; however, the fine was lowered to $2,000 due to “financial hardship.” In 2006 she was working for Urban Voter’s and Associates, a company hired by Senator Joe Lieberman when he was running for U.S. Senate. Her job was to do voter outreach in Hartford. She denied having any involvement in the company’s absentee ballot operation. In a signed agreement she pledged not to distribute absentee ballots or assist with ballot applications for a period of two years. She was later hired by the Hartford Democratic registrar to work in the 2009 municipal election.[14]
In 2003, former State Representative Barnaby Horton D-Hartford, was charged with seven felony counts including fraudulent use of absentee ballots. He was caught inducing elderly residents in low income residences to cast absentee ballots for him. He was found guilty, fined $10,000, sentenced to two years’ probation, and ordered to serve 1,000 hours of community service.[15]
In 2001, Sybil Allen, a member of the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee completed ballot applications in the name of residents, forged signatures, and manipulated a voter to forge a ballot registration form for a family member who did not live in the community. She was also accused to misleading voters, and watching voters fill in their ballots before taking them. She was fined $5,000 and was barred from running for re-election for two years. She currently serves on the Bridgeport Board of Education.
During our examination of voter fraud cases in Connecticut, we observed that they were concentrated within the Democratic Party. It is important to note, however, that instances of voter fraud can arise from both major political parties throughout the nation.
Potential sites for voter fraud
On further inspection of the court records and convictions in Connecticut, we identify several sites in which voter fraud can become a possibility:
- observing voters fill in their absentee ballots and taking possession of them
- failing to co-sign the absentee ballots when a person has assisted a voter
- coercing voters into voting for specific candidates
- forgery
- filling out ballots for people who no longer reside in the state (they are still on the CT voter rolls)
- Registering ineligible voters in order to receive absentee ballots
- Ballots ending up in the hands of people not authorized to handle them
Connecticut does not require identification for absentee ballot applications or the actual absentee ballots. Multiple applications can be taken out by those who want to encourage others to vote in elections. Killingworth Town Clerk Dawn Rees Mooney, in response to this scenario, replied, “any person who will distribute five or more absentee ballot applications to persons other than the individual’s immediate family must register with and obtain forms from the Town Clerk of the municipality where such forms will be distributed before distributing such forms.”
Will the statute prevent fraud? What happens when an individual goes directly to the State website and prints their own absentee ballot application? Is it possible that this application could subsequently be photocopied multiple times resulting in ballot applications that are not logged with the Town Clerks?
While access to absentee ballot applications is less restrictive, the actual ballots are more tightly controlled. Before the ballot applications are mailed to individuals, the Town Clerk checks the Registrars voter listing to ensure the voter is registered to vote in their community. That would assure everything is in order, correct? However, what if the voter has died or moved away, and the Registrar has not been notified? Could a person at the residence fill in the absentee ballot application for the deceased or relocated person, return it, receive an absentee ballot in the mail, fill it in and return it via mail, and then vote at the polls under their legal name? It seems they could; however, applicants have to sign the application and the ballot envelope. On the form under Section III – Applicant’s Declaration, it states, “I declare under penalties of false statement in absentee balloting that the above statements are true and correct, and that I am the applicant named above.” Violation of this declaration would constitute a Class D felony.
When a few absentee ballots are requested in an election, the possibility of fraud occurring should be minimal because Town Clerks can process the applications quickly. We have not had an election in CT in which every eligible voter in the state would be allowed to vote absentee. Could attempts at fraud rise?
Recent legal challenge filed
Fight Voter Fraud, Inc., a CT non-profit organization recently filed a legal challenge to Denise Merrill’s absentee ballot expansion for the state primaries on Aug. 11 on behalf of several federal candidates in the Connecticut Supreme Court. A central contention of the challenge is that the electorate, not the Secretary of State, has the authority to change election law (vis-à-vis the General Assembly) – under both the Connecticut State Constitution and CT General Statutes.
The CT Mirror reported on July 20 that the “State Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Robinson on Monday dismissed a challenge from four Republican congressional candidates who sought to stop an expansion of absentee voting in Connecticut’s August 11 primary election…In dismissing the case, Robinson agreed with the state officials that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over the issue.” According to the article, Robinson wrote in his ruling that “The Supreme Court … is not a proper vehicle to challenge the ruling of an election official with respect to a primary, including one for federal congressional office,” Robinson said.[16]
The plaintiffs in the case are appealing the decision before the CT Supreme Court again.
Legality vs. Constitutionality?
The relevant instrument under which Secretary of State Merrill is operating is Gov. Ned Lamont’s executive order, EO7QQ, issued on May 20.
Part of the order states, “Absentee Voting Eligibility During COVID-19 Pandemic. Section 9-135 of the Connecticut General Statutes is modified to provide that, in addition to the enumerated eligibility criteria set forth in subsection (a) of that statute, an eligible elector may vote by absentee ballot for the August 11, 2020 primary election if he or she is unable to appear at his or her polling place during the hours of voting because of the sickness of
COVID-19. For purposes of this modification, a person shall be permitted to lawfully state he or she is unable to appear at a polling place because of COVID-19 if, at the time he or she applies for or casts an absentee ballot for the August 11, 2020 primary election, there is no federally approved and widely available vaccine for prevention of COVID-19. It shall not constitute a misrepresentation under subsection (b) of Section 9-135 of the General Statutes for any person to communicate the provisions of this modification to any elector or prospective absentee ballot applicant.” (emphasis is the authors’)
In effect, a CT voter can employ COVID-19 as a justification not to appear in person – even if he or she is not ill with the virus. Fear of the virus can be utilized as a rationale for voting absentee. What about fear of war? Fear of violent rioting? What if a person fears being intimated at polling places? Can they, too, vote absentee? Fear has never before served as a basis for absentee voting. Are constitutional rights now to be modified on the basis of fear and anxiety? And what of people’s movement to and from grocery stores, Home Depot, Lowe’s, farmers’ markets, state parks? What is fundamentally different in terms of one physically shopping for household goods versus physically voting?
Under the executive order, the Secretary of State is granted authority to distribute an expanded definition of absentee ballot applications to the CT eligible voting population. Merrill, therefore, is acting in accordance with the order, which does constitute compliance with the Governor’s action.
Yet, is an executive order the same as law? Can an official’s actions that stem from an executive order be simultaneously legal and unconstitutional?
According to the CT State Constitution, only the General Assembly (legislative branch) can make, amend, and modify law – including election law. As noted previously, an effort has been underway in the legislature to craft new law in the state that enables all eligible voters to vote via absentee ballot for the general elections on Nov. 3. That effort passed.
Looking ahead
With an eye toward Aug. 11 and Nov. 3, we will keep readers posted about the latest election and voting developments. Only time will tell whether voter fraud becomes a widespread concern or not.
[1] https://www.mycitizensnews.net/news/absentee-ballot-applications-in-the-mail/
[2] https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Office-of-the-Governor/Executive-Orders/Lamont-Executive-Orders/Executive-Order-No-7QQ.pdf
[3] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-passes-bill-to-expand-absentee-voting-during-special-session/ar-BB17iftp
[4] https://www.opb.org/news/article/politics-101-bc-voter-fraud-in-the-ancient-world/
[5] https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?state=CT
[6] https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Stratford-Police-2-Bridgeport-residents-12510770.php
[7] https://www.jud2.ct.gov/crdockets/CaseDetailDisp.aspx?source=Pending&Key=f8f31275-b76c-41a8-b5a5-b2ae98176b5a
[8] https://www.nhregister.com/connecticut/article/SEEC-probes-possible-election-fraud-in-East-Haven-11326004.php
[9] https://www.jud2.ct.gov/crdockets/CaseDetailDisp.aspx?source=Pending&Key=787e0402-61e0-4840-b968-a1a120bbe0da
[10] https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Ayala-gets-suspended-sentence-for-election-fraud-6529496.php
[11] https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud-print/search?state=CT
[12] https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Lawsuit-seeks-Bridgeport-primary-do-over-14462457.php
[13] https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Lawsuit-seeks-Bridgeport-primary-do-over-14462457.php
[14] https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud-print/search?state=CT
[15] https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-xpm-2004-07-15-0407150839-story.html
[16] https://ctmirror.org/2020/07/20/state-supreme-court-tosses-gop-challenge-to-mail-in-voting/
