Voter fraud may be rare, so Democrats want more
Fourteen days of early voting began this week in Connecticut for the Nov. 5 federal and state elections, and since this early voting must be done in person, there's nothing really objectionable about it. Early voters risk being unable to respond to late developments in election campaigns, but they may avoid long lines at their regular polling places on Election Day — if municipalities adequately staff their early-voting places and don't cause long lines there, too.
While early voting was used for primary elections a few weeks ago, participation was minimal and so the procedure remains experimental. So election officials will adjust it as seems appropriate.
But early voting could be the preface to much greater risk, a risk that voters are being asked to approve in this election: a proposed state constitutional amendment that is on the ballot. The amendment would empower the General Assembly to authorize everyone to vote by absentee ballot, eliminating current restrictions, which allow absentee balloting only for people who on Election Day are on active military duty or expect to be out of town or confined by sickness, disability or religion.
That is, the absentee ballot amendment will invite the legislature to tell voters that there is no compelling reason for them to vote in person.
This couldn't be more mistaken.
Of course many people will be glad to accept the convenience of voting without having to appear anywhere. But Connecticut's Constitution has had a good reason for restricting absentee ballots: election security.
Elections are most secure when voters appear in person, show identification and cast their vote directly. Their completed ballot never leaves their hands before it is cast. Absentee voting — which is mostly voting by U.S. mail or insecure drop boxes — separates voters from the casting of their ballots and potentially puts those ballots in the hands of any number of intermediaries. Absentee voting also allows political people to solicit and cajole ballots from the frail, indifferent and politically vulnerable.
Practically every recent election in impoverished and corrupt Bridgeport has had absentee ballot fraud or improprieties. In the city's most recent mayoral election there was evidence that the campaign of Mayor Joe Ganim sought to get a list of residents of city-subsidized housing for use in obtaining absentee ballot applications — a list of people who could be told that voting for the mayor would help them keep their apartments.
Sure enough, though Ganim served seven years in federal prison for corruption committed during his first stint as mayor, his second stint has been achieved repeatedly by big pluralities in absentee ballots.
The danger isn't just in Bridgeport. In 2022, the former chairman of Stamford's Democratic City Committee was convicted on 14 counts of forgery and making a false statement involving absentee ballot fraud in a city election.
An opponent of the constitutional amendment, Southington state Rep. Gale Mastrofrancesco, the ranking House Republican member of the General Assembly's Government Administration and Elections Committee, notes that the mass mailing of absentee ballot applications during the recent virus epidemic showed that Connecticut's voter rolls are poorly maintained and excessively vulnerable to fraud. That's because 184,000 applications were undeliverable through the mail and more than 50,000 absentee ballots that were sent were never returned.
"Our voter rolls are a mess," Mastrofranceso says. "Our voter rolls are not updated."
Most advocacy of the amendment for unrestricted absentee voting comes from Democrats, who contend that voter fraud is rare. Maybe it is, but Democrats seem to want it to become common. For Democrats are the party of massive illegal immigration, open borders and "sanctuary cities" that nullify federal immigration law — cities including New Haven and Hartford, which, like Bridgeport, provide huge Democratic pluralities.
The Democrats are also the party that opposes requiring voters to show identification, and many urban Democrats want to allow non-citizens to vote.
The Democrats are against election security.
Connecticut's early voting provides more than enough additional convenience in voting. The proposed constitutional amendment risks corruption and should be defeated.
Editor’s note: This version corrects the date of Election Day.
Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. He can be reached at CPowell@cox.net.
Comment threads are monitored for 48 hours after publication and then closed.