Independents in the state are decrying a provision in a proposed election integrity bill they say would “destroy” their caucus by requiring the Independent Party of Connecticut take on a new name.

House Bill 5498, would bar political parties from using the term “independent” in their titles. The name change provision is one of more than a dozen election reforms and security proposals included in the bill.

At a public hearing Monday, proponents of the legislation, who defended the name change as necessary to avoid confusion among voters, appeared open to appeals by Independent Party members to seek less drastic solutions.

If passed as written, H.B. 5498 would prohibit political parties from using names that incorporate “unaffiliated,” “unenrolled,” “independent” or any other terms antonymous to “affiliated,” “enrolled” or “dependent.” If the bill passes, any party that contains such words in its name, including the Independent Party, must apply to reserve a new title by Jan. 1, 2025.

While the bill states that each party “shall retain all rights earned” under its previous name, including ballot access and cross-endorsement privileges, Michael Telesca, the state chairman of the Independent Party, said there are no provisions dictating whether currently enrolled party members will automatically roll over into the new party name.

According to Telesca, 30,000 voters in the state are registered with the Independent Party.

At a public hearing in the Government Administration and Elections Committee Monday, Telesca said the party’s name and its recognition across the state have been “hard-earned.”

“There is no good reason to take our name away from us unless you want to destroy our party and deny the voters a real third party on the ballot,” Telesca said.

Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas said the provision is designed to “eliminate confusion” for voters.

“We’re not trying to eradicate the Independent Party. They would still exist. They would just have a different name,” Thomas said.

Thomas said that many people in the state “mix up” the terms “independent” and “unaffiliated” in the registration process.

Connecticut’s voter registration form asks “Do you wish to enroll in a political party?” Applicants can either check “NO. I do not wish to enroll in a party at this time,” or “YES.” If they answer yes, applicants must either check Democrat or Republican, or write in a party name on the “other” line.

Thomas said she often encounters confusion among prospective voters at registration drives on college campuses.

“They’re just reading, ‘I don’t want to be a Democrat or a Republican, I’m independent!’ And that’s what they write on the line without realizing that in Connecticut, Independent is a specific party,” Thomas said. What they mean is that they do not want any party affiliation.”

Thomas said this becomes a problem when unwitting Independent Party members try to cast a ballot in a primary election.

In Connecticut, unaffiliated voters have a longer grace period to enroll in a new party before a primary.

This election cycle, the deadline to switch affiliation for “enrolled party members,” which includes Independents, passed on Jan. 2. Unaffiliated voters may enroll with a party in person at their Town Hall up until April 1 to vote in the Presidential Preference Primary on April 2.

Thomas said the issue has led to “a lot of disenfranchisement,” and has “created a lot of confusion.”

Former State Rep. John “Jack” Hennessy called the confusion argument “gratuitous” and questioned whether the proposed policy is “partisan retaliation.”

“This is illegal and a violation of our First Amendment rights,” Hennessy said. “If there is needed education to teach the populace the difference between the Independent Party and the unaffiliated, there are other ways to remedy any confusion.”

According to Connecticut’s most recent party enrollment statistics, over 1.38 million voters in the state are registered as either a Democrat or Republican, more than 39,000 belong to a third party, and over a million are unaffiliated.

The Independent Party has held statewide enrollment privileges since 2008. The party as Connecticut knows it today, originated in Waterbury in 2003, but the history of Independents in the state dates back much further.

Lisa Brinton, the town chair for the Independent Party of Norwalk, said that Norwalk’s first female mayor, Jennie Cave, was elected as an Independent in 1975. She added that according to local lore, “the best governance Norwalk ever had was when we had five Democrats, five Republicans, and five Independents on our city council in the ’80s and the ’90s.”

“The term Independent has meaning to the average voter,” said Brinton. “We advocate for something currently lost with the two-party system — moderation in an increasingly polarized world.”

Brinton noted that in 2019, the California State Legislature passed a bill similar to Connecticut’s current proposal. Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the legislation, saying that he could not sign the bill because “requiring one existing political party to change its current name … could be interpreted as a violation of the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”

Brinton said these same constitutional considerations apply to Connecticut’s proposal.

“The two major parties might wrongly identify the Independent Party as a threat because of unrest in some of your own membership, but the real threat is removing choice from the ballot, leaving voters more disaffected,” Brinton said. “Killing the recognized name and making us start all over is punitive. It’s the wrong message at the wrong time, and likely unconstitutional.”

Brinton suggested that instead of taking a “sledgehammer” to the Independent name, Connecticut could make a clerical revision to its voter registration form by adding the options of “Independent” and “unaffiliated voter.”

John Mertens, a professor at Trinity College who has been involved with the party since 2006, agreed.

“Our voter registration form is poorly designed and it’s easily fixed,” Mertens said.

He also emphasized the importance of educating new voters about the difference between Independent and unaffiliated.

“That is the job of the Secretary of the State’s Office (to) continuously educate the voters so they understand that you’re registering for a party when you write Independent Party on your voter registration form,” Mertens said.

In response to Mertens’ testimony, Sen. Rob Sampson, a ranking member on the committee said he would advocate for adjusted language in the bill that would eliminate the provisions relating to the Independent Party.

“I don’t think it’s an appropriate mechanism based on the unfamiliarity that some Connecticut voters have with the party structure in the state,” Sampson said.

Early in the hearing, Secretary Thomas and committee leadership suggested that they would be amenable to alternative solutions.

When asked by Committee Chair Rep. Matt Blumenthal if the Office of the Secretary of the State would be open to “other measures raised that might eliminate that confusion,” Thomas answered with a resounding “Absolutely.”