Government Administration and Elections Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: HB-6325
AN ACT CONCERNING THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE, ABSENTEE
Title: BALLOTS AND ELECTION AUDITS.
Vote Date: 3/31/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 3/24/2021
File No.: 500
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
The Government Administration and Elections Committee
REASONS FOR BILL:
This bill would require the Secretary of the State to issue a report on election laws that were
modified or suspended during any primary or election held in 2020 or 2021. Furthermore, this
bill would prohibit the mailing of unsolicited absentee ballots by certain election officials,
require a pilot program for signature verification on absentee ballots, change the rules filing
deadline for minor parties, include a statement on absentee ballots regarding noncompliance
penalties, establish a task force to study single-envelope returns of absentee ballots and
establish a working group to examine risk-limiting audits of election results. Another provision
in this bill would help to provide consistency across Connecticut in terms of absentee ballot
processing before Election Day. The bill would prohibit registrars from contacting voters to
cure an unsigned absentee ballot. In addition, this bill seeks to ensure that any declaratory
ruling, instruction, opinion or order issued by the Secretary of the State be subject to the
Legislative Regulation Review Committee.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
Denise W. Merrill, Secretary of the State of Connecticut: Secretary Merrill expressed
opposition to this bill. Secretary Merrill believes that this bill would remove the authority
vested in the Secretary of the State as the chief election officer. Secretary Merrill contends
that this bill seeks to transfer that authority to the legislature.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Lynda Szynkowicz, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Fight Voter Fraud Inc.: Ms.
Szynkowicz expressed support for HB 6325. Ms. Synkowicz stated that nearly 110,000 of the
nearly 1.2 million unsolicited absentee ballots applications that were sent out for the August
2020 primary were returned as undeliverable. Ms. Synkowicz contends that this was a result
of inaccurate voter rolls that have not been updated to reflect deaths and people changing
their addresses. For the November 2020 election, Ms. Szynkowicz stated that the Secretary
of the State did not mandate a counting of the undelivered absentee ballot applications, since
all returned applications were sent directly to the Town Clerks this time around. Ms.
Synkowicz believes that this bill would help to clean the voter rolls and address the overreach
in Connecticuts voter laws.
Mark H. Bernacki, Legislative Committee Chair, Connecticut Town Clerk Association
(CTCA): CTCA expressed support for Section 9 of this bill, which would create a legislative
task force for the purpose of reviewing absentee ballot statutes and determining the best
practices for absentee ballots in the future. CTCA recommends that two Town Clerks be
included on this task force, with one clerk being from a small town and the other from a larger
town. CTCA highlighted the unique challenges that small and large towns each face based
on their own respective election infrastructure. CTCA also recommended that an IT expert
from the state or a larger municipality be included in the task force. CTCA believes that an IT
expert would be able to provide adequate guidance on future election technology,
cybersecurity, portals and block chain technology.
Timothy De Carlo, Legislative Committee Chair, Registrar of Voters Association of
Connecticut (ROVAC): ROVACs testimony cited Section 9 and 10 of this bill. These
sections would establish a task force to study the format of absentee envelopes, as well as a
task force to consider new methods of auditing for election results. ROVAC expressed their
gratitude to the Committee for ensuring that ROVAC would have a seat in each respective
task force. ROVAC committed themselves to offer practical recommendations and working to
strengthen Connecticuts elections.
Jeffrey Caggiano: Mr. Caggiano expressed support for continuing the use of absentee
ballots in Connecticut, but he contends that the counting process needs to be more precise.
He believes that sending no-excuse absentee ballots to all registered voters is waiting
taxpayer money. He stated that nearly 2 million absentee ballot applications were ignored in
2020. Mr. Caggiano believes that all of these unanswered applications might lead to mistakes
and potentially voter fraud. Considering the nature of the voter rolls, which include many
duplicates and errors, Mr. Caggiano says that there were many reports from voters who said
that they received several applications in the mail last year.
Brenda Hamilton: Ms. Hamilton expressed opposition to early voting and unsolicited
absentee ballots. She supports the use of voter ID, verified absentee ballots in certain
situations, paper ballots and limiting voting to a single Election Day. Ms. Hamilton believes
that voting is a Constitutional right and privilege afforded to all citizens, and no one should
have to worry about their vote not being counted.
Nancy Hemstreet Eaton: Ms. Hemstreet Eaton expressed support for the bill in her
testimony. In her testimony, she outlined all of the relevant provisions of the bill that would
amend elections administration law in Connecticut. She believes that the change made to
amend absentee ballot voting during the pandemic was unconstitutional and still is. She
contends that over one million Connecticut voters were able to vote safely in person in
November 2020 since no voters contracted COVID-19.
Page 2 of 5 HB-6325
Cherie Juhnke: Ms. Juhnke believes that there are not enough safeguards in place to
ensure that unsolicited absentee ballots are legitimate. She identified in person voting as the
safest option for maintaining election integrity. As for the Secretary of the State, Ms. Junke
believes that they shouldnt be able to make changes to the Connecticut Constitution without
an amendment. Additionally, the expressed support for signature verification and conformity
across the state in terms of the process for handling absentee ballots before Election Day.
Ultimately, Ms. Juhnke stated that more scrutiny is always better.
Anne Manusky, President, Connecticut Republican Assembly (CTRA): The Connecticut
Republican Assembly believes that certain laws were not adhered to in terms of updating and
maintaining the Connecticut voter rolls. Citing the Motor Voter Act of 1993, CTRA states that
Connecticut might not have been in compliance with the act based on the inaccurate
information contained in the voter rolls, including wrong addresses and even people who
have passed away. CTRA noted that the COVID-19 changes made to voting procedures in
2020 might have violated Connecticut election statutes and the state constitution.
Mark Lindeman, Acting Co-Director, Verified Voting: Verified Voting expressed support
for Section 10 of this bill, a provision that seeks to establish a working group to study the use
of risk-limiting audits. Verified Voting believes that risk-limiting audits that are designed to
manually check machine tabulations against the actual ballots cast would help improve
confidence in our elections and confront any security concerns. Risk-limiting audits would be
critical in terms of authenticating and validating elections results to ensure that the hand
counted ballots match the machine tabulations. As it relates to the working groups, Verified
Voting recommends that the Committee broaden the membership to include experts on risk-
limiting audits to provide the most accurate information on these types of audits. Additionally,
Verified Voting recommended that the Committee expand the length of the timeline for the
risk-limiting audit pilot program and extend the working groups reporting deadline.
Luther Weeks, Executive Director, CTVotersCount: Mr. Weeks testimony indicated
support for Section 10 of the bill, the provision geared towards creating a pilot program for
risk-limiting audits. Mr. Weeks recommended that Connecticut consider following in the steps
of Colorado, Virginia and Rhode Island, which are a few of the states that have already
implemented risk-limiting audits. In addition, Mr. Weeks suggested that the prototype for risk-
limiting audits not be limited to five or ten municipalities. Lastly, Mr. Weeks advised the
Committee to consider moving the working group reporting deadline to January of 2023. By
providing the working group with ample time to review the pilot program, working group
members will be able to consider the implications of this audit system and make necessary
recommendations for statutory changes.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Andrea Aron: Ms. Aron characterized HB 6325 as a voter suppression bill. Ms. Aron
contends that this bill would make absentee ballots less accessible to voters and might lead
to the wrongful invalidation of votes.
Val and Patty Chamberlain: Val and Patty Chamberlain believe that this bill is attempting to
solve a nonexistent issue. They contend that this is a form of voter suppression. Instead of
making it harder for people to vote, Val and Patty Chamberlain emphasized the importance of
letting democracy work and making voting easier.
Page 3 of 5 HB-6325
Janet Luongo: Mrs. Luongo characterized HB 6325 as anti-democratic. She stated that
ones right to vote is effectively their voice. Mrs. Luongo believes that this bill intends to make
absentee voting much harder to access and more likely to result in the invalidation of ones
vote. Mrs. Luongo identified working people, students, the elderly, the ill and physically
challenged voters as those who will face the most hardship as a result of the bills provisions.
Claire Matthews: Ms. Matthews stated that Connecticut voting regulations are already some
of the strictest across the entire country. She contends that this bill is counterproductive.
Instead of proposing more restrictions, Ms. Matthews believes that Connecticut should make
voting more accessible, particularly for the elderly, working people students, those without
access to public transportations and people that might have physical challenges.
Kelly McConney Moore, Interim Senior Policy Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union
of Connecticut (ACLU-CT): ACLU-CT expressed opposition to HB 6325, finding that many
of the bill's provisions would make it more difficult for people to vote. In particular, the ACLU-
CT cited Section 5 of the bill, the provision that would prevent the Secretary of the State and
local elections officials from sending unsolicited absentee ballot applications via postal
service. Referring to the record turnout in the 2020 election, the ACLU-CT believes that
expanding access to absentee ballots help to promote greater levels of democratic
participation. Absent any evidence of fraud or wrongdoing, the ACLU-CT believes that there
is no good reason to make absentee ballot access more difficult. In regards to Section 6 of
the bill, which includes language that prohibits election officials from contacting voters to cure
their unsigned ballot, the ACLU-CT believes that this section deliberately suppresses voters.
If a voter has gone through the lengthy process to request an absentee ballot, receive an
absentee ballot and then send that completed ballot back in, denying their vote based on a
missing signature would amount to suppression. Furthermore, the ACLU-CT cited the
provisions in this bill regarding a signature verification pilot program. The ACLU-CT stated
that signature impersonation is the rarest type of voter fraud, and implementing a signature
verification system could result in the rejection of thousands of valid and eligible votes from
voters whose signatures may have changed. Lastly, the ACLU-CT referenced Section 8,
which would mandate that absentee ballots include a statement on all potential penalties for
rules violations. The ACLU-CT views this as a vague threat to make people reconsider
absentee voting.
Catherine Moran: Ms. Moran classified this bill as a discrete effort to suppress voters. As a
result of this bill, Ms. Moran believes that voters would not be able to check whether their
absentee ballot was counted, or if it was invalidated because of a small error.
Louis Noel: Mr. Noel expressed opposition to this bill based on his belief that it will place
obstacles on the voting process. Mr. Noel emphasized the role that the Secretary of the State
has in terms of increasing voter confidence and ensuring access to voting. He believes that
the Secretary of the State must be held accountable by the voters. Ultimately, Mr. Noel made
clear that voting should not be such a difficult process. Instead, he believes that voter
participation should be encouraged.
Carol Rizzolo: Ms. Rizzolo believes that this bill is designed to suppress voters, all while
ignoring the constitutional right to vote. She identified this bill as a part of a continuing effort
to address the nonexistent voter fraud problem. Ms. Rizzolo would like to see Connecticut
work to expand voting rights.
Page 4 of 5 HB-6325
Joanna Swomley: Ms. Swomley characterized the bill as voter suppression. She believes
that the bill proponents intend to diminish the value of absentee ballots by making them hard
to obtain and more likely to be invalidated.
Vicki Volper: Ms. Volper expressed opposition to this bill. She believes that the provisions in
the bill will disenfranchise voters by making absentee ballots less accessible and increasing
the likelihood of ones vote to be invalidated. Ms. Volper stated that HB 6325 lacks any
reasonable protections for voters.
The Government Administration and Elections Committee received via email 18 pieces
of testimony in opposition of HB 6325. They cited reasons similar to those stated in the
aforementioned testimonies. All copies of testimony are available on the Committee
website under Testimony.
Reported by: Trevor Hoffman Date: 3-31-21
Page 5 of 5 HB-6325


Statutes affected:
Committee Bill: 9-3, 4-176, 9-140, 9-374
GAE Joint Favorable Substitute: 9-374
File No. 500: 9-374