C onnecticut is no stranger to voter fraud. The state received national attention when the city of Bridgeport was ordered by Superior Court judge William Clark to reconduct the Democratic mayoral primary after a security video emerged showing a campaign staffer for incumbent Joe Ganim literally stuffing the absentee-ballot box.
After four separate elections — two primary and two mayoral — the victory ultimately went to Ganim, but not without much headache. The situation deteriorated so much that Connecticut secretary of the state Stephanie Thomas recommended that Bridgeport residents vote in person.
Yet Democratic governor Ned Lamont and the state general assembly are poised to enact legislation that could invite more serious electoral-fraud allegations by removing markers on driver’s licenses indicating whether someone is undocumented.
A law passed in 2013 allows undocumented individuals in Connecticut to acquire drive-only (DO) licenses. The proposed legislation aims to remove the explicit markers that designate these licenses for driving purposes only and to make them indistinguishable from non-REAL IDs — a driver’s license or card that is also a federally accepted form of identification. Critics, such as Anne Manusky, president of the Connecticut Republican Assembly, argue that such a change could inadvertently facilitate voter fraud by blurring the distinction between identification documents used for driving and those required for broader identification purposes.
Other states are going in a different direction. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that imposes strict limitations on the use of out-of-state driver’s licenses by undocumented immigrants. The Florida statute, effective July 1, 2023, specifically invalidates such licenses. That includes licenses from Connecticut bearing the “DO” designation, which explicitly state their ineligibility for “federal identification purposes.”
Connecticut is one of 19 states that extend the privilege of obtaining DO licenses to undocumented immigrants. But it distinguishes itself as one of only two that currently differentiate these licenses from standard driver’s licenses.
The proposed law would set the stage for an increase in voter fraud, particularly after the fiasco in Bridgeport. This policy risks further undermining the electoral process. It highlights a disregard for the state’s existing fraud problems on the part of its elected officials.
What makes the risk of fraud so high? It’s the mail-in voter-registration process, in which a potential voter must provide either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number. If that section is left blank, the person’s name is still added to the voter roll with an asterisk next to it, indicating that they must show some form of ID on Election Day.
If the legislation is enacted, having an asterisk status opens the door for possible abuse on Election Day. A DO license, indistinguishable from a standard license, could mistakenly or intentionally convince poll workers to give ballots to those not legally permitted to vote. The asterisk is then automatically removed if they cast a vote, effectively legitimizing their place on the voter list in future elections.
This loophole adds another layer of complexity to absentee voting, especially in places such as Bridgeport, where ballot-harvesters are already exploiting existing rules. These “harvesters” might not only assist ineligible voters in registering, but also in helping them to obtain and complete an absentee ballot.
Some state lawmakers are aware of the ballot mischief this bill invites. During a tense session of the Transportation Committee on March 18, state representative Tom O’Dea (R., New Canaan), a legislative veteran from the time DO licenses were introduced, reminded his colleagues that the original legislation was brokered with a “good faith” agreement that the licenses would explicitly state they were not valid for voting purposes. To preserve this safeguard, Representative O’Dea offered an amendment to maintain the language, only to see it fail along party lines.
Acknowledging that “there [are] clear and obvious examples of voter fraud that happen both in Connecticut and across the country,” state representative Roland Lemar (D., New Haven), the committee’s co-chairman, nonetheless urged his colleagues to vote against the amendment because he was unaware of any examples of fraud with a DO license (which, currently, have their distinguishing markings). He then shifted focus toward Governor DeSantis and the “laws [he] proudly, aggressively passed” asserting that he believes that “it is our obligation to ensure that our Connecticut credential cannot be used against” undocumented immigrants.
In response to Lemar’s comments, Representative O’Dea pointed out that there are approximately 61,000 DO licenses issued in Connecticut, which could make a huge difference, especially in narrow local elections.
Despite the contentious debate, the bill successfully passed out of the committee phase and is poised for a house vote at an undetermined future date.
Debate over this bill comes as Connecticut implements new early-voting rules, which are already complicating the administration of elections by local registrars. Each municipality must now provide at least one early-voting location that will be available ahead of elections: 14 days before general elections, seven before most primaries, and four before special elections and presidential primaries.
The new early-voting rules are generally popular. But local officials argue that this well-intentioned mandate lacks sufficient funding and resources for proper implementation, thereby straining already cash- strapped towns. New Britain mayor Erin Stewart (R.), for example, said that “the price tag for such an endeavor in my city alone is likely to cost an additional $80,000 to $100,000.” She also highlighted a “glaring issue concern[ing] staffing” these new early-voting locations.
These logistical concerns, as well as oddities of same-day registration — individuals can register to vote on the spot but have to wait at least a day actually to vote — point to the many difficulties already faced by those who oversee voting in Connecticut. This bill, if passed, would only complicate the process further and render it more susceptible to abuse.
These are but a few of the reasons that Connecticut should reconsider this legislation. At a time when our electoral process is under renewed scrutiny, and America is struggling to police its own border, we must remember that voting is a right that belongs only to American citizens. They alone should have their voice protected at the ballot box.