Merrill: ‘Enough Is Enough’–Wants Registrars Unelected

Connecticut’s chief elections official Denise Merrill, who’s elected by the people, is proposing to do away with elected registrars in favor of one serving that role as an appointed official. In a news release, Merrill says “Connecticut is the only state in the country that leaves election administration to two partisan locally elected officials.” From Merrill:

Secretary of the State Denise Merrill today proposed improving election administration in Connecticut by transforming the office of Registrar of Voters from a local elected official handpicked by town political committees to a municipal employee appointed locally to administer elections as a non-partisan professional. Under concept legislation submitted by Secretary Merrill to the General Assembly’s Government Administration and elections Committee, each city and town in Connecticut would have one Registrar of Voters per municipality in charge of administering elections. That individual would be hired as a municipal employee, and would need minimum qualifications of at least a Bachelor’s degree or four years’ experience in election administration. The Registrar would also need to be certified and would be required to undergo yearly training administered by the state on new developments in election administration or new voting technologies. As a municipal employee the Registrar would have all the support staff necessary, and would be required to follow all state and federal election laws, as well as election directives issued by the Secretary of the State.

“The time has come to modernize and professionalize the office or Registrar of Voters in Connecticut, one that is crucial to empowering our citizens in exercising their right to vote,” said Secretary Merrill, Connecticut’s chief elections official. “We have now had two elections in the last four years where Connecticut has made national news for problems on Election Day, and enough is enough. Our elections system in Connecticut overall is good, and on the whole Registrars work hard and do a good job. But clearly we can do much better. How we run elections in Connecticut is too political while lacking professionalism and accountability. These legislative changes are designed to fix that and finally bring election administration in our state into the 21st century.”

Connecticut is the only state in the country that leaves election administration to two partisan locally elected officials. There are no minimal qualifications for Connecticut’s Registrars of Voters, who are chosen by their local town political committees. The nominee of the major parties for Registrar do not run against each other, they are each guaranteed a local position under state law, funded by municipal taxpayers. Other New England states leave election administration to the local municipal clerk, or through local bipartisan boards of election who hire professional staff to manage day-to-day operations. In fact, many states have regional or county-wide bipartisan boards of elections where elections are administered regionally by professional staff hired for their qualifications and experience.

In addition to the high-profile problems experienced in Bridgeport and Hartford that led to problems at the polls on Election Day in 2010 and 2014, there are constantly reports of dysfunctional relationships locally between Registrars of Voters of different political parties. There have been cases of verbal and physical altercations, one Registrar locking the other one out of the office, one Registrar dominating office functions while the other rarely reports to work and other troubling issues. Under current state laws, there is also very little that can be done to discipline or hold accountable a Registrar of Voters who is not doing their job, not complying with state laws, or not acting in a professional manner. As local elected officials there is virtually nothing that can be done by the state or even the municipality to require participation with new technological improvements to modernize how elections are conducted, how results are reported, and how vote counts are audited, for instance. As municipal employees, this type of compliance with state and federal laws and fluency with new technologies would be a requirement of the job.

Legislative concepts submitted by Secretary Merrill to the GAE committee related to strengthening election administration will be contained in a bill to be heard at a public hearing on Monday March 9, 2015.

0
Share

25 comments

  1. I disapprove of any law seeking to replace locally elected officials with new municipal employees. I like partisan politics–it’s colorful. Oversight by Denise Merrill is enough. It sounds like she’s risk-shifting and I disapprove of that, too.

    0
  2. Heaven forbid we root out corruption in Connecticut. I won’t stand for this! How will some people in Bridgeport win elections without “absentee ballots!”

    0
    1. I used to be against the concept of universal early voting by mail. I have seen it at work in Arizona and in fact was a poll worker this past election. It works very well and there are far fewer complaints from anyone about irregularities such as Bridgeport’s absentee ballot queen.

      0
      1. I agree David–I have family and friends in both Colorado and California, they vote by mail, there is no middleman involved in the voting process, no one running for office is involved–and there are very few complaints about the legitimacy of elections.

        0
  3. Denise,
    Can we expect the level of professionalism to be equal to that of your office, which may or may not have done favors for a Bridgeport notary who refused to reveal his criminal past?
    Or maybe we can start with testing all employees of the SOTS office as to their competency levels. Or maybe we should just declare by law any former legislator is competent to handle any government position. This way we can keep all the cronyism in Hartford where it belongs.

    0
    1. Bob, how could it be worse than what exists now? I have worked as a poll worker in Bridgeport and in Arizona, and much as Arizona is generally run by halfwit teapartiers, elections are much better run without having elected officials directly in charge of running them. The elections are run by civil servants. Far fewer irregularities.

      0
  4. Denise Merrill, clean up your own act before you propose changes to the way Cities and Towns in Connecticut conduct their business. Thank God you’re elected, so we can clean up your act for you!!!

    0
  5. I think it’s time for Denise Merrill to straighten her back and do the job she was elected to do and not the job she wants to burden with additional expenses and restrictions. It seems she wants to be a bureaucrat instead of an executive.

    0
  6. Would such specially trained and educated municipal employee taking continuing education each year be able to stand up to a Mayor and obey the rules, regulations and law as it pertains? Or would the City Attorney’s Office be in the middle routinely? Compare that to the financial operations of the City that have ignored duties of Internal Auditor per Ordinance, responsibilities per Charter for soliciting info from the public on Capital Budget annually, or complete monthly reporting of revenues, appropriations and variances for 12 months (and not in draft but rather final form). These are a few of the things this administration has seen fit to do outside the rules and where is the SHERIFF? Time will tell.

    0
    1. They could be state employees, and how could civil service employees running elections be more corrupt than a system where the two candidates in recent years have been party hacks?

      0
      1. It is unlikely for the State to take on any more positions when their own budget is in the red so badly. Some time ago those with power determined party loyalists could check on each other, it seems, in the ROV office as well as in the Office of Policy Management at the State level if my understanding is correct.

        But what happens when people are so busy (or not) keeping track of the deeds of the other, no is looking to see how the public and taxpayers are best served, and then getting on with it? Time will tell.

        0
  7. Just think. If the Registrar is a municipal employee and the state does nothing with the ban on city employees then the registrar can be a member of the City Council.
    Let’s send a big thank-you note to Denise for helping Bridgeport get its act together!!!

    0
  8. I’ve got an idea. Why not make Denise, by virtue of her position as SOTS the de facto registrar of the state’s capital, Hartford. Let’s see how good she could manage the process without any disruptions. And then let’s see how much her plan would actually cost the municipalities.
    Easy to speak from an ivory tower. Much more difficult to be in the grind and getting things done.

    0
  9. Denise did see her shadow yesterday! We’ll get six more weeks of something until the legislative product of her mental constipation gets flushed down the GA bill disposal system.

    No doubt, a lot of people in city/state government would like to see their favorite partisan nephews, friends, etc., appointed to registrar positions.

    How about Denise finding a way to better train elected registrars and put controls into place to effectively monitor/regulate registrar office function in the state–while also providing comprehensive, ongoing training to elected registrars. (Who monitors Denise? They’re not doing their job!)

    Someone talked to Denise about getting someone a nice registrar’s job in some place in Connecticut that wants a new, hand-picked registrar. Now what municipality in Connecticut might that be?

    0
  10. Hint: Who was quoted as saying “Sometimes democracy doesn’t work?”
    Hint: It may have been Stalin but I am thinking more recent.
    Answer: The king of unelected elected officials, Mayor Bill Finch.

    0
  11. I’m still trying to grasp the concept of a non-partisan municipal employee in Bridgeport. Oh, that’s what I was. Who appoints this person? The mayor, perhaps with approval of the city council? If they take exception to this person insisting on an open, accountable and transparent operation with ethics compliance, can they simply lay them off?

    0
  12. Tom,
    As you know, if a City employee displeases you, perhaps you can eliminate the Department Line Item as a cost savings move at budget time and look like a hero.
    However, if you are in a position to execute such a maneuver for self-protection and to keep the City Council even more dependent on you as President, you will include a new position in a different department and expect the person filling that will be your personal assistant. That’s hypocrisy and dishonest but what the heck. And if you do not care whether the termination is righteous in terms of labor regulations, and do not care the City will have to legally defend an action and perhaps settle a claim of your personal making, then you put a smile on your face and keep talking about all the good things going on in the City (not caused by you, by the way). Two-faced is what it looks like, doesn’t it? And removing the ONLY research assistant for the City Council in June 2012? How was that good for the City or the Council? Is that a subject when Council members go to municipal conferences and brag about how all their legislative support was gutted, eliminated and no one objected? Time will tell.

    0

Leave a Reply