A group of Connecticut lawmakers have voted to approve explanatory language for an upcoming ballot initiative.
Connecticut residents will decide whether the state should amend the constitution to allow no-excuse absentee voting in November.
But first, the state’s Government Administration and Elections Committee had to approve the language that will explain the measure on posters at polling sites.
The posters will read: “Under the current state Constitution, qualified voters may cast an absentee vote only if they are unable to vote in person at their polling place on election day due to: 1) absence from their city or town, 2) sickness or physical disability, or 3) their religious beliefs prohibiting secular activity on that day. If this amendment is approved, the state Constitution would no longer limit the reasons why absentee voting may be used. Therefore it would expand the state legislature's authority to pass laws regarding voting by qualified voters who will not appear at their polling place on Election Day.”
State Representative Matt Blumenthal (D-Stamford) co-chairs the GAE committee. He said he supports the measure, and the language proposed by the Office of Legislative Research.
“Passing this constitutional amendment would allow the General Assembly to make a number of changes to our voting procedures and systems, and theoretically would allow the General Assembly to harmonize the two systems so that they're more efficient while providing Maximum appropriate access for all voters in the state,” Blumenthal said.
Republican ranking member Rob Sampson (R-Wolcott) voted against the language. He said it should be written the exact same as it was in 2014, when the initiative failed.
“In 2014 this question was put before voters in Connecticut, and it failed. So my question, Mr. Chairman, I guess the first thing I would ask is, why aren't we asking the same very explicit and accurate question that we did in 2014? Is it simply because it failed that time,” Sampson asked.
Blumenthal said he wasn’t there to discern the motives of the Office of Legislative Research, the nonpartisan legal counsel that wrote the text.
However, Blumenthal said it was his understanding that the 2024 text was more clear than the 2014 text.
All six of the Republicans on the GAE committee voted against the language.
Representative Gale Mastrofrancesco (R-Wolcott) is also a ranking member.
“I think the language is very, very vague in the explanatory text,” Mastrofrancesco said. “And I think it's really, really important that people understand what they're voting for, if anything. Honestly, I would like to see explanatory text actually be put on the ballot, because how many people are going to go in on voting on Election Day and see a poster and actually read it?”
A majority vote would pass the referendum on Election Day.
_
