Connecticut Republicans are fighting a losing and foolish battle
Before seemingly coming to their senses in the early morning hours Friday, Connecticut Republicans had badly miscalculated in fighting a foolish legal fight against wider use of absentee ballots in the Aug. 11 primary and general election Nov. 3. The impression the state party has left is that they want to make it more difficult for people to vote during an ongoing health crisis. In doing so, state Republicans have aligned themselves with their national party’s voter suppression strategy. That is not going to play well in Connecticut.
And they have done all this self-inflicted damage with little chance to succeed legally, which was well evidenced this past week when Republicans lost not one, but two court decisions in cases championed by the party’s state chairman, J.R. Romano.
The first decision came from the Connecticut Supreme Court in a case brought by four Republicans running for Congress, all with chances of slim and none to be elected. And, as the saying goes, Slim has left town.
Plaintiffs in the case are Mary Fay, James Griffin, Justin Anderson and
Thomas Gilmer. What, these names aren’t familiar?
Griffin and Fay are competing in the Aug. 11 Republican primary to run against U.S. Rep. John Larson, D-1st District, and Anderson and Gilmer are contesting to run against U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, the Democrat serving eastern Connecticut’s 2nd District.
Secretary of the State Denise Merrill and Gov. Ned Lamont, both Democrats, are trying to make it easier and safer for people to vote, including in the primary. Merrill has mailed out about 1.2 million absentee ballot applications to registered Republicans and Democrats for the primary. About 200,000 voters have responded to request absentee ballots because they would rather mailin or drop off their ballot than risk getting sick to vote in person.
The plaintiffs say this is unconstitutional, because the Connecticut Constitution only allows absentee voting for “sickness,” not threat of sickness, and claim Lamont exceeded his executive authority by ordering the expansion of the definition.
In dismissing the lawsuit on Monday, state Supreme Court Chief
Justice Richard Robinson basically said, “What are you doing here?”
Officially, he said, the court had no jurisdiction because the plaintiffs were using a contested election statute “limited to challenges for federal office with respect to general elections.”
And this is, you know, a primary. So, down to Superior Court they went where — THE NEXT DAY — Judge Thomas G. Moukawsher rejected their central claim that Lamont overstepped his authority.
The attorney for the ill-fated four announced they intended to appeal
Moukawsher’s decision to — can you guess it? — the state Supreme Court. Good luck with that.
Meanwhile, in a marathon special session that began Thursday and continued through the night and did not end until after sunrise Friday, the legislature voted to officially extend widespread absentee balloting use to the general election in November. Senate approval is certain when it meets next week. Given that the legislature has wide latitude to define the perimeters set by the Constitution on absentee ballot qualifications, that should be the end of that debate, legally speaking.
Most House Republicans joined Democrats in the 142-4 vote to approve broader absentee balloting during the pandemic, smartly deciding they didn’t want to die on that hill.
But top Republicans continue to complain about Merrill’s plan to mail all registered voters absentee applications. Sounding disconcertingly like our president, they say they’re concerned the plan could lead to significant voter fraud. But, like President Donald Trump, they provide no convincing evidence how that fraud would happen.
Larger voting turnouts tend to benefit Democrats. Making it easier to vote should boost turnout. That is a political calculation both parties recognize, their attempts to clad their intentions in loftier ideals notwithstanding.
Paul Choiniere is the editorial page editor.