The Day

Bill may axe ‘Independen­t Party’ name

- By ALISON CROSS

Hartford — Independen­ts in the state are decrying a provision in a proposed election integrity bill they say would “destroy” their caucus by requiring the Independen­t Party of Connecticu­t to take on a new name.

House Bill 5498 would bar political parties from using the term “independen­t” in their titles. The name change provision is one of more than a dozen election reforms and security proposals included in the bill.

At a public hearing Monday, proponents of the legislatio­n, who defended the name change as necessary to avoid confusion among voters, appeared open to appeals by Independen­t Party members to seek less drastic solutions.

If passed as written, H.B. 5498 would prohibit political parties from using names that incorporat­e “unaffiliat­ed,” “unenrolled,” “independen­t” or any other terms antonymous to “affiliated,” “enrolled” or “dependent.” If the bill passes, any party that contains such words in its name, including the Independen­t Party, must apply to reserve a new title by Jan. 1, 2025.

While the bill states that each party “shall retain all rights earned” under its previous name, including ballot access and cross-endorsemen­t privileges, Michael Telesca, the state chairman of the Independen­t Party, said there are no provisions dictating whether currently enrolled party members will automatica­lly roll over into the new party name.

According to Telesca, 30,000 voters in the state are registered with the Independen­t Party.

At a public hearing in the Government Administra­tion and Elections Committee Monday, Telesca said the party’s name and its recognitio­n across the state have been “hard-earned.”

“There is no good reason to take our name away from us unless you want to destroy our party and deny the voters a real third party on the ballot,” Telesca said.

Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas said the provision is designed to “eliminate confusion” for voters.

“We’re not trying to eradicate the Independen­t Party. They would still exist. They would just have a different name,” Thomas said.

Thomas said that many people in the state “mix up” the terms “independen­t” and “unaffiliat­ed” in the registrati­on process.

Connecticu­t’s voter registrati­on form asks “Do you wish to enroll in a political party?” Applicants can either check “NO. I do not wish to enroll in a party at this time,” or “YES.” If they answer yes, applicants must either check Democrat or Republican, or write in a party name on the “other” line.

Thomas said she often encounters confusion among prospectiv­e voters at registrati­on drives on college campuses.

“They’re just reading, ‘I don’t want to be a Democrat or a Republican, I’m independen­t!’ And that’s what they write on the line without realizing that in Connecticu­t, Independen­t is a specific party,” Thomas said. What they mean is that they do not want any party affiliatio­n.”

Thomas said this becomes a problem when unwitting Independen­t Party members try to cast a ballot in a primary election.

In Connecticu­t, unaffiliat­ed voters have a longer grace period to enroll in a new party before a primary.

This election cycle, the deadline to switch affiliatio­n for “enrolled party members,” which includes Independen­ts, passed on Jan. 2. Unaffiliat­ed voters may enroll with a party in person at their Town Hall up until April 1 to vote in the Presidenti­al Preference Primary on April 2.

Thomas said the issue has led to “a lot of disenfranc­hisement,” and has “created a lot of confusion.”

Former State Rep. John “Jack” Hennessy called the confusion argument “gratuitous” and questioned whether the proposed policy is “partisan retaliatio­n.”

“This is illegal and a violation of our First Amendment rights,” Hennessy said. “If there is needed education to teach the populace the difference between the Independen­t Party and the unaffiliat­ed, there are other ways to remedy any confusion.”

According to Connecticu­t’s most recent party enrollment statistics, over 1.38 million voters in the state are registered as either a Democrat or Republican, more than 39,000 belong to a third party, and over a million are unaffiliat­ed.

The Independen­t Party has held statewide enrollment privileges since 2008. The party as Connecticu­t knows it today, originated in Waterbury in 2003, but the history of Independen­ts in the state dates back much further.

Lisa Brinton, the town chair for the Independen­t Party of Norwalk, said that Norwalk’s first female mayor, Jennie Cave, was elected as an Independen­t in 1975.

“The term Independen­t has meaning to the average voter,” said Brinton. “We advocate for something currently lost with the two-party system — moderation in an increasing­ly polarized world.”

Brinton suggested that instead of taking a “sledgehamm­er” to the Independen­t name, Connecticu­t could make a clerical revision to its voter registrati­on form by adding the options of “Independen­t” and “unaffiliat­ed voter.”

John Mertens, a professor at Trinity College who has been involved with the party since 2006, agreed.

“Our voter registrati­on form is poorly designed and it’s easily fixed,” Mertens said.

He also emphasized the importance of educating new voters about the difference between Independen­t and unaffiliat­ed.

“That is the job of the Secretary of the State’s Office (to) continuous­ly educate the voters so they understand that you’re registerin­g for a party when you write Independen­t Party on your voter registrati­on form,” Mertens said.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States