Bungled communication sowed absentee ballot confusion

Secretary of the State Denise Merrill’s office issued confusing and contradictory opinions that sowed confusion among town clerks handling thousands of absentee ballot applications ahead of the Nov. 2 local elections.

The wider use of absentee ballots during the COVID-19 pandemic has added to the responsibilities of the state’s mighty fortress of town clerks. So have changes in how voters get those ballots. Some political parties print partially completed ballot applications for their likely supporters and send them to them by mail. The law requires that any person assisting in that application sign the ballot as an assister.

But the definition of “signature” caused weeks of uncertainty in the election process.

Full marks go to Newington Town Clerk James Krupienski for spotting and reporting irregularities in absentee ballot requests arriving at his office. Connecticut requires that anyone assisting a voter in requesting or completing an absentee ballot to disclose his role.

Krupienski noticed in early October that dozens of ballot applications included the printed signature of the local Democratic Party chairman on them as the person assisting the voter. Krupienski had attended a conference of town clerks in late September in which a representative from Merrill’s office repeatedly stressed that absentee ballot applications must include the “wet” signature of the person assisting the voter with the application. That means a person had to actually sign the application.

Krupienski said in a phone interview Thursday that the instruction from Democrat Merrill’s office was clear and repeated during an August PowerPoint presentation to town clerks. The applications his office were receiving, though, did not appear to meet that requirement. Krupienski properly notified the State Election Enforcement Commission (SEEC). The SEEC, as its name announces, has jurisdiction over violations of the state’s election laws.

Other town clerks were noticing the same pattern. In addition to the absence of “wet” signatures, the ballots were coming from local Democratic campaign organizations that had hired the same consultant, Blue Edge Strategies. Much of the information on applications had been printed on them not by the voter, but by the local Democratic Party.

Local political parties making a mess of absentee ballots impales town clerks on the horns of a dilemma. They want voters to vote, but must also fulfill their obligation to make sure each ballot application meets the requirements of the law, which are not complicated.

Merrill’s office knew of the growing absentee ballot mess. Theodore Bromley, Director of Elections for Merrill’s office, had advised Michael Farina, a Democratic campaign consultant, in an Aug. 9 email that a digital signature for the absentee ballot assister was permissible.

“Digital is fine,” Bromley wrote.

But as more town clerks began to raise concerns about the ballot applications, Bromley, the former chairman of Hebron’s Democratic town committee, admonished

Farina in an Oct. 4 message that he was seeing applications with names in a Microsoft script, as opposed to a digital facsimile of an actual signature. Confusion with a significant helping of fear spread among local Democratic politicos.

The fine for violating absentee ballot laws can be as much as $2,000 per incident. Multiply that by, say, 1,000 improperly filled in ballot applications that a party sends to voters and a local party leader gets nervous.

In an Oct. 14 letter, Bromley initiated an extraordinary intervention in response to “recent news reports” about the ballot applications. He wrote to the SEEC to explain that a “miscommunication” had occurred over the application requirements. “This miscommunication should not affect the voters of Connecticut.”

It now appears the town clerks will honor the applications, but the decision on whether to investigate the boondoggle rests not Merrill’s office, but the SEEC.

The SEEC is an independent agency for a reason. We do not want complaints of election violations investigated by political partisans. The SEEC does not take instruction from Merrill’s office. If complaints are filed, the SEEC will decide if the secretary of state’s office can provide pertinent information. Bromley concluded his Oct. 14 letter to SEEC executive director Michael Brandi with a paean to voting.

“Our most important consideration is that every eligible voter is able to cast their ballot conveniently and safely in the manner of their choosing.”

Specific, clear absentee ballot rules overseen by our trusty town clerks are one reason absentee ballot fraud is so rare in Connecticut. Merrill’s office has put the public’s confidence at risk in this high season of demagogues who relish attacking our democratic institutions.

We ask much of our town clerks and they perform with distinction, but we cannot expect them alone to confront the poison of doubt.

Specific, clear absentee ballot rules overseen by our trusty town clerks are one reason absentee ballot fraud is so rare in Connecticut.