Connecticut does not need voting police. Now or ever.

Our most essential freedoms require constant vigilance. Six state legislators want to transform the right to vote into the obligation to vote. As with so many proposals wrapped in their notion of coercive virtue, the legislation reveals more about its advocates than they intended.

One of them, state Rep. Josh Elliott, a Hamden Democrat, wrote an opinion piece defending the intrusive measure. Elliott pays homage to the commandment that we must live our lives deeply enmeshed in the life of the government. “Civic engagement,” as the bill he proposed calls it, is not voluntary. Vote or be punished.

Elliott noted that no one would go to jail for failing to vote but the bill’s sponsors “are looking for a sea change in how we approach our democracy.” Most people understand democracy just fine. No “sea change” required.

Andy Craig is an election policy scholar whose work has appeared in media outlets along a cast spectrum from the right to the left. “His analysis and recommendations for reforming the Electoral Count Act have been cited by members of both parties” in the House and Senate, according to his online biography at the Rainey Center. Craig is the director of election policy at the Washington think tank “where women, minorities, and mavericks come for leadership development, policy research, and a sense of community.”

“Mandatory voting is unconstitutional. There’s no serious question about that under longstanding First Amendment precedents,” Craig wrote in response to an inquiry from me about the proposed Connecticut law.

“The state cannot force citizens to profess their faith in democracy by compelling a speech act like voting, just like the state cannot force citizens to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or perform other patriotic rituals. There is a long history of conscientious non-voters in the United States who chose to abstain for sincere philosophical, religious, and political reasons, as is their right,” he wrote.

“Mandatory voting is a deeply un-American, illiberal, and regressive idea,” Craig continued. “Legislators should emphatically reject it and if they don’t, the courts rightly will.” He also noted, “It is particularly absurd for selfstyled progressives to advocate a system of enforcement and fines that would inevitably fall disproportionately on lower-income families, and would violate the First Amendment in the process.” The price extracted from adults with the least amount of money has at last dawned on Elliott, who now recognizes that fines “would be more punitive to those of lesser means, and that will need to be a prevalent aspect of the conversation.”

Terry Cowgill, a columnist for CTNewsjunkie.com, reviewed some studies on what causes people not to vote. Common themes, Cowgill wrote, include the belief that their vote does not count — not unreasonable in a one-party state like Connecticut with among the most anti-democratic ballot access laws in the nation. Legislators could address that in all sorts of ways that allow more candidates a crack at winning office.

There’s also the grim feeling among citizens that the system is rigged beyond the power of a vote to change. The theme that only the connected can advance in life is repeated by both major parties.

Sowing suspicion and resentment is a calling card of partisans from Republican Donald Trump to Democrat Elizabeth Warren.

This bill revealed how remote lawmakers can be from the practical work of government. The coercive voting proposal would require elections officials to contact voters who failed to vote in an election and tell them to provide a reason. In 2021’s municipal elections, 32% of the state’s 2.2 million voters cast a ballot. Under the proposed mandatory voting law, 1.5 million state residents would have to provide an explanation that is no one’s business, or pay a fine.

In 2021, Hartford held an election for three seats on its Board of Education. About 3,000 of the city’s voters participated. There are more than 64,000 registered voters in Hartford. Ponder the number of voting police it would take just in one city to contact and threaten with a fine 61,000 voters — and then weigh and judge government’s intrusion into their lives by deciding if their excuse is sufficient. You do not need to close your eyes to picture the nightmare.

Government in a free nation serves a purpose greater than compiling a never-ending list of rules we must obey. It creates the conditions for opportunity to thrive by free men and women cultivating their talents and leading satisfying lives. Persuasion and experience — as well as the right to make mistakes — are vital. Soiling a constitutional right to silence is not.