Connecticut lawmakers take first steps toward passing bill calling for cameras at polls

HARTFORD, Conn. – State lawmakers took the first steps Friday to tighten mail voting laws since video last year captured people placing reams of ballots in collection boxes in one town, creating a “black eye” for Connecticut and fueling skepticism in some circles about US election security.

Mandatory surveillance cameras at absentee ballot boxes and improved vote tracking, as well as new protections for election officials, are among the changes proposed in a bill that was easily approved in the House of Representatives.

Democrats and Republicans said Friday that it was important to pass legislation that would increase public confidence in state elections, although no one has yet been charged in connection with alleged voting irregularities in Bridgeport’s September mayoral primary — the results of which were thrown out by a judge.

“This episode has been a black eye for the city, the state and the vast, vast majority of election officials, candidates and campaign workers in this state who follow our laws with the utmost integrity and competence,” said Democratic Rep. Matt Blumenthal . he said. “This has revealed to us some gaps in our current laws and steps we can take to increase the security, transparency and overall integrity and public perception of the integrity of our elections.”

Blumenthal noted that so far there has been no evidence that any voter impersonated a voter or that their vote was manipulated in Bridgeport. Additionally, he said there has been no evidence to date that any false or erroneous ballots were “stuffed” into the ballot boxes. Several investigations are ongoing.

Although election security issues have led to bitter partisan fights in other states this year, Connecticut’s bill passed unanimously in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives. It now awaits final legislative action in the Democratic-controlled Senate. The session ends on May 8th.

The bill would require cities and towns, by July 1, 2025, to install a video camera for each absentee ballot box and make the footage available to the public. It also includes new measures to track where and when individual absentee ballots were collected and stricter procedures for obtaining absentee ballots.

There are also provisions to address dismissals on the electoral roll and accelerate the referral of potential criminal violations of electoral law to the appropriate authorities.

The bill also allows poll workers to request that their home addresses not be subject to open records requests for 90 days before and after an election — a measure intended to protect them from potential harassment. Anyone who revealed the worker’s address would face a misdemeanor charge under the legislation.

Republican Rep. Gale Mastrofrancesco criticized the bill for not going far enough, saying it should have included more measures to prevent voter fraud, such as requiring signature verification on absentee ballots. But she said Friday’s bill was a welcome first step.

“That’s good for after the fact. It’s a step in the right direction,” she said. “I don’t think this goes far enough. But again, this doesn’t hurt our elections.”

After narrowly losing to incumbent Democratic Mayor Joe Ganim in September, primary opponent John Gomes took public surveillance videos he received from city security cameras showing a Ganim supporter making several early morning trips to place absentee ballots in a collection box. In an apparent blatant violation of state law, Gomes successfully challenged the results in court and a new primary was ordered.

Ganim was finally re-elected in late February as mayor of Connecticut’s most populous city after a messy race that included a new primary election, a general election that didn’t count and a new general election.

The scandal became a national talking point when surveillance videos from drop boxes were made public for the first time, fueling skepticism about U.S. election security as well as conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 presidential election, even when election experts say what happened in Bridgeport is unique to the city and should not be seen as evidence of widespread problems.