The state legislature approved a number of updates to state election laws in a sweeping, fast-tracked bill that Democratic majority leaders ushered to passage last week over objections of the Republican minority. The legislation now awaits action by Gov. Ned Lamont.
The legislation prohibits the use of voter registration information the secretary of the state's office and local registrars of voters collect and maintain for personal, private or commercial purposes. That includes information for advertising, marketing, selling or soliciting products or services. Among other things, the protected personal information includes the names, addresses, birth dates and certain identification numbers of voters.
There also are prohibitions on the reproduction or display of protected voter information in any format, including print, digital and visual or audio broadcast media. The State Elections Enforcement Commission would be authorized under Senate Bill 298 to impose a civil penalty of $2,000 per violation.
The bill also prohibits the use of protected information to harass any voter or voter's household. Violations would be considered second-degree harassment. The misdemeanor offense is punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $500. In addition, a court may order any person convicted of this crime to be examined by one or more psychiatrists.
The legislation permits the use of voter registration information for election-related, scholarly, journalistic, political or governmental purposes.
Another privacy provision only allows disclosure of the birth year from a voter’s date of birth. It includes an exception for state government and requires the full birth date to be disclosed for governmental purposes. Under current law, the month and year may be provided, with the full birth date available for any governmental purpose.
The legislation authorizes the secretary of the state to adopt regulations concerning the use of voter information.
Preserving Ballot Secrecy
Another election-related section of the omnibus bill generally exempts ballots cast in any election, primary or referendum from disclosure under the state's open records law. Vote totals, audits, recounts and court review remain fully public under existing law.
The proposed revision addresses a July 2025 ruling of the state Freedom of Information Commission that directed the town of Colchester to disclose ballots cast at a stand-alone municipal budget referendum. The FOIC reaffirmed its order in November after the secretary of the state's office had moved to have the commission reconsider its original decision.
The FOIC directed the town to provide former Colchester Selectman Jason LaChappelle requested copies of sample ballots and in-person ballots that voters filled out for a 2024 budget referendum. The order allowed town officials to redact any personally identifying information from the requested in-person ballots.
The commission ruling found different election laws applied to local referenda, and regular and special state or municipal elections. While the law governing regular and special elections exempted those ballots from disclosure, there was no such exemption in the law governing local referenda, and the ruling said the commission could not read one into the law. The proposed legislative fix in Senate Bill 298 exempts ballots, including write-in ballots, cast at an election, primary or referendum.
Legislators on the Government Administration and Elections Committee received opposing testimony from FOIC Executive Director Colleen Murphy and Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas on a Senate bill proposing this change days before the House and Senate votes to approve the omnibus bill.
Thomas testified the proposed exemption in Senate Bill 226 does not limit transparency of election results or oversight of election procedures. She also argued the secrecy of the ballot is foundational to voter confidence, and to keeping elections free from intimidation and coercion. Instead of creating a wholesale exemption to disclosure, Murphy advocated that the committee consider shielding only personally identifying information from ballots cast at municipal referenda, as the commission directed in its final November decision.
Thomas and Murphy also submitted opposing testimony on another section of that same Senate bill that proposed to only list the birth year from a voter’s date of birth.
Murphy told the committee this change would undo a longstanding compromise concerning what voter information must be publicly accessible, and the legislature previously has rejected this approach on more than one occasion. She noted dates of birth are necessary to determine voter eligibility and to guard against voter fraud. She also said a date of birth is an important identifier when more than one person with the same name appears on voter lists. Thomas argued that protecting voter privacy and maintaining election integrity are not in conflict, and the proposed restriction safeguards personal information of voters without limiting lawful oversight or legitimate election-related review.
The provision on ballot disclosure in the omnibus bill does not affect ability to conduct a recanvass or a post-election audit to determine the accuracy of vote-tabulating machines. But another section of that bill proposes to revise recanvassing procedures.
Other New Election Rules Proposed
A recanvass or recount of the vote generally takes place when there is a discrepancy, close vote or tie. Under current law, within three days of an election, polling place moderators must initiate a recount if it appears there are discrepancies in a voting district’s returns. The legislation would require recanvassing of all voting districts when a discrepancy occurs, not just the district with the discrepancy.
Current law permits a moderator to order the removal of a person causing disorder that interferes in a recount if the individual refusals to follow the moderator's lawful authority. This includes if the person is attempting to communicate with a recanvass official other than the moderator. The legislation proposes to expand the reasons for possible removal to include attempting to communicate with the moderator. But it would permit political parties and candidates if there are multiple candidates from the same party to select a representative who may communicate directly with the moderator during the recanvass.
The legislation also authorizes the secretary of the state to seek a declaratory judgment in state Superior Court to address potential violations or procedural issues under the state’s election laws if voters file a complaint within 90 days before an election or primary. A court’s ruling would provide clear direction on what must occur to correct the issue and help ensure that no voter is disenfranchised due to procedural errors. This preventative provision is intended to resolve issues before they impact voters.
Another provision of the bill requires election moderators to maintain a log of absentee ballots that were rejected due to the voter failing to sign the inner envelope containing the ballot; or due to a voter registering to vote by absentee ballot for the first time after failing to meet federal identification requirements at the time of registration.
Under the bill, the rejected absentee ballot log must note the specific reason for the rejection, and moderators must send the log to the secretary of the state's office when they electronically transmit voting results.
The legislation proposes to make another change that requires city and town clerks to file all official election and primary ballots with the secretary of the state's office for approval at least 10 days before the early voting period for an election begins. The legislation prohibits using any of these ballots unless they have been approved. Current law requires municipalities to file a sample election ballot 10 days before an early voting period.
Existing law also requires municipal clerks to file an absentee ballot with the secretary of the state after these ballots are printed. The bill would require this filing before absentee ballots are printed, and the absentee ballots may not be printed or used unless they have been approved. As under current law, these provisions do not prohibit the secretary from ordering actions he or she deems appropriate for election or absentee ballots in case of any ballot errors or omissions.
© 2026 Journal Inquirer, Manchester, Conn.. Visit www.journalinquirer.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
