Researcher: JP Page 1 4/22/21
OLR Bill Analysis
sSB 820
AN ACT CONCERNING A STATE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
SUMMARY
§§ 1 & 2 – PROHIBITION ON DENYING OR ABRIDGING THE VOTING
RIGHTS OF PROTECTED CLASS INDIVIDUALS
Prohibits the enactment or implementation of a voting prerequisite, statute, ordinance,
regulation, or other law on election administration, or any related standard, practice,
procedure, or policy that denies or abridges the right to vote for a protected class
individual
§ 3 – STATEWIDE ELECTIONS INFORMATION DATABASE
Establishes a statewide information database to help (1) evaluate whether, and to what
extent, current election laws and practices are consistent with the bill; (2) implement best
practices; and (3) investigate voting rights infringement
§ 4 – LANGUAGE-RELATED ASSISTANCE
Requires municipalities to provide language-related assistance in voting and elections to
single-language minority groups comprising a minimum threshold of voting-age residents
§ 5 – PRECLEARANCE OF COVE RED POLICIES BY COVERED
JURISDICTIONS
Subjects “covered jurisdictions” to preclearance by the attorney general or Superior
Court before enacting or implementing certain election-related actions or policies
§ 6 – ACTS OF INTIMIDATION, DECEPTION, OR OBSTRUCTION
Prohibits acts of intimidation, deception, or obstruction affecting the exercise of one’s
voting rights
BACKGROUND
SUMMARY
This bill generally codifies into state law several aspects of the
federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA,” see BACKGROUND) which
banned discrimination in voting and elections and established a
mechanism for certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination
against racial and language minorities to seek preapproval before
changing their election laws. 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 2 4/22/21
The bill prohibits the following from being enacted or implemented
in a way that denies or abridges the right to vote of a protected class
individual: (1) a qualification for elector eligibility or other voting
prerequisite; (2) a statute, ordinance, regulation, or other law regarding
election administration; or (3) a related standard, practice, procedure,
or policy. Under the bill, a “protected class individual” refers to
members of a race, color, or language minority group as described in
the federal VRA. The bill also authorizes the attorney general and
certain parties aggrieved due to a violation to file a civil action in state
Superior Court.
It establishes a statewide information database at UConn to help (1)
evaluate whether, and to what extent, election laws and practices are
consistent with the bill’s provisions; (2) implement best practices in
election administration to further the bill’s purposes; and (3)
investigate potential infringements upon voting rights.
Like the federal VRA, the bill requires municipalities to provide
language-related assistance in voting and elections if members of a
single-language minority group make up a minimum threshold of the
municipality’s voting-age residents. It also subjects certain jurisdictions
(“covered jurisdictions”) to preclearance by the attorney general or
Superior Court before enacting or implementing certain elections
policies or requirements (a “covered policy”). The bill authorizes court
action to prevent enacting or implementing a covered policy without
this preclearance and to seek sanctions against the covered jurisdiction
involved.
The bill prohibits any person from engaging in acts of intimidation,
deception, or obstruction that affect the exercise of one’s voting rights.
It allows certain aggrieved parties and the attorney general to file an
action in Superior Court to civilly enforce its provisions and makes
violators liable for damages. The bill also authorizes the attorney
general, in any associated action or investigation and in accordance
with ordinary civil procedure rules, to examine witnesses; receive oral
and documentary evidence; determine material facts; and issue
subpoenas (§ 7). 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 3 4/22/21
Lastly, the bill authorizes the Superior Court to award reasonable
attorney’s fees and litigation costs to a prevailing party, except the
state or a municipality, that filed an action to enforce the bill’s
provision. A prevailing party that did not file the action cannot receive
reasonable attorney’s fees or costs unless the court finds the action is
frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation (§ 8).
In general, under existing law, the secretary of the state administers,
interprets, and implements election laws and ensures fair and
impartial elections, and the State Elections and Enforcement
Commission has broad authority for enforcement of election laws (see
BACKGROUND).
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2022, except the preclearance
provisions are effective January 1, 2023.
§§ 1 & 2 – PROHIBITION ON DENYI NG OR ABRIDGING THE
VOTING RIGHTS OF PRO TECTED CLASS INDIVIDUALS
Prohibits the enactment or implementation of a voting prerequisite, statute, ordinance,
regulation, or other law on election administration, or any related standard, practice,
procedure, or policy that denies or abridges the right to vote for a protected class
individual
The bill prohibits any qualification for elector eligibility or other
voting prerequisite, statute, ordinance, regulation, or other law
regarding election administration, or any related standard, practice,
procedure, or policy, from being enacted or implemented in a manner
that denies or abridges a protected class individual’s right to vote. The
bill specifies that a violation includes impairing these electors’ ability
to elect their chosen candidates or to otherwise influence the elections’
outcome, based on the totality of the circumstances, which is a legal
standard that considers all relevant facts and circumstances rather than
specific factors.
Prohibited Election Methods
The bill specifically prohibits an election method from impairing
protected class electors’ ability to elect their chosen candidates or
otherwise influence election outcomes by abridging their right to vote
or diluting their vote as follows: 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 4 4/22/21
1. a municipality with an at-large election method in which:
a. voting patterns of protected class electors are racially
polarized (i.e., their preferred candidate or electoral choice
differs from that of all other electors); or
b. based on the totality of the circumstances, these electors’
ability to elect their chosen candidates or otherwise influence
election outcomes is impaired; and
2. a municipality with a district-based or alternative election
method (i.e., other than at-large or district-based), in which
protected class electors’ preferred candidates or electoral
choices would usually be defeated and
a. voting patterns of protected class electors are racially
polarized or
b. based on the totality of the circumstances, the ability of these
electors to elect their chosen candidates or otherwise
influence election outcomes is impaired.
Additionally, a municipality’s use of race, color, language minority
group, or any characteristic that serves as a proxy for these for
districting or redistricting purposes presumptively constitutes a
violation. But a municipality may rebut the presumption by showing
that the use was only to the extent necessary to comply with the bill’s
provisions, the federal VRA, or the state or federal constitutions.
Under the bill, an “at-large method of election” is a method of
electing candidates to the municipality’s legislative body (1) in which
all candidates are voted upon by all electors of the municipality; (2) in
which, for municipalities divided into districts, a candidate for any
district must reside in that district, and all candidates for all districts
are voted upon by all electors of the municipality; or (3) that combines
these two methods with a district-based election method.
A “district-based method of election” is a method of electing
candidates to a municipality’s legislative body in which, for 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 5 4/22/21
municipalities divided into districts, a candidate for any district must
reside; and only the candidates for that district are voted upon by that
district’s electors.
Under the bill, a “municipality” is a town, city, or borough (whether
consolidated or unconsolidated), school district, or district authorized
under state law. The “legislative body” is a municipality’s board of
alderman, council, board of burgesses, board of education, district
committee, association committee, or other similar body as applicable.
Initiating Court Action
The bill authorizes the attorney general and the following aggrieved
parties to file an action in Superior Court for an alleged violation: (1)
an aggrieved person or organization whose membership includes or
likely includes aggrieved persons and (2) an organization whose
mission would be frustrated by or require expended resources to
fulfill, due to an alleged violation. These parties must file in a Superior
Court with jurisdiction over the municipality’s location.
Notification Letter Prior to Filing Action
Before filing the court action against a municipality for an alleged
violation described above, the bill requires an aggrieved party to send
by certified mail, return receipt requested, a notification letter to the
municipality’s clerk. The letter must assert that the municipality may
be in violation of the bill’s provisions. It prohibits the party from filing
an action earlier than 50 days after sending this letter.
Municipal Resolution to Remedy Violation
Prior to receiving a notification letter, or within 50 days after a
notification letter is sent to a municipality, the municipality’s body
may pass a resolution to (1) affirm the municipality’s intention to enact
and implement a remedy for a potential violation; (2) provide specific
measures the municipality will take to obtain approval and
implementation of the remedy; and (3) provide a schedule for enacting
and implementing the remedy.
The bill further prohibits an aggrieved party from filing a court 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 6 4/22/21
action earlier than 90 days after the legislative body passes this
resolution.
Under state law, if a municipal legislative body lacks authority to
enact or implement a remedy identified in any resolution within 90
days after its passage, or if the municipality is a covered jurisdiction
under the bill, then its legislative body may, upon passing the
resolution, hold at least one public hearing on any proposed remedy to
the potential violation. Before the hearing the municipality may do
public outreach, including to language minority communities, to
encourage input.
The legislative body may approve any proposed remedy that
complies with the bill and submit it to the attorney general for
approval (see below).
Agreement Between Municipality and Aggrieved Party
The bill allows a municipality that passed a resolution to enter into
an agreement with an aggrieved party who sent a notification letter, so
long as the (1) party will not file an action before 90 days after entering
into the agreement and (2) municipality either enacts and implements
a remedy that complies with the bill’s provisions or passes a resolution
and submits it to the attorney general. If the party declines to enter into
an agreement, it may file an action at any time.
Attorney General Approval
The bill requires the attorney general to approve or reject the
proposed remedy within 60 days after its submission by the
municipality. But if he does not act on it within this time period, the
bill prohibits it from being enacted or implemented.
The attorney general may only approve the proposed remedy if he
concludes that the municipality may violate the bill’s requirements and
the proposed remedy:
1. would address any potential violation,
2. is unlikely to violate the Connecticut Constitution or federal 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 7 4/22/21
law,
3. will not diminish the ability of protected class electors to
participate in the political process and elect their preferred
candidates, and
4. is feasible to implement.
If approved, the bill requires the proposed remedy to be enacted
and implemented immediately. If the municipality is a covered
jurisdiction, then it does not have to get the proposed remedy
precleared (see below).
If the attorney general denies the proposed remedy, then it cannot
be enacted or implemented. In addition, he must give his objections
and explain the basis for the denial and may recommend another
proposed remedy that he would approve.
Cost Reimbursement
Under the bill, if a municipality enacts or implements a remedy or
the attorney general approves a proposed remedy, then an aggrieved
party who sent a notification letter may submit a municipal
reimbursement claim for the costs associated with producing and
sending the letter. The party must (1) submit this claim in writing
within 30 days after the remedy’s enactment, implementation, or
approval and (2) substantiate it with financial documentation,
including a detailed invoice for any demography services or analysis
of voting patterns in the municipality.
Upon receipt of a claim, the municipality may ask for additional
financial documentation if the provided information is insufficient to
substantiate the costs. The bill requires the municipality to reimburse
the party for reasonable costs claimed or for an amount to which the
party and municipality agree, except it caps the total reimbursement
amount to all involved parties, other than the attorney general, at
$43,000, adjusted to any change in the consumer price index for all
urban consumers. If a party and municipality fail to agree to a
reimbursement amount, either one may file an action in Superior 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 8 4/22/21
Court for a declaratory ruling on the matter.
Superior Court Determination
In determining whether a violation occurred, the bill authorizes the
Superior Court in the jurisdiction where the municipality is located to
consider the extent to which protected class electors (1) have been
elected to office in the state or the municipality of the alleged violation
and (2) vote at lower rates than all other electors in the state or that
municipality.
Additionally, in determining whether (1) there are racially polarized
voting patterns of protected class electors in a municipality or (2) a
protected class electors’ preferred candidates or electoral choices
would usually be defeated, the Superior Court must find the
following:
1. elections held before the action’s filing are more probative (i.e.,
tending to prove or disprove a point in issue) than elections
conducted after the filing;
2. evidence about elections for members of the municipal
legislative body are more probative than evidence about
elections for other municipal officials; and
3. statistical evidence is more probative than nonstatistical
evidence.
Under the bill, two or more protected classes of electors that are
proven by evidence to be politically cohesive in the municipality may
be combined. It does not require the court to find evidence about
electors’, elected officials’, or municipality’s intent to discriminate
against protected class electors. In addition, the bill prohibits the court
from considering the following evidence in making its determination:
1. voting patterns and election outcomes explanations other than
racially polarized voting, including partisanship;
2. different voting patterns of subgroups of protected class 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 9 4/22/21
electors;
3. whether protected class electors are geographically compact or
concentrated; and
4. projected changes in population or demographics (but the bill
allows evidence of both to be used to remedy the violation).
In determining whether, based on the totality of the circumstances,
the ability of protected class electors to elect their chosen candidates or
otherwise influence elections’ outcomes is impaired, the bill allows the
Superior Court to consider the following:
1. the municipality’s or state’s history of discrimination;
2. the extent to which protected class electors have been elected to
municipal office;
3. the municipality’s use of any elector eligibility qualification or
other voting prerequisite; statute, ordinance, regulation, or other
law on election administration; or any related standard, practice,
procedure or policy that may enhance dilutive effects of its
election method;
4. denial of access of protected class electors or candidates to
election administration or campaign finance processes that
determine which candidates will receive ballot access or financial
or other support in a given election in the municipality;
5. the extent to which protected class individuals in the
municipality make campaign expenditures at lower rates than all
other individuals in the municipality;
6. the extent to which protected class electors in the municipality or
state vote at lower rates than all other electors in the
municipality or state, as applicable;
7. the extent to which protected class individuals in the
municipality are disadvantaged in education, employment, 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 10 4/22/21
health, criminal justice, housing, land use, environmental
protection, or other areas that may hinder their ability to
participate effectively in the political process;
8. use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns in the
municipality;
9. a significant lack of responsiveness by elected municipal officials
to the particular needs of protected class individuals; and
10. whether the municipality has a compelling policy reason for
using its particular election method or ordinance, regulation, or
other law on election administration or related standard,
practice, procedure, or policy.
The bill specifies that none of the above items may be dispositive or
required for finding that racially polarized voting exists. It also allows
the court to consider evidence of these items concerning the state,
private actors, or surrounding municipalities, but it makes that
evidence less probative than evidence concerning the municipality
itself.
Court Remedies
Under the bill, whenever the court finds a violation of the above
prohibited acts, it must order appropriately tailored remedies to
address the violation in the municipality, such as the following:
1. a district-based or an alternative election method;
2. new or revised districting or redistricting plans;
3. elimination of staggered elections so that legislative body
members are simultaneously elected;
4. an increase in the legislative body size;
5. additional voting hours or polling locations;
6. an order for special elections; requirements for expanded elector 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 11 4/22/21
admission opportunities and additional elector education; or
7. restoration or addition of people to registry lists.
The bill allows the court-ordered remedy only if it will not diminish
the ability of protected class electors to participate in the political
process and elect their preferred candidates or otherwise influence
election outcomes. It requires the court to consider remedies proposed
by any party to the action filed and other interested persons. The bill
prohibits the court from giving deference or priority to a
municipality’s proposed remedy.
Proposals After Letter or Court Filing
Under the bill, after receiving a notification letter or the filing of a
court action claim alleging a violation of the above actions or the
federal VRA, a municipality must have its legislative body take certain
actions, such as providing public input opportunities, in order to enact
and implement either a new method of election to replace an at-large
method or a new districting or redistricting plan.
Before drawing a draft districting or redistricting plan, or plans of
proposed district boundaries, the bill requires the municipality to hold
at least two public hearings within the prior 30-day period. It allows
the municipality to do public outreach before the hearings, including
to language minority communities, to explain the districting or
redistricting process and encourage input.
The bill requires the municipality to publish and make available for
public dissemination at least one draft districting or redistricting plan
or plans after they are drawn but at least seven days before a public
hearing on them. The information must include the potential election
sequence if the municipality’s legislative body members will be elected
to staggered terms under the plan.
The bill requires the municipality to hold at least two public
hearings within a maximum 45-day period. It must also publish and
make available for public dissemination any plan or plans revised at or
after the hearings at least seven days before adopting them. 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 12 4/22/21
In determining the elections’ sequence if the municipality’s
legislative body members would be elected for staggered terms under
any districting or redistricting plan or plans, the legislative body must
give special consideration to the bill’s purposes and consider
preferences expressed by the districts’ electors.
Preliminary Election Relief
Under the bill, an aggrieved party may seek preliminary relief for
an alleged violation in Superior Court concerning an upcoming regular
election by filing an action during the 120 days before the election. To
do so, the party must also send a notification letter to the municipality
no later than the court filing date. The bill allows the court to grant
relief if it determines that (1) the party is more likely than not to
succeed on the merits and (2) it is possible to implement an
appropriate remedy to resolve the alleged violation for the election.
If the action is withdrawn or dismissed as moot due to the
municipality enacting or implementing a remedy or the attorney
general approving a proposed remedy, then the party may only
submit a reimbursement claim for costs associated with the notification
letter.
§ 3 – STATEWIDE ELECTIONS INFORMATION DATABASE
Establishes a statewide information database to help (1) evaluate whether, and to what
extent, current election laws and practices are consistent with the bill; (2) implement best
practices; and (3) investigate voting rights infringement
The bill establishes a statewide information database at UConn to
help the state and any municipality (1) evaluate whether, and to what
extent, current election laws and practices are consistent with the bill’s
provisions; (2) implement best practices in election administration to
further the bill’s purposes; and (3) investigate a potential infringement
on the right to vote.
The bill requires the governor to appoint a director to operate the
database who must be a UConn faculty member with doctoral-level
expertise in demography, statistical analysis, and electoral systems. It
allows the (1) director to employ staff as necessary to implement and
maintain the database and (2) the director and his or her staff to 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 13 4/22/21
provide nonpartisan technical assistance to municipalities, researchers,
and the public on using database’s resources as described below.
Database Contents
Under the bill, the database must electronically maintain, for at least
the prior 12 years, the following minimum data and records:
1. estimates of total population, voting-age population, and citizen
voting-age population by race, color, and language minority
group, broken down annually to the municipal district level
based on information from the U.S. Census Bureau, including
from the American Community Survey (ACS), or information of
comparable quality collected by a similar governmental agency;
2. district level election results for each statewide and municipal
election;
3. contemporaneous registry lists and voter history files for each
election in each municipality;
4. contemporaneous maps, boundary descriptions, and similar
items in paper or electronic format for each district;
5. polling place locations, including associated district lists;
6. districting or redistricting plans for each election in each
municipality; and
7. any other information the director deems advisable to further
the bill’s purposes.
The bill requires each municipality to transmit the above listed
election-specific information (presumably to the database) in electronic
format after certifying election results and completing the post-election
voter history file. All data, estimates, or other information maintained
in the database must be published on UConn’s website, publicly
available at no cost, but it must not identify individual electors.
By February 28, 2022, and then triennially, the database director 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 14 4/22/21
must publish on UConn’s website and submit to the secretary of the
state (1) a list of municipalities required to provide assistance to
language minority groups (see below) and (2) the languages for which
they must provide the assistance. The secretary must then distribute
this information to each municipality. Under the bill, any prepared
estimate on race, color, or language minority group must be prepared
using the most advanced, peer-reviewed and validated methodologies.
The bill establishes a rebuttable presumption that the data,
estimates, or other information maintained by the database is valid in
any action due to the denial or abridgement of protected classes’
voting rights.
§ 4 – LANGUAGE-RELATED ASSISTANCE
Requires municipalities to provide language-related assistance in voting and elections to
single-language minority groups comprising a minimum threshold of voting-age residents
The bill requires a municipality to provide language-related
assistance in voting and elections if the statewide database director
(see above) determines, based on ACS information, that it has the
following:
1. greater than 2%, or more than 4,000 people, of its voting-age
population as members of a single-language minority group
who also speak English “less than very well” or
2. for a municipality with part of a Native American reservation,
more than 2% of the reservation’s Native American (i.e., anyone
recognized as “American Indian” by the U.S. Census Bureau)
voting-age citizens meeting these criteria.
Under the bill, these municipalities must provide voting materials in
English and in the language of each protected class (i.e., single-
language minority group) of an equal quality to the corresponding
English materials, including registration or voting notices, forms,
instructions, assistance, ballots, or other materials or information about
the electoral process. It exempts municipalities from providing these
materials to a protected class whose language is oral or unwritten,
instead allowing the municipality to only provide the information 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 15 4/22/21
orally.
The bill allows a municipality that must provide language
assistance to seek a declaratory judgment in the Superior Court for
permission to provide English-only materials. The court must decide
in the municipality’s favor if it finds that the director’s determination
was unreasonable or an abuse of discretion.
§ 5 – PRECLEARANCE OF COVE RED POLICIES BY COVE RED
JURISDICTIONS
Subjects “covered jurisdictions” to preclearance by the attorney general or Superior Court
before enacting or implementing certain election-related actions or policies
The bill subjects certain jurisdictions (“covered jurisdictions,” see
below) to preclearance by the attorney general or the Superior Court
where the jurisdiction is located before enacting or implementing
certain election or voting related actions or policies (“covered policies,”
see below). It authorizes the attorney general or an aggrieved party
under the bill to take court action to enjoin enacting or implementing a
covered policy without this preclearance and to seek sanctions. The bill
also allows the attorney general to adopt regulations to effectuate its
preclearance and look-back review provisions (see below).
Covered Policies
Under the bill, a “covered policy” subject to preclearance includes
any new or modified qualification for admission as an elector, voting
prerequisite, statute, ordinance, regulation, standard, practice,
procedure, or policy concerning:
1. districting or redistricting;
2. election method;
3. form of government;
4. annexation, incorporation, dissolution, consolidation, or division
of a municipality;
5. removal of individuals from registry lists or enrollment lists and
other activities concerning the lists; 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 16 4/22/21
6. admission of electors;
7. number, location, or hours of a polling place;
8. district assignment to polling place locations;
9. assistance offered to protected class individuals; or
10. any additional subject matter the attorney general identifies for
inclusion, pursuant to a regulation he adopts, if he determines
that it may have the effect of denying or abridging a protected
class elector’s right to vote.
Covered Jurisdictions
Under the bill, a “covered jurisdiction” is a municipality:
1. that, within the prior 25 years, was subject to a court order or
government enforcement action based on a finding of a
violation of the bill’s provisions, the federal VRA, a state or
federal civil rights law, or the U.S. Constitution’s 15th or 14th
Amendments concerning the right to vote or discrimination
against a protected class;
2. in which during the prior 10 years, based on data from the:
a. state criminal justice information systems, the combined
misdemeanor and felony arrest rate of any protected class
consisting of at least 1,000 voting-age citizens, or whose
members comprise at least 10% of the municipality’s voting-
age citizen population, exceeds the arrest rate of the entire
municipality’s voting-age citizen population by at least 20%
or
b. U.S. Census Bureau, the dissimilarity index (see
BACKGROUND) of any protected class consisting of at least
2,500 voting-age citizens, or whose members comprise at
least 10% of the municipality’s voting -age citizen
population, exceeds 50% with respect to white, non-Hispanic
voting-age citizens within the municipality; or 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 17 4/22/21
3. that, within the prior five years, failed to comply with its
obligations to provide data or information to the statewide
database (see above).
The bill does not specify who is responsible for determining which
jurisdictions are subject to preclearance, or how the jurisdictions are
informed of this determination.
Attorney General Preclearance
The bill allows a covered jurisdiction to submit to the attorney
general in writing a covered policy to obtain preclearance to adopt and
implement it. It deems the covered policy precleared if the attorney
general does not act on it within these timeframes:
1. within 30 days after receiving a covered policy on polling place
locations, except that he may preliminarily grant, and reserve
the right to subsequently deny, the preclearance within 60 days
after receiving it and
2. within 60 days after receiving any other covered policy, except
that he may extend this timeframe by 90 days, up to two times,
for any policy on implementing a district-based or alternative
election method; districting or redistricting plans; or a change to
a municipality’s form of government.
Before granting or denying the preclearance, the attorney general
must publish notice of the proceedings and provide an opportunity for
interested parties to submit written comments on the covered policy
and the determination (although the bill does not establish timeframes
for doing so). The bill allows the attorney general to grant preclearance
to a covered policy only if he determines that it will not diminish the
protected class electors’ ability to participate in the electoral process or
elect their preferred candidates.
The bill prohibits covered jurisdictions from enacting or
implementing a policy that is denied preclearance. If the attorney
general denies preclearance to a covered policy, then he must provide
the objections and explain the basis for denial. The bill allows any 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 18 4/22/21
denial to be appealed to Superior Court in accordance with the
Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, and the appeal must be
prioritized in trial assignment.
Superior Court Preclearance
Alternatively, the bill also allows a covered jurisdiction to seek
preclearance of a covered policy from the Superior Court. The covered
jurisdiction must submit the policy to the court in writing and
simultaneously give a copy of the submission to the attorney general.
Failing to provide the copy results in automatic denial.
Under the bill, the court must grant or deny the preclearance within
60 days after receiving the submission. It may grant preclearance only
if it determines that the policy will not diminish the protected class
electors’ ability to participate in the electoral process or elect their
preferred candidates.
As with an attorney general preclearance denial, if the court denies
preclearance or does not decide on it within 60 days, the covered
policy cannot be enacted or implemented. The bill allows a denial to be
appealed in accordance with the ordinary rules of appellate procedure,
and it must be prioritized in appeal assignment.
Attorney General Look-Back Review
The bill authorizes the attorney general to (1) conduct a look-back
review for a period of 120 days after the bill’s effective date (January 1,
2023 to April 30, 2023) and (2) deny preclearance to any covered policy
enacted by a covered jurisdiction between January 1, 2022, and January
1, 2023.
Under the bill, the look-back review begins when the attorney
general notifies a covered jurisdiction of his decision to review its
enacted or implemented covered policy. The covered jurisdiction must
submit the policy in writing within 30 days after receiving the notice.
The bill requires the attorney general to decide whether the covered
jurisdiction may further implement the policy within 90 days after the
submission. 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 19 4/22/21
Before deciding, the attorney general must publish notice of the
proceedings and provide an opportunity for interested parties to
submit written comments about the covered policy and the decision
(although the bill does not establish timeframes for doing so). He must
deny further implementation of the covered policy if he determines
that it is likely to diminish the protected class electors’ ability to
participate in the political process or elect their preferred candidates.
But the bill specifies that a denial is not a basis for invalidating an
election held under it.
When denying a previously enacted covered policy, the attorney
general must state the objections to it and explain the basis for denial.
The bill allows a covered policy denial during the look-back review to
be appealed to the Superior Court in accordance with the Uniform
Administrative Procedures Act, which must be prioritized for trial
assignment.
§ 6 – ACTS OF INTIMIDATION, DECEPTION, OR OBSTRUCTION
Prohibits acts of intimidation, deception, or obstruction affecting the exercise of one’s
voting rights
Prohibited Acts
The bill prohibits anyone, whether acting in an official
governmental capacity or otherwise, from engaging in intimidating,
deceptive, or obstructive acts that affect a voter’s right to exercise his
or her electoral privileges. Specifically, it bans acts of intimidation or
deception that cause or reasonably have the effect of causing an elector
to (1) vote or refrain from voting in general, (2) vote for or against a
particular candidate or question, (3) apply or not apply for admission
as an elector, or (4) apply or not apply for an absentee ballot.
The bill bans obstructive acts that cause or reasonably have the
effect of causing a delay in voting or the voting process, including
canvassing or tabulating ballots. Under the bill, these prohibited acts
are:
1. using or threatening to use force, violence, restraint, abduction
or duress; inflicting or threatening to inflict any injury, damage, 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 20 4/22/21
harm or loss; or any other type of intimidation;
2. using a deceptive or fraudulent device, contrivance or
communication that impedes, prevents, or otherwise interferes
with an elector’s electoral privileges or that causes or will
reasonably have the effect of causing an elector to (a) vote or
refrain from voting in general; (b) vote for or against a
particular candidate or question; (c) apply or not apply for
admission as an elector; or (d) apply or not apply for an
absentee ballot; or
3. obstructing, impeding, or otherwise interfering with (a) access
to a polling place or an election official’s office or (b) an elector
in any manner.
Court Action
The bill allows the Attorney General and the following parties to
bring an action in the Superior Court in the judicial district of the
alleged violation: (1) an aggrieved person or organization whose
membership includes or likely includes aggrieved persons and (2) an
organization whose mission would be frustrated by the violation or
would require expended resources to fulfill due to the violation.
The bill requires the court, when finding a violation of these
provisions, to order appropriately tailored remedies to address it, such
as additional time to vote at an election, primary, or referendum. It
makes violators of these provisions, and anyone who helps commit
them, liable for court-awarded damages, including nominal damages
and compensatory or punitive damages for willful violations.
Chapter 151 of the state’s election laws (Title 9) already details
prohibited acts and associated criminal penalties. For example,
influencing or attempting to influence an elector to stay away from an
election by force or threat, bribery, or corrupt, fraudulent, or
deliberately deceitful means is a class D felony, punishable by a fine of
up to $5,000, up to five years in prison, or both (CGS § 9-364).
BACKGROUND 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 21 4/22/21
Municipal Election Authority
Under longstanding Connecticut Supreme Court precedent,
municipalities have no inherent powers (see Windham Taxpayers
Association, et al. v. Board of Selectmen, the Town of Windham, et al. 234
Conn. 513 (1995)). Thus, for elections, municipalities may exercise only
the specific powers granted to them by the state constitution’s Home
Rule provision (Article Tenth) and state law (see CGS §§ 7-148 and 7-
187 to 7-194). Included in the statutorily enumerated powers are those
implied by the law’s express powers and those essential to accomplish
the municipality’s purpose, but neither give municipalities jurisdiction
over conducting elections.
Additionally, the law generally requires municipal elections to be
held and conducted like state elections (CGS § 9-228). However, some
state laws do give municipalities election-related authority. For
example, municipalities can determine whether to elect their officials
at-large or by districts, where to locate polling places, and whether to
change the number of voting precincts (see CGS §§ 9-168 & -169).
Dissimilarity Index
The dissimilarity index is the primary measure to assess residential
segregation. It represents the percentage of an area’s demographic
group needing to move to another area to achieve complete integration
for the area (i.e., how evenly distributed groups are across a larger
area), and ranges from zero (fully integrated) to one (fully segregated).
Secretary of the State
As the state’s commissioner of elections, the secretary of the state is
charged with administering, interpreting, and implementing election
laws and ensuring fair and impartial elections. Under the National
Voter Registration Act of 1993, the secretary has the same
responsibility for federal elections. She is also designated by the
Connecticut Constitution and general statutes as the official keeper of
many public records and documents, including the state’s online voter
registration system.
State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 22 4/22/21
SEEC has broad authority to, among other things, investigate
possible violations of election laws; refer evidence of violations to the
chief state’s attorney or the attorney general; levy civil penalties for
elections violations; issue advisory opinions; and make
recommendations to the General Assembly about revisions to the
state’s election laws (CGS §§ 9-7a to 9-7c).
Federal VRA
The federal VRA of 1965 generally
prohibits discrimination in voting to enforce rights guaranteed to racial
or language minorities by the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.
Section 5 of the act is a preclearance requirement, which prohibits
certain jurisdictions (determined by a formula prescribed in Section 4)
from implementing any change affecting voting without receiving
preapproval from the U.S. attorney general or the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia. Another provision requires jurisdictions
with significant language minority populations to
provide bilingual ballots and other election materials.
The VRA originally scheduled Section 5 to expire after five years
and applied it to jurisdictions with protected class voter registration or
turnout rates below 50% in 1964 and “devices,” like literacy tests, to
discourage them from voting. On renewal, the law used data from
1968 and 1972 and defined a “device” to include English-only ballots
in places where at least 5% of voting-age citizens spoke a single
language other than English. Jurisdictions free of voting discrimination
for 10 years could be released from coverage by a court, as was the
case in Groton, Mansfield, and Southbury, Connecticut.
Shelby County v. Holder
In Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), the U.S. Supreme
Court struck down the federal VRA’s coverage formula (Section 4),
which determined the covered jurisdictions subject to preclearance
requirements. (It applied to nine states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia — 2021SB-00820-R000590-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 23 4/22/21
and many counties and municipalities in other states, including
Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx.)
Congress had most recently extended the law in 2006 for 25 years,
but continued to use data from the 1975 reauthorization to
determine covered jurisdictions. The Court found that using this data
made the formula no longer responsive to current needs and therefore
an impermissible burden on federalism and state sovereignty.
Although the Court did not also strike down Section 5, it is
unenforceable without Section 4’s coverage formula. Thus, changes in
voting procedures in jurisdictions previously covered by the VRA are
now subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
COMMITTEE ACTION
Government Administration and Elections Committee
Joint Favorable
Yea 13 Nay 6 (04/05/2021)