Researcher: JP Page 1 4/13/22
OLR Bill Analysis
sSB 471
AN ACT CONCERNING ELECTIONS AND STATE VOTING RIGHTS.
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.
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) an ordinance, regulation, or other election
administration law; or (3) a related standard, practice, procedure, or
policy. Under the bill, a “protected class” is a class of citizens who are
members of a race, color, or language minority group as referenced in
the federal VRA. The bill also authorizes the secretary of the state (SOTS)
and certain parties aggrieved due to an alleged violation to file a civil
action in Superior Court.
It establishes a statewide information database in SOTS 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 (i.e., persons who are American Indian,
Asian American, Alaskan Natives, or of Spanish heritage) comprise a
minimum threshold of the municipality’s voting-age residents. It also 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 2 4/13/22
subjects certain jurisdictions (“covered jurisdictions”) to preclearance by
SOTS or the 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 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 State Elections Enforcement
Commission (SEEC) to file an action in Superior Court to civilly enforce
its provisions and makes violators liable for damages. The bill also
authorizes SEEC, in any associated action or investigation and under
ordinary civil procedure rules, to examine witnesses; receive oral and
documentary evidence; determine material facts; and issue subpoenas
(§ 7).
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 provisions. A
prevailing party that did not file the action cannot receive any costs
unless the court finds the action is frivolous, unreasonable, or without
foundation (§ 8).
In general, under existing law, SOTS administers, interprets, and
implements election laws and ensures fair and impartial elections, and
SEEC has broad authority to enforce election laws (see
BACKGROUND).
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2023 , except the preclearance
provisions are effective January 1, 2024.
§§ 1 & 2 — PROHIBITION ON DENYING OR ABRIDGING THE
VOTING RIGHTS OF PROTECTED CLASS INDIVIDUALS
The bill prohibits any qualification for elector eligibility or other
voting prerequisite, and any ordinance, regulation, or other law on
election administration, or any related standard, practice, procedure, or
policy, from being enacted or implemented in a way that denies or 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 3 4/13/22
abridges a protected class individual’s right to vote. It 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 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.
More specifically, it makes it a violation if:
1. in a municipality with an at-large election method,
a. racially polarized voting by protected class electors occurs
(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 or
2. in a municipality with a district-based or alternative election
method (e.g., ranked-choice voting, cumulative voting and
limited voting), protected class electors’ preferred candidates or
electoral choices would usually be defeated and
a. racially polarized voting by protected class electors occurs 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 needed to comply with the bill’s 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 4 4/13/22
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.
An “alternative method of election” is a method of electing
candidates to a municipal legislative body other than an at-large or a
district-based method of election, such as ranked-choice voting,
cumulative voting, and limited voting. However, it is unclear whether a
municipality may adopt an alternative method of election, as, for
example, CGS § 9-173 provides that, “Unless otherwise provided by
law, in all municipal elections a plurality of the votes cast shall be
sufficient to elect.”
A “district-based method of election” is a method of electing
candidates to a municipality’s legislative body in which, for
municipalities divided into districts, a candidate for a district must
reside in that district 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 SOTS 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 a violation. 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 5 4/13/22
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, the bill requires an aggrieved party to send a notification letter
to the municipality’s clerk by certified mail, return receipt requested.
The letter must assert that the municipality may be in violation of the
bill’s provisions. The bill prohibits the party from filing an action earlier
than 50 days after sending this letter.
Municipal Resolution to Remedy Violation
Before receiving a notification letter, or within 50 days after a
notification letter is sent to a municipality, the municipality’s legislative
body may pass a resolution to (1) affirm the municipality’s intent to
enact and implement a remedy for a potential violation, (2) provide
specific measures the municipality will take to obtain approval of and
implement the remedy, and (3) provide a schedule for enacting and
implementing the remedy.
The bill further prohibits an aggrieved party from filing a court action
before 90 days after the legislative body passes this resolution.
If under state law 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 must conduct 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 SOTS 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 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 6 4/13/22
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 SOTS. If the party declines to enter into an agreement,
it may file an action at any time.
SOTS Approval
The bill requires SOTS to approve or reject the proposed remedy
within 60 days after its submission by the municipality. The secretary
must do so regardless of the state’s election laws or any special act,
charter, or home rule ordinance. But if she does not act on it within this
period, the bill prohibits the proposed remedy from being enacted or
implemented.
The secretary may only approve the proposed remedy if she
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 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 secretary denies the proposed remedy, then it cannot be enacted
or implemented. In addition, she must give her objections and explain
the basis for the denial and may recommend another proposed remedy
that she would approve.
Cost Reimbursement
Under the bill, if a municipality enacts or implements a remedy or 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 7 4/13/22
SOTS 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 receiving 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, but it caps the total reimbursement
amount to all involved parties, other than SOTS, 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 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 other electors in the state or that
municipality.
Additionally, in determining whether (1) racially polarized voting by
protected class electors in a municipality occurs or (2) a protected class
electors’ preferred candidates or electoral choices would usually be
defeated, the Superior Court must consider the following:
1. elections held before the action’s filing as more probative (i.e.,
tending to prove or disprove a point in issue) than elections
conducted afterward;
2. evidence about elections for members of the municipal legislative 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 8 4/13/22
body as more probative than evidence about elections for other
municipal officials; and
3. statistical evidence as more probative than nonstatistical
evidence.
Under the bill, the court may combine two or more protected classes
of electors that are proven by evidence to be politically cohesive in the
municipality. The bill prohibits the court from requiring evidence about
the electors’, elected officials’, or municipality’s intent to discriminate
against protected class electors. It also 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 electors;
3. whether protected class electors are geographically compact or
concentrated (but this may be used to remedy the violation); and
4. projected changes in population or demographics (but they may
also be used to remedy the violation).
In determining whether the ability of protected class electors to elect
their chosen candidates or otherwise influence elections’ outcomes is
impaired, based on the totality of the circumstances, the bill allows the
Superior Court to consider the following:
1. municipality’s or state’s history of discrimination;
2. extent to which protected class electors were elected to municipal
office;
3. municipality’s use of any (a) elector eligibility qualification or
other voting prerequisite; (b) statute, ordinance, regulation, or
other law on election administration; or (c) related standard,
practice, procedure, or policy that may enhance dilutive effects
of its election method; 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 9 4/13/22
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. extent to which protected class individuals in the municipality
make campaign expenditures at lower rates than other
individuals in the municipality;
6. extent to which protected class electors in the municipality or
state vote at lower rates than other electors in the municipality or
state, as applicable;
7. extent to which protected class individuals in the municipality
are disadvantaged in education, employment, 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 (a) election method; (b) ordinance, regulation,
or other law on election administration; or (c) related standard,
practice, procedure, or policy.
The bill specifies that none of the above items are 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, the court must order appropriately tailored remedies 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 10 4/13/22
when it finds a violation of the above prohibited acts, regardless of the
state’s election laws or any special act, charter, or home rule ordinance.
These remedies include 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 or requirements for (a) expanded
elector admission opportunities or (b) 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 filed action and other interested persons but
prohibits 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 alleging a violation of the above actions or the federal VRA,
a municipality must have its legislative body take certain actions. This
includes providing public input opportunities to enact and implement
either a new election method 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 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 11 4/13/22
at least two public hearings within the prior 30-day period. It requires
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.
In determining the elections’ sequence if the municipality’s
legislative body members would be elected for staggered terms under
any districting or redistricting plan, 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 in
Superior Court for an upcoming regular election held in a municipality
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 by the court
filing date. The bill requires 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 before the election.
If the action is withdrawn or dismissed as moot due to the
municipality enacting or implementing a remedy or SOTS approving a
proposed remedy, then the party may only submit a reimbursement
claim for costs associated with the notification letter (see above). 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 12 4/13/22
§ 3 — STATEWIDE ELECTIONS INFORMATION DATABASE
The bill establishes a statewide information database in the office of
the secretary of the state 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 secretary to designate an employee of her office
to serve as the database manager who is responsible for its operation.
This employee must hold an advanced degree from an accredited
college or university and have expertise in demography, statistical
analysis, and electoral systems. The bill allows (1) the manager to
manage staff as necessary to implement and maintain the database and
(2) SOTS to 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, at least the following 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; 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 13 4/13/22
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 secretary deems advisable to further
the bill’s purposes.
The bill requires each municipality to transmit the above listed
election-specific information 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 the SOTS website, publicly available at no cost, but it
must not identify individual electors.
Once the secretary is prepared to begin administering the database,
she must submit a report certifying this to the Government
Administration and Elections Committee. Within 90 days after this
certification, and then triennially, she must publish on the SOTS website
(1) a list of municipalities required to help language minority groups
(see below) and (2) the languages for which they must do it. 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 in the database is valid in any action
due to the denial or abridgement of protected classes’ voting rights.
§ 4 — LANGUAGE-RELATED ASSISTANCE
The bill requires a municipality to provide language-related
assistance in voting and elections if SOTS determines, based on ACS
information, that:
1. greater than 2%, or more than 4,000 people, of its voting-age
population are members of a single-language minority group
who speak English “less than very well” or 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 14 4/13/22
2. for a municipality with part of a Native American reservation in
it, 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 meet these criteria.
Under the bill, these municipalities must provide voting materials in
English and in the language of each language minority group (i.e.,
persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives,
or of Spanish heritage) 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. The bill exempts municipalities from providing these materials
to a language minority group whose language is oral or unwritten,
instead allowing the municipality to only provide the information
orally. It allows an elector belonging to a language minority group in a
municipality required to provide their group with assistance, to file an
action in Superior Court to enforce this requirement.
The bill allows a municipality that must provide language assistance
to seek a declaratory judgment from the Superior Court of the judicial
district where the municipality is located for permission to provide
English-only materials. The court must decide in the municipality’s
favor if it finds that the secretary’s determination was unreasonable or
an abuse of discretion.
§ 5 — PRECLEARANCE OF COVERED POLICIES BY COVERED
JURISDICTIONS
The bill subjects certain jurisdictions (“covered jurisdictions,” see
below) to preclearance by SOTS 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).
However, while preclearance is mandatory, the process for
municipalities to submit covered policies for this preclearance appears
to be discretionary, and thus contradicts the requirement.
The bill authorizes the secretary or an aggrieved party under the bill
to take court action to enjoin enacting or implementing a covered policy 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 15 4/13/22
without this preclearance and to seek sanctions. The bill also allows the
secretary 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, or an 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 or enrollment lists and other
activities concerning the lists;
6. admission of electors;
7. number, location, or hours of polling places;
8. district assignment to polling place locations;
9. assistance offered to protected class individuals; or
10. any additional subject matter the secretary identifies for
inclusion, under a regulation she adopts, if she determines that it
may have the effect of denying or abridging a protected class
elector’s right to vote.
However, municipalities do not have authority to establish policies
and procedure for many of these aspects of elections which are instead
set forth in the Connecticut Constitution, state laws, or are under SOTS
authority. For example, the qualifications for admission as an elector are
set forth in the state Constitution and Title 9 and only the General 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 16 4/13/22
Assembly has authority over the annexation, incorporation, dissolution,
or consolidation of a municipality (see BACKGROUND).
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
with at least 1,000 voting-age citizens, or whose members
comprise at least 10% of the municipality’s voting-age citizen
population, exceeded 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 with at least 2,500
voting-age citizens, or whose members comprise at least 10%
of the municipality’s voting-age citizen population, exceeded
50% with respect to white, non-Hispanic voting-age citizens;
or
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. 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 17 4/13/22
SOTS Preclearance
The bill allows, rather than requires, a covered jurisdiction to submit
to SOTS in writing a covered policy to obtain preclearance to adopt and
implement it. It deems the covered policy precleared if the secretary
does not act on it within these timeframes:
1. within 30 days after receiving a covered policy on polling place
locations, except that she 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 she may extend this timeframe by 90 days, up to two times,
for any policy to implement 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 secretary 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, presumably the secretary could do so through the
regulations). The bill allows the secretary to grant preclearance to a
covered policy only if she 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 secretary
denies preclearance to a covered policy, then she must provide the
objections and explain the basis for denial. The bill allows a denial to be
appealed to Superior Court in accordance with the Uniform
Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA), which must be prioritized in
trial assignment.
Superior Court Preclearance
Alternatively, the bill allows, rather than requires, a covered 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 18 4/13/22
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 SOTS.
Failing to provide this copy results in automatic denial. Despite copying
to the secretary, the bill gives the court exclusive jurisdiction of the
submission.
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 a SOTS 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.
SOTS Look-Back Review
The bill authorizes the secretary of the state to (1) conduct a look-back
review for a period of 120 days after the provision’s effective date
(January 1, 2024, to April 30, 2024) and (2) deny preclearance to any
covered policy enacted by a covered jurisdiction between January 1,
2023, and January 1, 2024.
Under the bill, the look-back review begins when the secretary
notifies a covered jurisdiction of her 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 secretary to decide whether the covered jurisdiction may
further implement the policy within 90 days after the submission.
Before deciding, the secretary 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, presumably the secretary 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 19 4/13/22
could do so through regulations). She must deny further
implementation of the covered policy if she 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 secretary
must state her 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 where the covered jurisdiction is located
in accordance with the UAPA, which must be prioritized for trial
assignment.
§ 6 — ACTS OF INTIMIDATION, DECEPTION , OR OBSTRUCTION
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, the bill bans intimidation or deception that cause
or reasonably have the effect of causing an elector to (1) vote or not vote,
(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. It also 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 injury, damage,
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 privileges or that causes or will reasonably have
the effect of causing an elector to (a) vote or not vote; (b) vote for
or against a particular candidate or question; (c) apply or not 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 20 4/13/22
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 SEEC 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, regardless of state election laws, any special act, charter, or
home rule ordinance, 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
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 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 21 4/13/22
the specific powers granted to them by the state constitution’s Home
Rule provision (Article Tenth) and state law (see CGS §§ 7-148 & 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 have 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).
SOTS
As the state’s commissioner of elections, SOTS 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.
SEEC
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). 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 22 4/13/22
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 —
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. 2022SB-00471-R000454-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JP Page 23 4/13/22
Although the Court did not strike down Section 5, it is unenforceable
without Section 4’s coverage formula or a separate court order. Thus,
changes in voting procedures in jurisdictions previously covered by the
VRA are now generally subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
COMMITTEE ACTION
Government Administration and Elections Committee
Joint Favorable Substitute
Yea 12 Nay 5 (03/29/2022)