Government Administration and Elections Committee

JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT

SPONSORS OF BILL:

Government Administration and Elections

REASONS FOR BILL:

To eliminate cross endorsement of candidates

RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:

Denise Merrill, Secretary of State, Connecticut

Secretary Merrill states that minor parties are important to voters and allows everyone to express their opinion, but believes that permitting cross-endorsement has created voter confusion. Only a handful of states have ballots organized by a party line. In the whole country only Connecticut, and New York ballots are set up as a grid. They see their candidates twice and vote for their candidates twice and is quite confusing for voters, and causes additional work for the moderators who have to allocate these votes between the two parties. In other states this doesn't happen because the way the ballot is set up which does not cause the confusion. In order for minor parties to be allowed to be added to the ballot it requires either a petitioning process, or it is based on the minor party's performance in the previous election. These complicated issues are why the other 43 states don't allow for cross –endorsements at all. We need to consider how to accommodate a growing number of minor parties with a minimal of confusion.

NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:

Senator Donald E. Williams, Jr. Senate President Pro Tempore

Senator Williams stated that this bill will prohibit a candidate from appearing on more than one line for the same office, and would prohibit a party from endorsing a candidate which is not a registered member of that party. The State has allowed for candidates to appear more than once on the ballot for the same office which has led to some voter confusion. In 2007 the General Assembly amended the statutes to make it easier for minor parties to cross-endorse. Since then the state has switched to optical scanning voting machines and there has been an increase in over voting. This committee continues to hear from election officials about the need to make statutory changes to address the problem of over-voting. The confusion stems from how the election officials apportion the votes. In 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states may prohibit political candidates from appearing on the ballot as the nominees of more than one political party. The Court found that Minnesota law that prohibited this type of ballot confusion was “a reasonable regulation of parties and ballots that reduced election disorder and did not burden a political party's association rights.

Melissa Schlag, Citizens for the Protection of Public Lands, C0-Chair

A party that does the work to run their own candidate should not be competing with a major party candidate who is also cross indorsed on another line or even more than one line. She believes that HB 1146 is a start in making a fairer process of a very unfair election system in Connecticut. She was a candidate in 2012 for the Green Party for the 33^rd district senate seat and she has learned that the public financing and petitioning process is prohibitively unfair to minor parties. To have a major party candidate cross-endorsed on any third party line is even more difficult to compete with the already unfair process. She hopes in the future legislators will make the Citizens Election Program fairer as well and more inclusive for all parties.

NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:

Miles S. Rapoport, President of Demos

Mr. Rapoport is the former secretary of the State of Connecticut and is opposed to this bill. He believes that Connecticut has been such an extraordinary national leader when it comes to ensuring an inclusive, open and fair democracy for our citizens. He believes that this bill is a step in the wrong direction from the leadership role Connecticut has played. Minor parties have played a significant role in introducing new issues. He said that in six states that continue cross-endorsements they find ways to constructively participate without being forced onto the spoiler or wasted vote box. The other arguments regarding cross-endorsements minor parties create a richer democracy, gives people who are not republicans or Democrats more choices, it is not complicated or administratively difficult, it increases turnout, and it is always voluntary.

Mayor Timothy O'Brien, City of New Britain

The Mayor is opposed to this bill. He believes taking steps to prohibit cross-endorsement of candidates for public office undermines the principles this committee has for a long time embraced. This bill unnecessarily restricts not only the choice of political parties to endorse candidates but removes the choice of the voter to cast a ballot for the party and candidate of their choosing. If voters succeed in organizing a legitimate party fitting their own values, they should be free to nominate the candidates of their choice.

State Representative Edwin Vargas, Sixth District, Hartford

Representative Vargas is opposed to this bill. In 1991 an alliance led partially by a minor party, People for Change, elected an African American woman for Mayor for the City of Hartford. This was the culmination of two decades of work by the Puerto Rican Political Action Committee, a group led by the People for Change Party. This was to show that minor parties and small political organizations could work in major ways to elect candidates. Representative Vargas was cross endorsed by his minor party. He felt without the minor party participating many people may have not voted. He does not want to see any scale back or limits of choices of electors in my district or any district in the state.

Representative Robert Sanchez, Assistant Majority Leader ; Twenty Fifth District

Representative Sanchez is opposed to this legislation. As the law currently stands, individuals in Connecticut running for office do not need to be enrolled as a member of a party to be endorsed by such party. This bill would disallow candidates who are not enrolled as a member of a party to be endorsed by such party. This bill infringes on the first amendment right of freedom of speech. This would force individuals running for office to enroll as a member of a party to receive an endorsement. This bill would put limits on accurate and honest political representation within our state.

Shawn T. Wooden, President, City of Hartford Common Council

He is submitting in opposition of cross endorsement of minor parties. He served as the state director of a grassroots, nonpartisan voter registration group, Project Vote. Historically turnout in low income neighborhoods has been low which he witnessed firsthand. Minor parties can invigorate and drive those communities to the polls. By allowing major parties to be cross-endorsed by minor parties, the minor parties serve as a clearinghouse, a signaling to voters that their major party has taken a stand on a specific issue. Polls have shown that this is important in communities that have generally shown a low interest in electoral politics. Cross-endorsements make us more responsive and accountable. These are tremendous tools for the voters.

Tom Swan, Connecticut Citizens Action Group (CCAG),Executive Director

Mr. Swan is opposed to this bill. He believes that it is an attack on Connecticut's fusion voting law. He believes that this proposed change will weaken accountability and only serve as an incumbent protection act.

John Killan, Independent Party Chairman, Middletown

As chairman of the Middletown's Independent Party it is my duty to advocate for the will of the membership. I see as much harm done to their rights as what is happening in Bethel which provides them with no voting on any issues. Pass a bill that guarantees members of all parties a vote in their respective nomination process.

Bob Crnic, Bethel Connecticut

Mr. Crnic said that Section 1 states “No candidate who is not enrolled as a member of a party may be endorsed by such party. The proposed addition is an unprecedented restriction on political freedoms guaranteed He said that 20,000 voters are registered to various minor parties. This would prevent an unaffiliated voter from being able to run on a party line. With only 20,000 voters registered to a minor party, this bill would weaken the almost insignificant impact minor parties currently have.

In Sec. 2 the proposed text changes seem to imply that the elimination of cross-endorsing would eliminate the potential of voting for a candidate on more than one party line. He said that this is a gross misrepresentation of the electoral process, and the older voting machines prevented this from happening. The motive behind this bill is bilaterally political and serves no other purpose but to benefit the two major parties. This bill would also prevent petitioning parties from running a slate of candidates.

Karen Hobert Flynn, Common Cause; Senior Vice President for Strategy and Programs

Common Cause urges the committee to reject this bill. They support fusion voting as a

system that opens up the ballot for candidates to clearly express their views, and for voters to express their preferences more clearly. Fusion voting allows voters to focus on issues and helps refocus elections on issues and not on personalities. They have seen a dramatic increase in unaffiliated voters in many states as voters grow disenchanted with the two major parties. Fusion can improve our democracy by increasing the role of third parties. Fusion voting can mobilize voters, allow for the expression of underrepresented views and it can improve competition

League of Women Voters of Connecticut, (LWV) Christine S. Horrigan, Government Director

The LWV opposes this bill. They believe that the requirements for the placement of petitioning or minor party candidates on the ballot should not be made more restrictive that at present. This bill would eliminate cross-endorsements and further provide that “[n] o candidate who is not enrolled as a member of a party may be endorsed by such a party.” This bill appears to be designed to address the issue of “unknown voters” for cross-endorsed candidates using our current voting technology by eliminating cross-endorsements altogether. They believe that minor parties serve an important role in our democracy and that their right to be heard should not be restricted for reasons of convenience, or technology.

Joshua Katz, Secretary, Libertarian Party of Connecticut

He opposes this bill. The General Assembly is a beneficiary of the democratic process; please consider this as you consider hindering that very process. They believe that this bill would limit the right of a political party to endorse those candidates it chooses. They think that this bill prevents competition. He said that this is not a partisan issue and that he is writing on his own and not for his party. He feels that this bill is a strike against democracy. In the interest of disclosure, as a Libertarian he has been asked to accept the cross-endorsement of the Republican party in the November 2013 election.

Marilyn Moore, Bridgeport Connecticut

Connecticut is a state that supports voters' rights and seeks to increase voter participation and fair elections. They have implemented many concrete services that increase voter participation. She believes that a move to eliminate cross-endorsements contradicts and sets the state back in the progress it has made. Cross-endorsements bring about positive outcomes; increased turnout, educated voters, and broad based support. Minor parties provide the voter with more choices, and she thinks that is what democracy is about. It is essential to protect voters' ability to be independent without being destructive and it would be un-democratic to make it harder for independent voices to be heard.

Chris Pitts, Canterbury, Connecticut

Chris serves on the Canterbury Democratic Town Committee, and he runs the Quiet Corner Democrats, which is a regional political group based in NE Connecticut. He is opposed to this bill. He believes the problem is not a proliferation of ballot lines but the problem with ballot access to groups that are not truly political parties. He suggests that if a group does not represent a sizable number of Connecticut electors then that the group should not receive ballot access on its own party line, but should become petitioning candidates. Ballot fusion has been a long and time honored tradition in our country, and he has personally watched it increase the engagement level of voters and volunteers in Northeastern Connecticut.

American Civil Liberties Union; (ACLU)' David McGuire , Staff Attorney

ACLU is opposed to this bill number 1146. Electoral fusion allows two or more parties to nominate the same candidate. All votes are combined when determining the winner of the election. This bill would eliminate electoral fusion in Connecticut, not only for prohibiting cross-endorsement but for political parties from nominating anyone who is not one of their own current members. He states a case Tashijan v. Republican Party of Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that this type of legislation is unconstitutional. This would infringe under the Party's members first amendment rights. The language in Tashijan was cited in a case which the U.S. District Court for New Mexico struck down with very similar language. The law stated that it was a violation of the party's First Amendment. Connecticut is one of seven state that allow electoral fusion and eliminating it would disproportionately affect up-and –coming third parties. By preventing t cross-endorsement would infringe on their First Amendment. Furthermore there is evidence that electoral fusion increases voter turnout. Evidence from New York suggests that people who vote for members of third parties would not vote at all if fusion were outlawed there.

Mike Teleska, Independent Party

Nr Teleska opposes raised bill number 1146. This bill would limit minor parties to have a say in the selection of candidates and the election of office seekers to government positions. This bill will make it impossible for a new party to get started since it will need 1% of the vote in a race that the person is it's running in. The other problem is that the minor party must run a candidate for office or it will lose its line on the ballot. This restriction is not placed on the major parties. We know that major parties received at least 95% of all funds available for campaign spending by the State of CT. in the last election cycle in 2012, and I know of no third Party candidate who was able to meet the high threshold of requirements of money raised or signatures needed to qualify for matching funds from the State. We live in the Constitution State and we should make every effort to lead the rest of the country by our examples of open government. Mr. Teleska states that Sec. 9-375 and Sec. 9-451 govern nomination of party candidates and changes to the rules of the party.

Connecticut Working Families Party, Sal Luciano, Executive Director of AFSCME Council 4, and Co-Chair of the Connecticut Working Families Party

This party was formed in 2002 to fight for economic justice for working families, and middle class families. Although we have similar priorities from the two major parties, having their own party is the best way they have to advance their agenda. In the Connecticut election they had their highest turnout of almost 84,000 votes statewide. They oppose the bill because of not able to cross-endorse. Cross-endorsement helps our democracy flourish and should be protected. Cross-endorsement gives a voice to voters who do not fit into the two major parties, and cross-endorsement increases voter turnout.

Abdul Shahid Muhammad Ansari; National Association of Colored People (NAACP)

The NAACP is opposed to this bill both on the statewide and national levels. They state that they have been fighting to advance the voting rights for minorities for over a century. The most well-known work that has been accomplished is the undoing of Jim Crow era restrictions that make it impossible for African-Americans to be full citizens. They have also fought very hard against voter suppression laws that were aimed at reducing voter turnout for lower income and especially of color Americans. Fortunately Connecticut was not one of the states where this type of legislation was advanced. This bill is a shock and it is a step back. There is no justification for citizens who happen to support the ideals of minor parties. They call on legislators to expand democracy and not restrict it.

Arlene Avery, Democratic State Central Committee member and, Connecticut Working Families Party State Committee

She sought out the cross-endorsement and was impressed by how issue driven the endorsement process is. She felt that the extensive process make her a more defined candidate and helping voters to better understand who they were voting for. She sees no compelling reason to restrict a party's right to freely associate with and cross-endorse another party's candidate. Voters are free to vote for candidates outside of their party affiliation. Connecticut's cross-endorsement law P.A. 81-447 was passed in 1981, as part of a major revision of the state's election laws. It fosters more choices for voters and is a healthy reflection of our democracy.

Ralph Ford and Tom Coble, Bridgeport Protect Our Voting Rights Coalition

They are opposed to this bill and are concerned about the integrity and vitality of Connecticut elections. They were opposed to the Charter Reform in Bridgeport because they believe in fair and open elections, with as many citizens participating as possible, is good for our cities and towns. This bill harms our electoral process, which impacts are systems and democracy. Strong minor parties are an important part of our state's democracy. This erodes the accountability to voters by shifting power to political insiders and shows a callous distrust in voters. The United States is ranked 120 out of 169 countries in electoral participation among registered voters and we should not do anything to alienate and disengage voters. The goal should be to increase voter turnout and not drive it down. Cross-endorsement gives a voice to voters who have traditionally been marginalized by the political process. A system without cross-endorsement leaves minor parties with very few options. Either they run their own candidate, and risk helping elect the candidate furthest from their own views, or they must stay out of the race. Cross-endorsements allows for those minor parties to be heard, and vote for a candidate closer to their views.

Tom D'Amore, Political Consultant at Doyle, D'Amore, and Balducci

He is opposed to Raised Bill 1146 because of its lack of constitutionality, attack on minor parties, and limits voter choice. Mr D'Amore has had a long history in politics in Connecticut and was co-founder of A Connecticut Party. He has seen that voters are frustrated by the limitations of the two major parties, and many candidates as well. Voters do not feel represented by the Republican or Democratic and look to third party and independent candidates to promote their values. With a growing number of independent voters they could make the difference in closely contested elections, and find themselves faced with fewer and fewer candidate options and points-of-view. The two major parties, by keeping out or marginalizing more voices, are doing a disservice to the voting public. Cross-endorsement gives voters more opportunity to vote in a way that expresses their values and advances their issues after Election Day. This leads to a better represented electorate, higher voter turnout, and issue driven politics.

Roger A. Palanzo, Independent Party of CT. State Central Committee

Endorsement of political candidates is a fundamental right of political parties. The opportunity to do so is a fundamental aspect of political freedom. To operate a political party must have the ability to endorse candidates whose policy and political views echo those of the endorsing party. What purpose is served by the encroachment of the people's rights. This effort smacks of gerrymandering for political gain rather than a legitimate attempt to reform the process.

Cynthia Jennings, City Councilor, Working Families for Hartford

This bill calls for the repeal of Sec. 9-453t of the Connecticut General Statutes to end cross-endorsement. As a person that was endorsed and elected on a minor party line in a city that was heavily skewed to only one of two major parties, she finds the elimination or modification of the current system detrimental to voters. Many may feel that the two party system works for them, it is clear that low-income communities, ethnic minorities, and people of color have statistically and historically been under represented at the polls. These groups have all felt under or misrepresented by both the Democrats and Republicans, and providing alternatives to keep these voting groups engaged is an important task of our government that cannot be dismissed. As an attorney and a member of the NAACP she is engaged in actions on how to combat bad legislation that wrongly attacks voter rights. Until S.B. 1146 she had not anticipated that Connecticut would ever be subjected to such backwards-thinking legislation. Connecticut has a strong history of strengthening voter rights and making the ballot open and accessible for all eligible voters to engage, and this bill would be a step backwards.

William M. Salka, Ph. D., Report on Cross Endorsed Candidates in Connecticut State Elections, 2004-2012

Use if the cross endorsement voting option has been growing over the last decade. Cross endorsed senate candidates has grown from 5,829 across five districts to 59,030 votes across twenty five districts in 2010. This increase in residents opting to cast their votes on cross endorsed ballot lines likely reflects increased awareness of this option, and the larger proportion of races with cross endorsed candidates. The cross endorsed candidates is clearly preferred by a substantial number of voters in Connecticut state elections. There is also evidence that the cross endorsement option may be appealing to the more alienated voters. Dr. Salka has attached is data and report on this issue.

Adam Morse and J.J. Gass, Brennan Center for Justice, More Choices, More Voices:

A Primer On Fusion

The report, MORE CHOCIES, MORE VOICES; A PRIMER ON FUSION, Voting Rights and Elections Series was compiled by Adam Morse and JJ Gass

The report addresses the protection of rights to equal electoral access and political participation in length.

The conclusion of this report is that fusion is not a panacea, but it does improve elections. When fusion was widespread, it contributed to a variety of salutary goals, including mobilizing voters, providing expression for underrepresented views, and improving competition. In New York, it continues to improve elections. Other states should learn from the positive example and legalize fusion.