A majority of Connecticut voters have elected to allow early voting in the state. Though a similar ballot initiative failed in 2014, this time 60% of Connecticut voters approved the amendment.

The goal is to provide people with greater ability to vote. Before, Connecticut was one of four states to not allow early voting.

Helen Humphreys, communications coordinator for the Connecticut Citizen Action Group, noted the biggest drawback of single-day voting is lack of access. She thinks cities will see direct benefits to adding early voting.

"I've voted in Suffield, and I've voted in Bridgeport, and the experience was very different," Humphreys recounted. "In Suffield, you walk in and out; in Bridgeport, I waited in line for over an hour to vote. So, I think especially for those in cities and high population areas, this is going to be a huge benefit, because it will give them the opportunity to vote when they can."

Passing with a modest majority, the new amendment already faces a legal challenge from a New Britain woman who claims it is unconstitutional. Humphreys disagrees, after speaking with some legal experts in the state. Rep. Gale Mastrofrancesco, R-Wolcott, and Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, both wanted more checks and balances in the state early-voting bill to prevent voter fraud.

Humphreys acknowledged implementing the rules for early voting will be a matter of balance. She wants to ensure people have enough time to vote, while towns and poll workers are not overburdened. She noted the change will help those who might not have the time to go out and vote on Election Day.

"People want a voting system that meets the needs of Connecticut families today," Humphreys contended. "Really, it's clear Connecticut voters want more opportunities to exercise their right to vote. It's something that I think will benefit a lot of people who aren't available on one specific Tuesday in November."

In November 2024, Connecticut voters will be asked to add an amendment about no-excuse absentee voting. It would mean any voter can request a mail-in ballot, rather than having to submit an application to receive a ballot.

Legal groups are weighing an appeal after a court ruling this week that left voters in several states, including North Dakota, at a disadvantage in making use of the Voting Rights Act.

At issue is their ability to sue based on racial discrimination. A three-judge panel with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a pathway under Section Two of the landmark law for voters to bring lawsuits if they feel local and state election policies have violated their civil rights. The decision stems from a recent redistricting victory for a pair of Native American Tribes in North Dakota.

Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting for the Campaign Legal Center, said he was shocked by the latest outcome.

"The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has done what no court in the country has ever done, and there's been 400-plus Voting Rights Act cases filed for decades," Gaber pointed out.

The decision affirmed a ruling from the full 8th Circuit, which said language in this section of the law does not specifically mention private individuals. One judge filed a dissenting opinion. The 8th Circuit covers seven states, and civil rights groups said if the outcome stands, voters in those states would have to lobby the Justice Department to bring a case forward.

Gaber noted the problem with asking the Justice Department is, the agency is not equipped to move quickly on such requests.

"They simply don't have the resources," Gaber pointed out. "The individual voters who are familiar with what is happening in their localities and on the ground are frankly, in many cases, better suited to bring these cases."

The Justice Department is also part of budget-cutting moves by the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the Native American Rights Fund said this week's ruling sets a dangerous precedent for minority voters who do not want to be silenced.


get more stories like this via email

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte has seen the last few bills of the 2025 legislative session cross his desk and as the ink dries, policy experts reminded Montanans some bills will face the courts before they take effect.

Gianforte signed Senate Bill 490, which changes the Election Day cutoff for same-day voter registration from 8 p.m. to noon. It also eliminates early registration the Monday before Election Day, shifting the deadline to 5 p.m. on Saturday.

Zuri Moreno, state legislative director for the advocacy group Forward Montana, said the change especially affects Montanans who drive long distances to vote.

"We've already heard from the courts that you're not supposed to mess around with same-day voter registration," Moreno pointed out. "It just takes away that opportunity for working folks and young folks and rural people across the state."

Montana's Supreme Court ruled last year banning same-day voter registration is unconstitutional. In January, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the decision.

Laws passed this session may still be challenged in court, including those centered on the LGBTQ+ community, which was targeted by at least 23 bills. Moreno noted the "community really showed up this session."

"We saw so many folks sharing personal stories and public testimony, so many folks showing up for lobby days and rallies," Moreno recounted. "Thousands of people engaged in the legislative process, which is essential."

In a win for renters, Gianforte also signed House Bill 311 , which requires rental application fees to be returned to people who do not end up signing a lease.

During every big election, tens of thousands of California voters make a mistake on their mail-in ballot and often get differing advice on how to fix it, depending on who they ask. A new bill aims to standardize the response.

Assembly Bill 1072 would require the Secretary of State and county elections officials to come up with clear answers, applicable statewide.

Kim Alexander, founder and president of the California Voter Foundation, said the problem causes widespread delays in counting.

"In Orange County in the last election, officials had to duplicate over 40,000 ballots," Alexander pointed out. "There are other reasons why ballots have to be duplicated, but the primary one is that the voter made a mistake filling out their ballot, indicated a different choice, and it has to be remade."

Common mistakes include accidentally filling in the wrong bubble, signing the witness signature box or signing their spouses' envelope. If there is time, the county will often send a new ballot.

Alexander noted a common set of instructions should be posted on the website of the Secretary of State and every county registrar.

"They are instructed, typically, to cross out the choice and fill out the choice that they preferred and draw an arrow to it or circle it to indicate that is their intent," Alexander explained. "What they should not do is initial it, and sometimes voters think that's what they should do."

The outlook for the bill is good. It is currently on the consent calendar for the Assembly Appropriations Committee.


get more stories like this via email