On Oct. 23, Fight Voter Fraud, Inc. (FVF), a non-partisan group focused on election integrity, released a damning report exposing widespread failures among Connecticut’s registrars of voters. The study reveals glaring inconsistencies in how registrars across the state comply with election laws, while at the same time ignoring Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Connecticut law requires every city and town to elect one Republican and one Democratic registrar, with the possibility of a third-party if they receive more votes than the major party nominee. This bipartisan setup is designed to ensure fairness and transparency in elections.
Registrars play a crucial role in managing elections, from maintaining the official voter registry to preparing voting machines and training poll workers. They also oversee polling place setup, ensure accurate reporting of election results and handle post-election recounts and audits.
FVF’s investigation focused on three key state statutes: the certification of registrars, annual voter rolls canvassing and completing yearly training.
State law mandates that all registrars hired after July 1, 2015, complete the Registrar of Voters Education and Certification Program (ROV Program) through UConn’s School of Public Policy within two years.
The program is meant to ensure ROV are properly trained in election administration, voter registration, list maintenance, petitions, and overseeing absentee and early voting. It also covers understanding post-election audit and recanvassing. After completing the course ROV’s take a final exam to complete the program.
Yet, 110 registrars across Connecticut are not certified. Of that, 61 are within the two-year grace period meaning 49 are non-compliant — a clear violation of state requirements.
In most cases, at least one registrar in these towns is certified or still within the two-year grace period. However, in seven towns (Deep River, Morris, Norfolk, North Branford, North Haven, Plymouth and Westbrook) neither registrar has met the certification requirements, leaving local election oversight in questionable hands.
This isn’t a new problem. In fact, it’s gotten worse. Back in 2020, the CT Post reported that 31% of registrars were not certified. At the time, they noted that “most of those are still within their two-year window to complete, but more than 20 are out of compliance with the law because their time limit has expired.”
Gabe Rosenberg, then-communications director for the Secretary of the State (SOTS) Denise Merrill, told the Post reporter, “We take this very seriously” and that his office wants “To make sure we have trained registrars in every town because elections have become more than printing ballots. Elections have become a cyber security issue.”
Registrars who have completed certification are not off the hook once they pass the exam. The statute also requires at least eight hours of annual training to stay updated on election procedures.
Shockingly, 63 towns (37%) completely ignored FOIA requests for proof of compliance with education requirements, and 18 towns provided documentation for only one registrar. On the bright side, 66 towns confirmed that both registrars are up to date on training. Meanwhile, three towns (Milford, Old Saybrook and West Haven) showed both registrars skipped out on their education hours entirely.
Registrars are also required to conduct annual voter roll canvassing by May 1 to remove ineligible voters, like those who have moved or passed away. Yet, 60 towns refused to supply documentation proving they met this requirement, and 48 others showed that they did complete canvassing but after the deadline had passed.
One town, Union, failed to do it at all, though it currently has only one registrar.
The lack of transparency and widespread compliance issues raises serious questions about how well local election officials are fulfilling their legal obligations. Ninety towns were unable or just chose not to respond to the complete FOIA request meaning only 71 towns fulfilled their legal responsibility to comply with FOIA.
Only 29 towns were completely compliant with all three statutes as well as properly fulfilling FVF FOIA request.
In an Oct. 31 letter sent to all mayors, selectmen and town managers, FVF announced the conclusion of their investigation and revealed that all materials collected during the process — “every document and email we received from your municipality” — had been posted on their website. FVF emphasized their commitment to transparency, stating their goal was to ensure “the public can see how their cities and towns responded to our simple but very important request.”
The letter also highlighted issues uncovered during the investigation. FVF noted that many towns sent “blurry, completely black, printed on top of other documents or were incomplete.”
Additionally, FVF wrote that they also received documents that were never requested, while a few charged fees to process the FOIA requests. Even after the fees were paid, some towns either failed to send the requested forms or provided incorrect information, raising more questions about local compliance and accountability.
In a Nov. 21 email to the Yankee Institute, Jeannette Dardenne, Media Relations representative for the SOTS office, addressed concerns about discrepancies in registrar compliance with statutory requirements. Asked if the office was aware of the issues and working with municipalities to resolve them, Dardenne stated, “The Office of the Secretary of the State has received the report from Fight Voter Fraud, but given the recent election, has not yet had a chance to examine its findings.”
Dardenne acknowledged that registrars who took office after July 1, 2015, are legally required to complete certification within two years and participate in eight hours of training annually. She added that registrars who took office before that date were required to complete certification by July 1, 2017, and are also subject to the annual training requirement.
She further noted, “The Office of the Secretary of the State, in concert with the Registrars of Voters Association of Connecticut, works continuously to educate registrars of voters year-round,” and wanted to point that “given the number of training hours required for the roll out of early voting, it is unlikely that any have not completed their requirements.”
While the SOTS office has expressed a commitment to educating registrars and ensuring compliance, the findings make it clear that more work is needed to hold municipalities accountable.
One solution could be implementing a centralized system to track registrar certifications, training and canvassing progress statewide. This would reduce confusion, streamline oversight and ensure that all registrars meet their statutory requirements. Additionally, towns that fail to respond to FOIA requests or comply with election laws should face enforceable consequences to encourage transparency and accountability.
Furthermore, with the never-ending changes to election laws, registrars face many challenges. This year alone brought the rollout of early voting and a ballot initiative giving the General Assembly the power to amend the state Constitution for no-excuse absentee voting. Now, ranked-choice voting is rumored to be on the legislative agenda in the upcoming session.
As these changes pile up, it’s critical that registrars are fully trained, certified and prepared to handle the increasing demands of running elections to ensure accuracy, transparency and public trust in the process.
*At the time of writing this, the FVF site was being updated and is expected to be back online shortly. The link to the report will be here.
