Norwalk registrars of voters sound off on proposed changes

March 8, 2015

–

Norwalk Democratic Registrar Stuart Wells, left; Republican Registrar Karen Doyle Lyons, right.

NORWALK, Conn. — Norwalk Democratic Registrar Stuart Wells stood by Republican Registrar Karen Doyle Lyons last summer as her own political party tried to oust her, and now the pair are united in another cause: Neither like the changes to the state’s registrars system that are proposed by Secretary of the State Denise Merrill. No wonder, since one or the other would surely lose their job.

Merrill proposed on Feb. 25 to eliminate the system of having two registrars elected in each community, one Democrat and one Republican, and replace it with one registrar per community – appointed, not elected.

The pair responded by email separately to a request for comments:

Lyons:

“At a recent Fairfield County Registrar of Voters meeting, 100 percent of those present are disappointed in the SOTS and her unprofessionalism. For over 80 years, elections in Connecticut have been nonpartisan and trouble free with the registrars as the Gate Keepers of Democracy upholding the integrity of elections. Now a very partisan SOTS says in one sentence a ‘simple change’ and then in the next says ‘big.’ She complains in a press conference that a registrar is under investigation and still is able to hold office. Well, did she forget that she herself is under investigation? Where is justice? You are not guilty until proven… Unless Merrill says so.

“We have a bus is going to Hartford on Monday. We may have extra room. Stay tuned, Stuart and I hope to give testimony.”

Wells:

“The Secretary of the State’s proposal is a bad idea, poorly thought out, and creates many more problems than it could possibly solve.

“Any person, however picked, for any job, might prove to be incompetent. This certainly seems to be the case in Hartford. However, they have a procedure for removing their incompetent registrar(s) from office, and they are using it. State law could expressly legalize this type of process and authorize other towns to adopt their own. That makes sense to me. Elections are too important in a democracy for them to be run by people who can’t do it properly and can’t add up the votes accurately.

“However, the Hartford Town Clerk couldn’t add up the votes either. There is no guarantee that turning election responsibility over to the Town Clerk would be any better than the current system.

“The current two-registrar system usually works well, and has the advantage of assuring the public that the election was run honestly, and not just by one party alone. However, sometimes the registrars can’t figure out how to get along well enough to do their job. That is human nature. The Secretary of the State’s proposal does nothing to prevent this. Under the Secretary’s proposal, elections would be run by the Town Clerk, and by a Registrar appointed by the town’s legislative body. There is no guarantee that they will get along, or that the legislative body will always fire the registrar just because the Town Clerk wants them to do so. Furthermore, rules about firing municipal employees might make this quite difficult.

“Ultimately, the only way to resolve a conflict between two people who can’t get along well enough to do the job is to fire one or both of them. This problem can be treated the same way as incompetence.

“We already have one effective method of removing a registrar from office. The voters can elect a different one. The process of removal for incompetence, or irreconcilable differences, would be an additional method, and, importantly, could be used between elections.

“In Norwalk, the Registrars and the Town Clerk all get along splendidly!”

Legislators at last week’s League of Women Voters Pie & Politics event said that Merrill’s proposal is not gaining any traction.

Comments

4 responses to “Norwalk registrars of voters sound off on proposed changes”

Stuart Wells

March 8, 2015

In 1933, Wilbur Cross was governor and the current two registrar system was born state-wide. The municipal election was held on the first Monday in October. John E. McGrath was elected the Democratic Registrar and John A. Mills was elected the Republican Registrar, and, on a personal note, my great aunt Marguerite Wells was elected the national chairwoman of the League of Women Voters in 1934.
In the 80+ years since then the 169 towns in Connecticut have collectively held over 20,000 local, state, and federal elections. The two registrar system provides and essential safeguard to elections in Connecticut. Both parties are represented in the registrar’s office and among the poll workers at each polling place. There is no better guarantee of an honest outcome, free of political pressure from whichever party controls city hall at any given moment, and wants to keep it that way by any means necessary.
Even if you, foolishly, think that would never happen in Norwalk, what about in cities like Bridgeport, Hartford and Waterbury, where mayors have gone to jail for corruption in the last 15 years?
There have been some serious election mistakes in some other towns in the last 5 years, most recently in Hartford where the polls could not open on time in many locations and the vote totals were not compiled correctly. Serious mistakes, stupid ones – incompetent even – but honest ones. Human error does happen, and will no doubt happen again, but a single registrar in charge of all the work, is more, not less likely, to make such mistakes in the future.

Log in to Reply
Oldtimer

March 8, 2015

If it aint broke, don’t fix it. The present system has worked well, if not perfectly, for a long time. Merrill’s proposal doesn’t offer any prospect for better results. The only obvious effect is the unfortunate one of having some good friend, or relative, of an incumbent counting votes when he/she is challenged. That could work, but having two elected registrars, of different parties, counting, is much more likely to keep the process honest. If the voters have reason to be unhappy with a registrar, voting for somebody else is easy, much easier than removing an appointed employee.

Log in to Reply
EveT

March 8, 2015

If a huge change like this is to be recommended, it seems like the SOTS should first conduct an in-depth study and something like a “listening tour” to see what voters around the state think. For it to be announced out of the blue is just weird.

Log in to Reply
Karen Doyle Lyons

March 11, 2015

Great public hearing of the GAE committee in Hartford. If anyone wishes to review the testimony is is on CT-N. A large of Registrars from both parties joining together to present testimony.

Log in to Reply