logo
Secretary of the State aims to make voting easier for incarcerated people in CT

Secretary of the State aims to make voting easier for incarcerated people in CT

Yahoo09-05-2025

Advocates for incarcerated individuals in Connecticut say it needs to be easier for people in custody to cast their ballots. And while a bill being considered in the legislature seeks to expand access, some say it wouldn't go far enough.
The proposed bill which passed out of committee in March and awaits a vote in the House, would require the Secretary of the State to provide the Department of Correction (DOC) with absentee ballot application forms that eligible individuals in custody could fill out, and to distribute them to those people.
'It is the very least we can do to chip away at this problem,' Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas said during a forum at the Capitol on Tuesday.
An incarcerated person who wants to vote in Connecticut has to do so by absentee ballot, and they remain voters in the town they last resided, not where the prison is located. Thomas explained that this means incarcerated people — who have no access to the internet — must research the name of their town clerks, write a letter to the clerk requesting an absentee ballot application form, mail that letter to the town, receive the application form, fill it out, mail it back, and wait for the absentee ballot itself to arrive.
'And hopefully this all happens by 8 p.m. on Election Day,' Thomas said.
Absentee ballots are only available 31 days before a general election, Thomas said, and the slow speed of the postal system often prevents the ballots from arriving in time to be counted by a town clerk.
Only people convicted of a felony lose their right to vote in Connecticut — and only while they're incarcerated. People convicted of a misdemeanor, or people awaiting trial who can't afford to post bail, retain their voting rights. According to Department of Correction statistics, about 3,800 of the 11,200 people incarcerated in Connecticut have not been sentenced.
Rep. Matt Blumenthal, D-Stamford, chair of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, said the bill was developed in collaboration with the Secretary of the State's Office and in discussion with advocates.
'Obviously with legislation like this, there's always a balance between trying to provide as much access as possible to the voters and the logistical details which need to be practicable and communicable,' Blumenthal said.
Avery Gilbert, a clinical lecturer at Yale Law School, said the state's voting restrictions for people convicted of felonies should be revisited, too. Some of those individuals who've completed their sentences remain afraid to vote, even after the right is restored.
Gilbert also said simply providing absentee ballot applications to incarcerated individuals isn't enough because the bill doesn't require the Department of Correction to distribute the applications — and it doesn't cover the cost of postage.
'Simply putting absentee ballot applications in facilities is a nice first start. There's no guarantee that those are going to be handed out. There's no guarantee that someone is going to be informed enough to know to put it in the envelope, have the resources to get the postage, mail it, and do all those things in a timely fashion,' Gilbert said.
Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, said he opposed the bill — and he voted against it — because he's concerned about simply giving absentee ballot applications to the Department of Correction to distribute. 'I think that there's an opportunity for abuse there,' Sampson said.
Sampson said in similar situations where a large number of voters is living in one place, such as with a nursing home, a local registrar of voters would go in person to the facility to distribute absentee ballots.
Thomas it was difficult to offer in-person voting at a correctional institution, since Democrat and Republican registrars of voters from multiple towns would have to be at the correctional facilities to oversee the process.
Sampson said he believed incarcerated people should instead vote in the town where the correctional facility was located, rather than their hometown.
Blumenthal said while he understands the bill isn't a 'panacea,' legislators are waiting to see how the new absentee ballot application regulations work before making additional demands on the Department of Correction.
'Before we require DOC to take specific action, I think we want to see how this process works on a voluntary basis in terms of DOC's involvement,' Blumenthal said.
The bill does require Department of Correction staff to ensure absentee ballots are delivered to each incarcerated person even if they've been transferred to another facility in the system.
Blumenthal added that some advocates had also expressed concern around DOC staff forcing people in custody to vote rather than just assisting them. And he said he feared covering the cost of postage might make the bill less likely to pass at a time when state finances are limited.
Thomas said her office has created printed and digital materials for incarcerated individuals describing the voting process, and she said her office is working with DOC to schedule voter registration drives at different prison facilities through the remainder of the spring, summer and fall.
Gilbert said that communities with the highest rates of incarceration, like Hartford and Bridgeport, also have the lowest numbers of people voting.
'These are habits, they are behaviors, and they inform and impact generational poverty for years to come,' she said. 'I don't think anybody in this room would disagree that all children's interests should be represented in some way, and incarcerated parents don't have that opportunity to influence resources going to their children's schools, to influence the issues that matter deeply to their community.'
James Jeter, the executive director of the Full Citizens Coalition to Unlock the Vote, echoed Gilbert, saying that many people he knew from his time being incarcerated hadn't even thought about voting. He blamed this partially on the policy of eliminating the right to vote for people convicted of felonies during their time in prison.
'When you talk about civic engagement and even real forms of rehabilitation, how do you make someone more communal and civically minded when conditions that are completely results of policy decisions have really not allowed them to?' he said. 'The degradation of levels of poverty in this state don't allow people to think as a community. They just think about surviving.'
And he added that if one generation in a family hasn't made a habit of voting, the younger generations tend not to either.
Thomas said she knew simply showing up with absentee ballot application forms wasn't going to be enough to convince people to vote. She said her office has uploaded civics information and a voter guide to the tablets incarcerated people use to communicate.
'Yes, we need to look at access to the actual ballot, but I also believe that we need to look more closely at — how do you offset this lack of belief that your voice even has agency?' said Thomas. 'I hope the legislature will take that up in addition to providing access in future sessions."
Emilia Otte is a reporter for The Connecticut Mirror (https://ctmirror.org). Copyright 2025 © The Connecticut Mirror.
This article originally appeared on The Bulletin: Connecticut prisoners could more easily vote in elections under bill

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports
Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports

USA Today

timean hour ago

  • USA Today

Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports

Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports With the settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences having received final approval from a federal district judge on June 6, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have moved into action with new legislative proposals regarding national rules for college sports. On Wednesday, June 10, Reps. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., and Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., introduced a bill that comes shortly after Reps. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., and Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., circulated a discussion draft of a bill that would largely put into federal law the terms and new rules-making structure of the settlement. The discussion draft is set to be the centerpiece of a hearing June 11 by a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Bilirakis, who has been involved in previous college-sports bill efforts, chairs the subcommittee. Guthrie chairs the full committee. The bill – in addition to being a bi-partisan presentation – continues recent work related to college sports from McClain, who is the current House Republican Conference chair. That makes her the GOP's No. 4-ranking member in the House. In April, McClain introduced a bill that would prevent college athletes from being employees of their schools, conferences or an athletic association. The discussion draft – as posted on Congress' general resource site, - includes language that specifically would allow the NCAA, and potentially the new Collegiate Sports Commission, to make rules in areas that have come into legal dispute in recent years and in areas that the NCAA wants to shield from legal dispute. The discussion draft, first reported on by The Washington Post, also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of federal law. In addition, the discussion draft includes a 'placeholder' section for language that likely would be connected to providing antitrust or other legal protection for various provisions. According the discussion draft, an 'interstate collegiate athletic association' would be able to 'establish and enforce rules relating to … the manner in which … student athletes may be recruited' to play sports; 'the transfer of a student athlete between institutions'; and 'the number of seasons or length of time for which a student athlete is eligible to compete, academic standards, and code of conduct'. The NCAA's rules regarding when recruits can be offered money in exchange for the use of their name, image and likeness; athletes' ability to freely transfer; and the number of seasons in which they are eligible to compete all of have been – or currently are being – addressed in federal and state courts across the country. That has raised concerns for NCAA officials about the future of rules such as those concerning academic eligibility requirements The discussion draft also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of law. These include medical coverage for athletically related injuries for at least two years after the conclusion of an athlete's career; guaranteed financial aid that would allow an athlete to complete an undergraduate degree; and 'an administrative structure that provides independent medical care and affirms the unchallengeable autonomous authority of primary athletics health care providers (team physicians and athletic trainers) to determine medical management and return-to-play decisions related to student athletes.'

Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill could make it harder to claim this low-income tax credit
Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill could make it harder to claim this low-income tax credit

CNBC

timean hour ago

  • CNBC

Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill could make it harder to claim this low-income tax credit

As Senate Republicans debate President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill", a lesser-known provision from the House-approved package could make it harder to claim a low-income tax credit. If enacted as written, the House measure in the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would require precertification of each qualifying child for filers claiming the so-called earned income tax credit, or EITC, starting in 2028. Under current law, taxpayers claim the EITC on their tax return — including Schedule EIC for qualifying children. The provision aims to "avoid duplicative and other erroneous claims," according to the bill's text. But policy experts say the new rules would burden eligible filers, who may forgo the EITC as a result. The measure could also delay tax refunds for those filers, particularly amid IRS cutbacks, experts say. More from Personal Finance:Job market is 'trash' right now, career coach says — here's whyWhat a 'revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill could mean for investorsWhat Trump's plan to slash Pell Grant to lowest level in a decade means for you "You're going to flood the IRS with all these [EITC] documents," said Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "It's just not clear how they're going to process all this information." Holtzblatt, who has pushed to simplify the EITC for decades, wrote a critique of the proposed precertification last week. "This is not a new idea, but was previously considered, studied and rejected for very good reasons," Greg Leiserson, a senior fellow at the Tax Law Center at New York University Law, wrote about the proposal in late May. Studies during the George W. Bush administration found an EITC precertification process reduced EITC claims for eligible filers, Leiserson wrote. During the study, precertification also yielded a lower return on investment compared to existing EITC enforcement, such as audits, he wrote. One of the key benefits of the EITC is the tax break is "refundable," meaning you can still claim the credit and get a refund with zero taxes owed. That's valuable for lower earners who don't have a tax bill, experts say. To qualify, you need "earned income," or wages from work. The income phase-outs depend on your "qualifying children," based on four IRS tests. "Eligibility is complicated," and residency requirements for qualifying children often cause errors, said Holtzblatt with the Tax Policy Center. For 2025, the tax break is worth up to $8,046 for eligible families. You can claim the maximum EITC with adjusted gross income up to $61,555 for single filers and $68,675 for married couples filing jointly. These phase-outs apply to families with three or more children. As of December 2024, about 23 million workers received the EITC for tax year 2022, according to the IRS. But 1 in 5 eligible taxpayers don't claim the tax break, the agency estimates. Nine Democratic Senators last week voiced concerns about the House-approved EITC changes in a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. If enacted, the updates would "further complicate the EITC's existing challenges and make it more difficult to claim," the lawmakers wrote. Higher earners are more likely to face an audit, but EITC claimants have a 5.5 times higher audit rate than the rest of U.S. filers, partly due to improper payments, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. The proposed EITC change, among other House provisions, still need Senate approval, and it's unclear how the measure could change. However, under the reconciliation process, Senate Republicans only need a simple majority to advance the bill.

'One Big Beautiful Bill' harms more than it helps, says Miami archbishop
'One Big Beautiful Bill' harms more than it helps, says Miami archbishop

Miami Herald

timean hour ago

  • Miami Herald

'One Big Beautiful Bill' harms more than it helps, says Miami archbishop

The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' passed in the U.S. House and is now in the Senate. Senators have a critical opportunity to reshape or amend some of the bill's provisions before moving it forward. Doing so is imperative, as the bill passed by the House contains real and substantial threats to the promotion of the common good and the protection of human life and dignity. Many across the political spectrum object to the bill's enormous spending, arguing it will add to the already unsustainable national debt. One of the most problematic areas is its doubling down on an enforcement-only approach to immigration, which needlessly adds to this debt. This sweeping legislation allocates $24 billion for immigration enforcement and $45 billion for detention — including the detention of families — a 400% increase from current funding levels, according to Dominican Life USA, which has broken down the immigration costs. It also proposes $100 million to expedite the removal of unaccompanied children. Additionally, the bill would impose prohibitive fees on immigrant families: $8,500 for family reunification with an unaccompanied child, $1,000 to request asylum, which does not exist now, and $550 for a work permit that must be renewed every six months. These draconian measures undermine both financial logic and moral responsibility. The administration has already effectively regained control of the border and is aggressively removing and deporting 'bad actors' — those who commit serious felonies after entering the country. However, as employers in agriculture, healthcare and service industries can attest, the majority of immigrants are honest, hardworking individuals who are simply seeking a better future for their families. Most undocumented immigrants are not criminals. Many have temporary protections, such as TPS (Temporary Protected Status), parole, or pending asylum applications. Some — including Haitians, Cubans, Venezuelans and Nicaraguans — entered under special humanitarian visas. Others arrived legally on student or visitor visas and later fell out of status by overstaying their visas. DREAMers, brought to the U.S. as children, have only been granted 'deferred departure' and still have no pathway to legal permanent residence. Rather than spend billions on mass deportation efforts targeting people who are already contributing positively to our nation, it would be both more financially prudent and morally just to halt enforcement-only policies and expand legal pathways to permanent status for non-criminal immigrants. The U.S. is currently facing labor shortages in many industries, including healthcare, services and agriculture. Removing immigrant workers will only worsen these shortages. While the administration enforces the laws, Congress makes the laws — and has the power to change them. Congress could revise the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to be less expensive, more economically advantageous and better aligned with our values by eliminating wasteful spending on enforcement and including a stay on deportations of non-criminal immigrants. Otherwise, this legislation will fund a mass deportation campaign that could tear apart families, disrupt industrie, and undermine communities. Long-term residents with U.S.-citizen children — people who work, pay taxes and enrich our culture — will be forced out. That does not serve the long-term interests or moral foundations of our country. Thomas Wenski is the archbishop of Miami.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store