CT House Floor Session — 2026-04-22

Let us pray. Gracious and ever-present God, we come before you in the midst of a full and demanding day in this chamber. As this legislative session enters its final weeks, the pace is quick, the stakes feel high, and the weight of decisions rests heavily on those gathered here. Grant these Representatives clarity of mind in moments of complexity, steadiness of spirit when emotions rise, and wisdom that reaches beyond urgency into what is just and good. Where there is tension, sow patience. Where there is fatigue, renew strength. Where there is disagreement, guide each toward respectful listening and a shared commitment to the common good. Remind each person here of the people and communities they serve, those whose lives will be shaped by the choices made in this room. Let that responsibility be carried not as a burden alone, but as a calling marked by integrity, humility, and care. In the noise and movement of this day, oh God, create space for discernment. In the press of time, grant perspective. And in all things, anchor this body in the spirit of cooperation and purpose. May their work today reflect not only efficiency but wisdom, not only resolve but compassion. We entrust this day to you. Amen.

Any business on the Clerk's desk? Make sure you read the full title.

Mr. Majority Leader?

No objection, so ordered. (gavel)

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Let's do the New Milford Day thing first, and then we'll do my announcement here. Representative Buckbee, what do you got?

Good, sir. How are you?

Just so you know, the goat was named after Ricky Baltimore, the House Dem General Counsel.

I just, I don't think I can. I am so fearful that I will drop it or injure it or it'll sneeze, and I'll get frightened. I don't know if it's a good idea.

Yeah. Marilyn wasn't sure about with a child at two weeks old for me holding it. I don't know about the goat. I don't know. I don't know. I'll think about it.

It just may end poorly.

The Governor held the goat?

Well, I'm kind of in the pet mode myself.

He's a crafty man that guy was. So, I'll keep thinking about it.

Happy New Milford Day.

Representative Rader of the 98th, what do we have from the shoreline?

Good morning.

You may proceed, madam.

Representative Rader, thank you. Representative McGee from the City of West Haven, 116. What do you got? Yep. There we go. We got you.

You may proceed, madam.

Representative McGee, congratulations, and good luck. It's a difficult profession. It's a calling. I know you'll make our state proud. Thank you. Representative O'Dea from the 125th, was he on -- I love skipping Tom, so let's go to Representative Zupkus from the 89th.

You may proceed.

Welcome. I had the pleasure, two years ago, we had the National Speakers Conference in Salt Lake City. So, myself and my chief-of-staff went out there. We had a great time. I think the Speaker then is no longer the Speaker now. They gave a new one, but it's a beautiful state. So, thanks for joining us. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Zupkus. Representative Linehan of the -- actually, you know what? I'm going to, because Representative McCarthy Vahey has got like 400 people. So, let's go with her. From the 133rd, you have the floor, ma'am.

You may proceed, madam chair.

Thank you, Representative McCarthy Vahey, and thank you for joining us. Deputy Speaker Linehan, I did not mean to skip you, but there's a lot of people, so, you know, that sort of caught my eye. You have the floor, madam.

You may proceed.

Representative Linehan, thanks to our friends at the Y. We have a great one in Hartford as well. My son played for the basketball team for a couple years. A lot of fun. So, thanks for being here today. Representative Garibay, the chairwoman of the Aging Committee from the 60th District, proudly representing Windsor and a little bit of Windsor Locks. What do you have for us, madam?

And Maddie is studying her master in social work and wants to go into outpatient clinics. Amela is just an amazing young person, and we just wanted to introduce her today.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I rise for the point of a personal privilege. I am reminding all the members of the chamber that our annual tradition to collect suits on behalf of veterans continues this year, this year in a slightly new format. So, I would like to make two requests to the members of the chamber. The first is that if you think you might forget on the 30th to bring in your suits that you're no longer using that our veterans could use, I hope you'll think when you go home today to just pack them into your car and bring them to me, and I will hold on to them in my office between now and the 30th. And you can also now participate on our newest addition to this event, which is on Monday, May 4th from 11:00 to 5:00. We've invited the veterans to have a suit up event here. And veterans are going to come, try on the new clean suits, prepare for interviews for job prospects. And we think that with the diverse professionals in this chamber, that we might be able to help them through that day. So, please remember to bring in any suits you're no longer using. We'll get them cleaned up and offer them to veterans who are looking for jobs and opportunities. And this is a great opportunity to support many of the initiatives that we're hoping to advance this year through the Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. So, remember, bring in your suits. We'll hold on to them now. And do not forget this opportunity to share with our veterans. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I rise for point of personal privilege.

I just want to remind everybody that today is our infamous Game Tasting event up in Room 310 in the Capitol from 5:00 to 7:00. Please come and join us. Thank you.

I think the bear chili seems to be very --

No. I'll do chicken, beef, turkey meat.

They might have goose.

What is it?

Frogs? Do you like frogs?

All right. Have fun. Thank you. I do want the chamber's attention for a second. I'd ask everybody to please be quiet, take conversations outside. This morning, a beloved former colleague of ours passed away from an illness that he's been grappling with for a year, former State Representative Steve Dargan from West Haven, who was a long-time chair of the Public Safety Committee. My father actually drove down this morning around 6:00 AM and was probably one of the -- right before he passed away, probably shortly thereafter. For those of you who served with Steve, there's not much you need to know or hear because you know what a great guy he was. He was a unique individual. He had his own way of governing, but he probably ran the most bipartisan committee in the entire General Assembly. It's actually a tradition that I think Representative Boyd has done well with, with his ranking members here in the House. He was just larger than life. He was a great guy. He was somebody who could walk anywhere. And I see Representative Piscopo was here during that time, and people just loved him. And so, today, he lost his battle. We have a small video. It's the best we could do on short notice. Maybe we'll do a little better for him at another point in time. But let's show that and then we'll give, obviously, West Haven delegation the chance to say something as well. This is an honor of someone who means a great deal to a lot of us and to me and my family, Representatives Steve Dargan. (melancholic music) Representative Heffernan, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Representative Heffernan, and to the delegation that's there. The chamber will please rise for a moment of silence. (silence) Thank you. Representative Collins Main, are you on the board? No? Is that an accident? Okay. I think it's an accident. Yeah. Okay. It's okay. It happens all the time. When I used to sit down there, I used to do it all the time. All the time. Okay. I think we're going to get on to the business of the day. Will the Clerk please call House Calendar 400, 4-0-0.

I sure recognize Representative Stafstrom of the 129th, the chairman of Judiciary Committee from the City of Bridgeport.

Question is acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. You have the floor, sir.

Will the Clerk please call LCO 4469, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "A".

Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Stafstrom, you may proceed with the summarization.

Question before the chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark on the amendment? Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Fishbein, on the amendment, of the 90th District. Dual champion on the amendment?

Hearing no other objection to a voice vote, I will try your minds. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (MEMBERS): Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't mention Steve Dargan in my comments as I begin the day. I wasn't up here with him, but I did, outside of the chamber, get to know Mr. Dargan. He would call me from time to time. We had some great conversations. The last time I saw him was actually at Mary Fritz's funeral. You know, I replaced Mary Fritz up here, and Steve was on the Board of Pardons and Paroles at that time. And we had a great conversation that day. Always a very cheerful individual. Jolly, I think, is the right word. I'll very much miss Mr. Dargan.

Please proceed.

Representative Stafstrom, you can answer.

A little bit louder, please.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Please proceed.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

One per individual.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Stafstrom. Representative Fishbein. Thank you.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Can we stand at east for a moment?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to move temporarily to Representative Howard, if I may.

Gladly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe that I'm going to have too many questions for the proponent. One may pop up. Well, yes, we could start with a question. So, if I could, in the amendment, point my good colleague from Bridgeport's attention to Section 1. And I apologize, sir, I don't have line numbers on the amendment copy that I have, but it's relevant to the definition of a convertible pistol. It says readily altered by hand or with a common household tool. Mr. Speaker, I just want to give my colleague just a moment to get to where I'm at. Okay. And I look further down, and it says a common household tool includes hacksaw. If we're talking about pistols, and specifically striker fired pistols with a cruciform trigger bar, what necessitates a hacksaw in that process, through you?

Mr. Speaker, I'll confess I haven't tried to convert a pistol. So, I'm not entirely sure what would be entailed. But I think what we were trying to do here in the definition of common household tool was just to list certain common household tools that someone might have in their workshop, and a hacksaw would be one of those. So, certainly if a hacksaw is not necessary, then -- I think under this, the tools that are generally used are probably more of a screwdriver or a drill. Through you.

Well, thank you. I appreciate the answer. I guess I feel compelled to say for the record neither have I, right? I have never tried to convert a pistol. But when this legislation came through the Judiciary Committee, I did take the time, because I thought it was important, to understand what that meant. Understand how the Glock switch came to be. What a Glock switch is, so called Glock switch. Convertible pistol switch, converter, whatever we call it in here. On the street, it's called a Glock switch. Pistol converter, I guess. Well, I'll try to use that word the best I can. The reason I bring this to the attention of the chamber is because in everything I've seen, there's no need for a hacksaw to convert a so-called convertible pistol into a machine gun by use of a convertible switch. So, the presence of the word hacksaw gives me a grave concern, and I want to make this clear. The grave concern is this. What we're doing with this bill is that we're putting into statute that if you own something that's legal, that can be readily converted. Because let's be honest, I could take a Porsche 911 and convert it into a ship if I have enough tools and enough material, but that's not readily converted, right? It would take an awful lot to do that. What we're doing is we're putting in statute and saying if you own something that's legal, but it can be "readily converted" from the bill into something illegal, in this case, a machine gun, we're going to outlaw the legal device. Mr. Speaker, under current statute, 53a-211 makes possession of a sawed-off shotgun in this state illegal. A sawed-off shotgun is a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches. I would submit to you that with a hacksaw, I could readily convert a shotgun into a sawed-off shotgun in just a few minutes. Now, it's not contemplated in the bill. Not contemplated -- shotguns are in the bill because of existing language and what they're changing, but that's not contemplated in the bill. But the presence of the word hacksaw seems to set up where this may be headed in the future, and that's why I bring that up. Later on in the same convertible pistol language, it talks about -- before I get there, I think it's important for people to understand what happened here. Why are we here today discussing this? And I'd like to tell my colleagues the reason. And by the way, what I'm about to say was also stated by the proponents of this bill, what I believe, and what they have said are some of the chief advocates of this bill at public hearing. I would say the group, but I'm not sure if that's appropriate, so I won't. But it was a group that came and testified. I think they were the first ones at public hearing on this bill, if folks want to go back and read it and see what I'm talking about here. In the 1980s, early 1980s, Gaston Glock developed, designed, and began to manufacture the Glock pistol. And when that happened, he created a trigger bar, which is, for those who don't know, is a piece within there that is how the device cycles itself, etc., to set up for the next round. Also plays a pretty important part of safety, but that's besides the point. And later on, a gentleman in Venezuela designed what we commonly refer to as a Glock switch or a converter switch as is talked about here or a pistol converter. A pistol converter, designed it. That gentleman tried to market that new design and his invention to law enforcement and military market here in the United States. Of course, none of them wanted it because nobody wants a fully automatic pistol. You can't control the rounds. We don't want them. Fully automatic pistols should not be out on the streets. I totally agree with that, okay? And he patented it. When the patent ran out, it became public knowledge and some wrongdoers, criminals across the United States took that design and they started manufacturing these switches and they made it into the civilian market and people were illegally, because they're already illegal, were illegally attaching those to otherwise legal pistols to make them fully automatic. And that became the problem. Subsequent to that, to address this concern, I believe in last January or sometime in the not-too-distant past, one of the main manufacturers of the striker fired pistol changed the cruciform trigger bar. Changed it. Because as contemplated here, people around the country said, well, the problem is that that particular pistol with that particular design, because somebody already invented it, is very easy to do. So, if we simply get away from the cruciform trigger bar and go to something else, we'll solve the problem. It's kind of like what's contemplated here today. Glock, one of the main manufacturers, came out with what they called the V trigger bar. And the testimony from the chief proponent of this legislation at public hearing was that within days, days of that new design, evildoers in the United States invented, created, and manufactured a new switch that attached to that one within days. That was the testimony of that proponent, and that is in fact true. I vetted that out and confirmed that is the case. Because, Mr. Speaker, as we sit here today in 2026, human ingenuity is in a place where it's never been before. Computer ingenuity with the advent of AI and the existence of 3D printers. So, we talk about AI. I say to people all the time, I should not have AI. I shouldn't have it because it allows like the things I see in my head for me to actually make visible to other people, right? So, I shouldn't have it. The point is if you can imagine it and tell AI what you want it to do, it can tell you how to do it and then you can 3D print it. A firearm, any firearm, fully automatic, semi-automatic, a revolver, a flint muzzle is nothing more than a series of moving parts that creates a spark that ignites gunfire, that causes a bullet to leave the end of a muzzle. It's a series of moving parts. So, for as long as human ingenuity is going to exist, and as long as 3D printers exist, and as long as physics exist, somebody somewhere is going to find a way to manufacture, design something that can overcome the reset cycle of a pistol and make it fully automatic. So, I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, your indulgence there so I can just make sure that my colleagues understand how we got here today. So, what about how we're here today? Here in this definition of convertible pistol, it says that a convertible pistol shall not be that if there's been something put in the way. So, the way that the converter works is you pop the back of the plate off and you attach the switch to the cruciform trigger bar and you've made it now fully automatic. What this basically says in layman's terms is, okay, if the manufacturer put something there, it wouldn't work. But for purposes of conversation, a piece of cinder, like a piece of cement, and says, well, now you can't attach something to it, then it would work, unless that could readily be removed. Well, anything that can be readily put there can be readily removed. We're talking about manufacture by human beings using tools. Ever since we made the wheel, a bowl, a plate, a fork. And now what we're doing is we're going down a road and saying that any -- not anything. I try to be clear about what's in legislation. In this legislation, that because these particular pistols, which by the way, happen to be the most popular pistol purchased in the United States in the civilian market and within law enforcement. Probably pretty soon the military as well. I don't think that's the case today. What it does there is it says as long as it can't be readily removed with common household tools. That, to me, does nothing because anything that can be readily put there can be readily removed. Later on in this amendment, I'm still in what I guess is now Section 2 of the bill, and forgive me. It says that any other device, part, combination of parts, kit, tool, or accessory that is not necessary for the function of the pistol and that when built into increases the rate of fire above the rate at which a person can fire the firearm without the device, part, combination, etc. So, through you, to the good Speaker, would that include an upgraded trigger, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. It could if it has the effect that is enumerated in this definition. Through you.

Well, see, this is one of the problems with the legislation, because we don't -- we say these things without a true understanding of how firearms work, right? Because it seems to me that the intent of legislation is in fact not to do that. It seems to me the intent of legislation is talking about making a pistol fully automatic. That seems to be the intent. But when we draft laws like this, and by people who don't, I guess, understand how the firearm works, this is sort of where we end. I think 65% of the law enforcement in the State of Connecticut, both state and municipal, use glocks. And I'm not going to debate the presence or the lack of a fiscal note on this bill. I'm going to be careful about that. Except I want people to understand something. You know, we walk around this building, and we talk about municipal aid, and we talk about, you know, affordability, and we talk about trying to make things more affordable for a municipality. It is a fact that police departments have to train armorers within their police department to work on their firearms because sometimes, being that it's a series of moving parts, firearms fail. Parts fail, something is defective, etc. So, now, under this legislation, none of our police departments, our state police or any municipal police department, will be able to import, purchase, or acquire any of these firearms that are manufactured this way after March. Correction, excuse me, October. So, if that's the case, I would suggest that it may come at a cost to municipalities because these armorers have to be retrained, and you can't get matching guns to what's already there. So, I am very fortunate to have recently been issued the Glock 45 COA, phenomenal platform which can't even get to the civilian market yet because they can't fill the orders for law enforcement as it sits because they're that busy. And if we try to add in one of my towns, both of my towns that have police departments, to the police department, add additional firearms, they won't be the same. And I also think, and perhaps it's the point of legislation, I don't know. I don't speak to people's intent. But I also think that when these main manufacturers have to remanufacture something just to come to Connecticut, I would venture a guess that the rules of economics would say that that particular product, be it a firearm or anything else, would become more expensive to people here while we talk about affordability. Jumping forward in Section 501 of the amendment, this says an individual who delivers or surrenders a firearm -- well, you know what? Before I get to that, let me jump to section -- Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry. It's trying to keep the amendment with it. I only got this this morning, so. In Section 3 of the bill is really the big issue. And I want to be clear about this, because I think it's very important that folks understand some things. The portion of the underlying bill that makes the switch, well, the switch is already illegal. Having a firearm with a switch attached to it is already illegal. What we're now saying is if I'm in possession of a convertible pistol, as defined, and in possession of a Glock switch or a switch, but it's not yet attached to it, nah, they're both machine guns now. And Mr. Speaker, I don't have an issue with that because if I'm in possession of a convertible pistol and a Glock switch, there's no question what my intent is. My intent is to put that switch on the pistol and make it fully automatic. That is clear, because a switch has no other legitimate purpose. You know, the ranking member talked earlier about airplanes and chlorine or something else, things that have legitimate purpose. We actually make a differentiation of those things in statute, actually. So, a deadly weapon in our criminal justice statutes is defined as something that was solely manufactured to be a weapon. A baseball bat is not a weapon. I mean, I hear it be talked about a lot. It's like, oh, a baseball bat can be a deadly weapon. Well, not according to our statutes. In our statutes, a baseball bat's a dangerous instrument if it's used as a weapon, right? There's a distinction. The distinction that the legislature made then that carries through today is that there's a distinction between something that is manufactured for illegal purpose, or in that case, for a purpose of causing harm. But in this context, something that's manufactured solely for an illegal purpose and something that's manufactured for something else are different, right? Heroin dealers sell their product in glassine bags. Maybe we could cut down the heroin epidemic if we outlawed glassine bags, except they have legitimate purposes. They're legal. And we could go on and on and on about that. A switch, Mr. Speaker, has one purpose, and it is illegal. So, if somebody's in possession of that switch and in possession of an otherwise legal firearm that would accept that switch and become fully automatic, I would be the first guy in line to support that legislation because that is good public policy. But what this bill does is it tells every person in this state that owns a striker fired pistol, that enjoys the sport of it, that keeps it for their self-defense. My wife is a very small-framed woman, right? Those striker-fired pistols work very well for her when she's by herself or whatever. And telling everybody in the state, you can keep yours. I don't want to misrepresent the legislation. There is nothing in here, nothing that says if you currently own one of these firearms, that you have to turn it in. That is not contained in legislation anywhere. I want to be clear, all right? I want to be accurate. But what it is saying is you can't buy them anymore unless the manufacturer changes the way they do it, which I believe may come at a cost. Now, one of the main companies, as I said, has changed in their newest version. I've contacted them, and there's no commitment as to whether or not that's going to be their design going forward. But I'll point this out. If this bill passes today, it does not ban the sale or manufacture of the v trigger bar. And as we sit here today, the v trigger bar already has a switch that can attach to it and be used to make it fully convertible. As we sit here today, I believe that to be true. In public hearing, that was the testimony of the advocates of this legislation. So, this outlaws cruciform trigger bars because in the past and still today, they can accept a switch that's already designed and readily be attached to them. It does not outlaw the v trigger. It does not outlaw the v trigger bar at all, which brings into question the whole point of legislation. If what we're hearing is that the legislation was designed to stop the addition of a so-called Glock switch or a switch converter onto a convertible pistol because it's already been designed and is too readily accessible and easy to do, well, then why is the v not here? I'm certainly not suggesting to add it. I would just make the bill worse for me. But my point is the impetus and the alleged intent of this bill falls short because we've already moved beyond it, unless, of course, this is step one to come back next year and do something else. And perhaps that something else, since we've added hacksaw seemingly unnecessarily, is to ban shotguns. Maybe that's what's next here in State of Connecticut. I don't know. I certainly wouldn't support it, but perhaps that's what's next. Mr. Speaker, if this underlying bill didn't have Section 3 in it and it simply defined convertible pistols, and it said that if you have a convertible pistol and a device that can make that convertible pistol fully automatic, boy, be a hard no vote. Be a real hard no vote. It's a good piece of legislation if it did that, if we struck Section 3. My main opposition to this bill is Section 3. My main opposition to this bill is a section that says, you, law abiding person in the State of Connecticut, who's paid $300 potentially if it's a pistol permit, a little bit less if it's an eligibility certificate, paid all this money, gone through a fingerprint supported background check, had your background done, gone through a class, and you want to purchase a firearm for legitimate legal purpose, not going to be able to do it if it's manufactured after March 1st with these things in it, that is one of the most common ways to do things. That's what I find offensive. I find it offensive that we're going to sit here today and we're going to tell law- abiding citizens in the State of Connecticut that they can't have something because somebody else has wanted to buy it and remanufacture it. I don't know how many Glock pistols I own. I'd have to sit and count them, a handful. None of them have ever been converted, to my knowledge, and the back plate's never even been taken off of them. But my kids and I have a great time. We have dad and son time, we go to the range. They learn gun safety. We have lunch together. They put a few rounds down range. And I know that's offensive. I understand my colleagues get upset about that. You should not be spending quality time with your son at the gun range. That's fine. That's your opinion. We have a great time. All right. Jumping on to this amendment that came out of Public Safety. So, as I understand Section 501 in the amendment, it says that police departments in the state -- I want to make this distinction. The state police is going to have to become a temporary storage facility for firearms owners, and the police departments locally can do it, may do it. Now, five years ago, I used to sit over there. I stood there and in the Judiciary Committee when we were in the RPO language and I said, hey, this language exists in a way that police departments have to hold all these firearms into perpetuity. We don't have that kind of storage space. The state police doesn't have that kind of storage space. What are we doing? We can't do that. Nah, we did it anyway. So, now we have police departments and the state police coming to us and saying, hey, when we have those guns more than two years, we're going to destroy it. We're going to let you know you can come get them. But if you've gone through the process to have your order terminated, boy, we're going to destroy them. We have to do that. They came to the Public Safety Committee and said we have to do that. We have too many guns, we don't have space for all these things. And I said, "Yeah, I know." I don't want to take words out of my friend from the 47th, smile, but yeah, I told you so. I told you that five years ago. So, we have a bill to change that so that we can free up their space. And then we pass another bill that says, but we're going to take in a bunch of other ones instead. That defies physics. If I move this phone off my desk to make room on my desk and put another phone there, I haven't made any more room. I don't know why we think I did. That's insanity to me. So, we're going to sit here and say we need to change the law to destroy these firearms so we can make room because we don't have enough room. But no, no, no, we do have enough room if you want to bring your guns to us so we can hang on to them. I don't even know what the point of this even is. So, we have a bill here. And I'm a police officer, as everybody knows, right? If I didn't say that yet today, I say it every day. So, now I've said it. I'm a police officer. I run an evidence room. People can bring firearms today, any police department, fill out the DPS-293-C and say, "I want this firearm destroyed. I don't want it anymore." They sign the form. The police department takes it to the state police, and they destroy it or mark it for appropriate use, right? So, if you have a firearm you don't want, you can bring it to your police department today or the state police and they'll take it. No problem. Periodically, people call and say, hey, I want you to hold on to my firearms for a while. I say, "Well, I can't do that." That's not what we're here for. You could bring it to a gun shop and ask them to hold it, to an FFL, and have them hold them for you for a while, and you could pay storage fees like everybody else does. You know, I have a boat. I have to store it somewhere in the winter time. I pay somebody. Maybe that would be a great amendment. I'll probably get told no. But maybe we'll make an amendment here that so I don't have to spend the money to store my boat in the storage lot, I can store in the back lot of the PD or maybe a town hall. I mean, I'm a taxpayer after all. Maybe I should store that property there. And this says that -- and I've heard proponents of legislation say things like, well, if I'm going on vacation, I want my gun stored. Okay. Go to your local gun shop. I'm sure they'll be happy to do it for you. This says if I do that and I come back, I can't even have my gun back until 15 days later. I haven't done anything wrong. I walk in and I say, hey, officer so and so, I got to go down to Florida for three days. I live alone. There's been some crime in my neighborhood, burglaries. I want to be responsible. I want to be responsible, and I want to bring my firearms here so that they're safer. That's good sense. Then when I get back, I can't have my firearms back for 12 more days. I didn't do anything wrong. I'm a legal firearms owner, and they're keeping my guns for 15 days. That's crazy. I also heard folks say, well, what if the person's mentally ill? So, I walk into the front door of the Hartford Police Station and say, "Guys, I live here in Hartford. I feel like I might want to hurt myself. I got to give you my guns. Hang on to them for me." You know what that police officer is going to do? He's going to do an RPO. Of course, he's going to do an RPO. Absolutely going to do an RPO. Police officers in the state do RPOs anytime - some police departments operate - anytime they send somebody in the hospital under a 17a-503 emergency examination request. Of course, they're going to. And then the RPO process takes over. I had somebody say to me, well, what if it's a domestic? Okay. What if it's a domestic? So, suppose a guy says to you he wants to give you his guns because you're arresting him for domestic violence offense. Then what do you do? Well, you take his guns. Because he got arrested for a domestic violence offense, and when he told me about them and showed me where they were, they became in plain view. And under our general statutes, the police have an obligation to take them. It says show. And they take them. They put them on a JD-CR-18 until the case is done. But almost inevitably, at the next court date, there's a protective order. So, now we're into the one-year 29-36k. This is two years. What are we doing the extra year for? Why are we doing the extra year? We have a storage problem. Under current law, if a domestic violence arrestee comes into a police station, says, here's my guns. I've got a protective order. I have to turn them over. I check the other box on the DPS-293-C. I check the other box. Say that I'm turning them over in compliance 29-36k. And I understand that in one year, if I have not legally got them back to me or to an FFL, that they will be destroyed. One year. Opening up storage in the police department. But now we're saying two years. So, play that out. How does that even work? How does that even work? Somebody comes to a police department and says, hey, here's my guns. I'm getting arrested or whatever. And then there's a protective order. He signs that, and that law, 29-36k, says they're going to be destroyed after one year. Then we have another law saying two years. I don't know. Flip a coin. Maybe flip a coin, figure out which one. I don't know. The last part of this amendment, Section 503, is a good part of the bill. It's a good part of the bill here because this says that when a police officer, a police chief -- a police chief or a local authority has a statutory obligation to render decision on a pistol permit applicant in a certain amount of time. And if they don't, nothing happens. You can't even appeal because there's been no decision. So, what this does is basically says the fee, the $70, the statutory fee that you pay that municipality will go back to you. And hopefully, that helps hold people accountable, whether it be the first selectman or the police chief. Mr. Speaker, I have outlined to you some of the concerns I have with some of the amendments. But I'll submit to this legislature that if Section 3 of this bill were to be removed, I'd be more than happy to support it today. But I am adamantly opposed, whether it's a firearm, chlorine, an airplane. I don't care what it is. I am adamantly opposed to a public policy that says that we're going to make something illegal for law abiding citizens to possess because they may turn it into something that is -- let me say it again. I am opposed to a public policy that says that we're going to make it illegal for a law-abiding citizen to possess an otherwise legal piece of equipment because they might be able to take that series of moving parts and turn it into something else. We've heard I told you so already this year. I've said it already in this year. And I'm telling you right now that if this goes through today and we codify into statute the theory that it's acceptable legislation to outlaw a legal firearm that may be converted to something illegal, before long, it's going to be shotguns. And then we've lost it all. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the exchange. There was a particular part of the exchange that had to do with rate of fire enhancements. And I just, in the amendment, there is language. It's particularly line 55 that says that if an item is not necessary for the operation of a firearm and it increases the fire, such as sears we've heard about today, that that would be addressed by the legislation. However, the exchange had to do with triggers. A trigger is required for any firearm to fire. And therefore, because of the use of the word not in line 55, it says an accessory that is not necessary for the function of the pistol, a trigger, other forms of triggers, additional triggers would not be affected by this. And I just want, through you, Mr. Speaker, to confirm to the chair, just to correct the legislative history on this, that that is the case, through you.

Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker. The amended language does make clear that the definition of -- or sorry, the addition of the language with respect to rate of firearm enhancements does not apply to a part of the gun that is necessary for the functionality of the gun. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, moving on, you know, there are various things that we heard from my colleague that are problems with this bill. There are various things that are addressed by this bill. You know, overall firearms' safety, safety of citizens and noncitizens of the State of Connecticut. And with that, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment. It is LCO 4501. I ask the Clerk call the amendment, and I be given leave to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule "B", LCO No. 4501, offered by Representative Fishbein.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this amendment merely gives a tax credit for the purchase of a gun safe. Certainly, we, by public policy, do provide for requirements for safes in homes or place of businesses for the storage of firearms. And in conjunction with that public policy that we've set forth, we believe it would be a good thing to give a tax credit up to $150 for the purchase of that gun safe. And I do move the amendment. And I ask that when the amendment be called, that it be called by roll. Thank you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, just two brief questions, which maybe I can ask in conjunction together. One, has this concept been vetted by the Finance Committee, and does the proponent know the cost of this proposal, through you?

Mr. Speaker, I'm looking on the system. I don't see a fiscal note at this point. Therefore, I would assume that there would be no cost because that has not been generated. I will admit that the Finance Committee has not addressed this, but this chamber, chamber upstairs has already established during this session that that's really not necessary. You know, we had SB 298 three weeks ago which had a provision that should have gone to the Judiciary Committee. Never had a public hearing. But the precedent that was created by that whole process sort of threw the rules out the door. I don't see that this would have a significant impact potentially. You know, perhaps we need more gun owners in the State of Connecticut. But if we take the gun owners, take every household that has a firearm and we multiply it by 150, I don't see it being that much. So, to answer the question, that's the answer. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Just stand at ease for one second, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I defer back to Representative Fishbein now that he's had a chance to review the fiscal note.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I do recognize there's a fiscal note in the system, but it's an up to. Could be $1. Could be $5, $10. It's really unclear as to the fiscal impact. So, that is my representation to the body. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I reviewed the fiscal note as well. And the up to here is actually up to $12 million, which, at least where I come from, is a significant amount of money. I know the Bridgeport Board of Education, for example, is suffering with a $44 million budget hole and doesn't have school librarians. We don't have paraprofessionals in our classroom. Certainly, $12 million would go a long way to funding librarians and paraprofessionals in our state's largest city. And so, as much as I'm sympathetic to those who have to buy gun safes, I'm not sure this is the most prudent use of our state's finite resources. And so, I would oppose the amendment, particularly since it hasn't been vetted by the Finance Committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I still rise in support of the amendment. You know, we look at priorities in this building. We balance priorities all the time. We hear about gun violence. We hear about targeting lawful gun owners. If what I'm hearing today is $12 million is not enough to protect State of Connecticut from gun violence, I'll accept that position of the other side of the aisle. I think that protecting individuals from gun violence really has no number that you could place on it. We certainly spend money on other things. In looking at the balance, I seem to want to prioritize. We should be looking at the gun violence in this state. We've fought for years to get money for the state police gun trafficking task force for years to go after illegal guns and had to fight the other side of the aisle with regard to that funding. So, at the end of the day, is it really just guns that they don't like, or is it gun violence? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

House Amendment Schedule "B": Total number voting 150 Necessary for adoption 76 Those voting Yea 48 Those voting Nay 102 Absent not voting 1

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I see where the priorities of the chamber are, and that's unfortunate. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of another amendment, and that's LCO 4441. I ask that the Clerk call the amendment, and I be given leave to summarize.

LCO No. 4441, designated House "C", and offered by Representative Fishbein.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, our constitution and our courts recognize that the second amendment gives certain rights. In fact, even the Connecticut constitution, Article I, Section 15, very clearly says that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Constitutional rights. However, the legislature, in its infinite wisdom or lack of thereof, has made individuals who want to exercise that right pay a fee. I don't think anybody should have to pay a fee to exercise a constitutional right. And what the amendment before us does is just repeals the fees to exercise a constitutional right. Very simple. Now, I do recognize, Mr. Speaker, that we did get a report from OFA. It indicates a $4 million loss allegedly from this amendment. My first session I got up here, we learned that the cost of actually processing didn't rise anywhere near the level of what was being collected. And the money from this process was being swept into the general fund. And no additional individuals are hired, to my knowledge, to do this work, to do these reviews. There's no additional cost. And in fact, the fiscal note that's before us once again says any money that comes in goes to the general fund. It isn't used as a counterbalance to pay for the processing of these fees. The government should never charge a fee to exercise a fundamental constitutional right. That is all this amendment does. It brings good public policy in line with being a citizen of the United States in this fair state. I move the amendment. And I ask when the vote be taken, that it be taken by roll. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, Mr. Speaker, at least we're moving in the right direction here, right? The last amendment would have cost the state $12 million. This one is relatively modest at a $4 million cost to the state. So, cut the cost in third. But, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I still need to oppose this amendment. I think, obviously, whenever someone applies for something, there is a fee for that. There's a fee to process. There's a fee for the right to engage in that. But more importantly, Mr. Speaker, this is a topic that has not, to my knowledge, been vetted by the Finance Committee. We are late in a budget year, would likely blow a $4 million hole in our budget. And I would ask my colleagues to oppose it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to comment on the amendment.

29 states and growing have permitless or constitutional carry for firearms. This is the constitution state. It's time for us to get on board. Even with constitutional carry, the federal government requires background checks and prohibited persons cannot carry. A permit turns a right into a privilege. Less than constitutional carry is unconstitutional. I urge adoption. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to mention that I foresee we're going to have a bill this session. We've had debate in committee about waiving the fees to apply for a pardon, which is right in line. In fact, I would argue that getting a pardon is not a constitutional right. So, to be congruent, to support that public policy, I think you have to support this public policy. These are innocent individuals merely looking to exercise a constitutional right, and they shouldn't have to be charged a fee in particular. Thank you. I move the amendment.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

LCO 4441, designated House "C": Total number voting 150 Necessary for adoption 76 Those voting Yea 48 Those voting Nay 102 Absent not voting 1

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate to learn that State of Connecticut would rather fund illegal alien health care than to balance out the constitutional rights of its citizens, but we go on. So, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of another amendment. It's LCO 4471. I ask the Clerk call the amendment, and I be given leave to summarize.

LCO 4471, designated House "D", and offered by Representative Fishbein.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that we've established that State of Connecticut, through its legislature, believes it's appropriate to charge a fee to exercise a constitutional right, perhaps it's time to look at the terms on those licenses. So, we have four different firearm licenses in Connecticut. We have an ammo certificate. We have a long gun eligibility certificate. We have a handgun eligibility certificate. We have a pistol permit. They all require fees. They're all good for no more than five years. You know, I got a call from a gentleman I knew years ago. He had moved. Lived in Connecticut. He was a hunter for many years. He moved to Ohio and lived there for about five years. Came back to Connecticut this last fall and wanted to go hunting. He went to his local gun store to buy ammunition, and they said, "Well, where's your ammo certificate?" "Ammo certificate? I need an ammunition certificate to buy ammunition now? How do I do that?" So, he had to go to the state police. He had to be fingerprinted. He had to file an application. Took them about 45 days to get him the ammo cert. In the meantime, he drove back to Ohio and bought a box of ammunition. All an ammo certificate is is a poor economic development vehicle. So, what the amendment does, first of all, is it extends the period for an eligibility certificate for a handgun or long gun from five years to 10 years. It does the same for a pistol permit, five years to 10 years. And it makes ammo certificates good for life. It's good public policy. Now, I will note, Mr. Speaker, that there is a fiscal note that was put on the system. However, there's no numbers that appear in it. It says it might end up with a revenue loss to the state and municipalities due to less frequent payment of renewal fees, but there is no number. So, as we shift down in priorities, we started with $12 million. That was unacceptable. We got to $4 million. That too was unacceptable. Now we're at nothing, basically. I move the amendment. And I ask the vote be taken, it be taken by roll. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the ranking member will be relieved to know that fiscal concern is not my primary concern on this amendment. In fact, my primary concern is more that when we have someone go in and apply to renew a license, the primary reason for that is a periodic check-in. Here, we're talking about a renewed background check. If you think about sort of a driver's license, we have somebody make sure they actually still want that license, or here, that permit. And so, I think there is good public policy to keeping the current timelines we have, having that periodic check-in with law enforcement and background check in order for someone to access the firearm. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, sorry to bring this to the attention of the good chairman, but as of, I think, four years ago, all renewals are done by mail. They don't do renewals where you come in and you check-in, none of that stuff. It doesn't go on. So, it's merely you take a passport picture, you attach it to the form, you send it with your check for $70 to the government, and that's what happens. So, merely if the opposition is that the person doesn't want to or the person should be necessary to show active want for that, I don't know that that holds a lot of water here. Because, ultimately, you are still charging a fee to exercise a constitutional right, the ability to utilize that should be a longer term. So, I think the amendment makes sense, and I ask my colleagues to support. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

LCO 4471, designated House "D": Total number voting 149 Necessary for adoption 75 Those voting Yea 48 Those voting Nay 101 Absent not voting 2

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it. I have some questions for the proponent of the bill, if I may.

And I've been told that I don't smile enough when I'm holding a microphone, so I will try to do this with a smile on my face.

You never know what's going to happen. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the good proponent what the genesis of this bill was. Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I think it depends on the section of the bill. But with respect to the first several sections related to the convertible pistols, I think the genesis is that we have seen an increase in proliferation of these convertible pistols being used to commit crime on the streets of our state. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We had that portion of the bill in the Judiciary Committee. And some of the folks that were testifying said that they had written it. I believe they were from Everytown, the gun control group, that they had written that bill and had then given it to the chair of the Judiciary Committee, who then introduced it. Is my recollection correct, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. No. Actually, the original language for the convertible pistol provisions of this bill were a Governor's bill. Through you.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, were the people who testified about providing that bill or that language to the chair of Judiciary, were they incorrect, through you, or am I remembering it incorrectly?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. As with most of the bills if not all the bills that come before the Judiciary Committee, I've met with various proponents of bills, usually in the off session or the early part of session to look at language. I certainly have had a very productive and constructive dialogue with the Everytown for Gun Safety group for a number of years. And, yes, I did meet with them last summer to discuss potential language for this bill. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And do I understand the bill correctly that it bans the sale and manufacture of Glock handguns, through you?

No, Mr. Speaker. That's not what the bill does. Through you.

Okay. Then what does it do, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. It gives gun manufacturers such as Glock up until October of this year to modify the design of their handguns, just as they have done in Europe and other places. And if they want to sell new models of guns in the state after October 1, then they will need to do so in a manner that's consistent with our law. Through you.

Okay. So, it bans the sale and manufacture of certain specific models of Glock handguns, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. No. It doesn't ban the manufacture of anything. Glock can continue to manufacture whatever it wants to manufacture. It just says here in the State of Connecticut, if you are going to sell certain types of firearms, they need to comply with certain requirements. Through you.

Right. So, it bans the sale and manufacture of certain models unless they are changed into new models. Is that correct, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm really not. But this bill does not ban the manufacture of anything. Glock can manufacture whatever it wants to manufacture. All it does is it says you are not permitted to sell into Connecticut a certain type of firearm unless it complies with the requirements of this statute after October 1st of this year. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think we're getting a little bit into semantics, but is it fair to say that this bill would ban the sale of any new firearm that has a specific type of trigger bar, which most Glock handguns currently have, through you?

I would say that's generally correct, Mr. Speaker. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, it essentially bans an entire class of handguns, which is all handguns that have a cruciform trigger bar, which is a trigger bar shaped like a cross. It will ban the sale of all of them in Connecticut that are manufactured after October 1st of this year. Is that correct, through you?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, are handguns arms? Through you.

Are handguns arms, Mr. Speaker? Like are they firearms? Yes. Yes, they are. Through you.

And handguns can be carried on one's body, through you?

That they can, Mr. Speaker. Through you.

And handguns can be used by a person to defend herself, through you?

People do believe that. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And handguns can be used both offensively and defensively, through you?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

And handguns are constitutionally protected arms. Are they not? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I mean, obviously, that's a pretty, pun intended, loaded question. I think, certainly, there's a lot of supreme court jurisdiction about where the right to carry begins and ends and where the second amendment begins and ends. So, I'm not sure I can give a straight yes or no answer on that question. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll answer that one. Yes, they are. We had a lot of testimony in the Judiciary Committee on this bill, or at least sections of this bill. And through you, Mr. Speaker, from that testimony, did we learn that Glocks, handguns made by Glock, are the most commonly owned handgun in the nation? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I don't recall that direct testimony. But if that's the Representative's recollection, I have no reason to doubt it. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do indeed recall that testimony. Does the good chairman recall the testimony that handguns made by Glock are the most commonly owned handgun in Connecticut, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Not specifically. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do indeed recall that testimony. Multiple people testified to that effect. Does the good chairman recall the testimony that Glock handguns are often used and carried for self defense and other legal purposes, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I do believe there were folks who were of that belief at the hearing. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And would the chairman agree with me that a significant number of police departments in Connecticut carry Glock handguns, through you?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is there are certain police departments in the state that issue Glock pistols as duty weapons. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the good chairman agree that from the factory, Glock handguns are designed and manufactured to be used legally, through you?

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure I'd necessarily want to get into what Glock's intent is or is not. You know, I think part of the impetus of this bill is it certainly is my belief, and I think it's the belief of many of the proponents of this bill as well as what has been passed in a few other states now that says Glock could readily modify its firearm design so that the guns could not so easily be turned into rapid firing machine guns. Why Glock has chosen not to do that, I can't begin to tell you, Mr. Speaker. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the good chairman have any evidence that from the factory, Glock handguns are designed and intended to be used illegally, through you?

Yeah, Mr. Speaker. That's not what I said. My point was I believe the guns could be modified to make them safer. Why Glock has not done that, I don't know. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, is that a no, he has no such evidence, through you?

That's not what I said, Mr. Speaker. Through you.

I understand that's not what he said. But I'm saying, does he have any evidence that Glock handguns from the factory are intended to be used illegally, through you?

I believe I've previously answered the question, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We will have a very unproductive discussion if when I ask a question, you don't answer it. And then when I ask it again, you say I've already answered it.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. From the factory, are Glock handguns designed to fire a single projectile each time the trigger is pulled, through you?

I believe so, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, in that configuration, as they come from the factory, designed to fire a single projectile each time the trigger is pulled, are Glock handguns useful for legal purposes, through you?

I'm struggling with the term useful, Mr. Speaker. You know, I think it depends who the handgun is in the hands of whether it's useful or not. Through you.

Can they be used in that configuration for lawful purposes. Through you.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

And those lawful purposes include self-defense. Through you.

As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I believe that's some folks' belief. Yes.

Those lawful purposes include target shooting. Through you.

Depending on the location of the target, yes.

Those lawful purposes include marksmanship training. Through you.

Again, Mr. Speaker, assuming other laws and regulations are followed, it could be the case. Yes.

Those lawful purposes include competition. Through you.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of whether there are Glock firearm shooting competitions occurring in Connecticut, but if so, then conceivably yes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, we did have testimony in the Judiciary Committee from a number of individuals who indicated that they indeed used Glock handguns for self-defense, for target shooting, for marksmanship training, and for competition, all lawfully. Through you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the chairman of the Judiciary Committee if he is aware that one of the things that make Glock handguns so popular is what is called the safe action system. Through you.

I'm not aware of the specifics of that, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, Glock handguns have long advertised and marketed their system, their trigger system, their trigger bar system, and their firing mechanism as a safe action system because it is one of the safest and most effective systems designed and marketed in this country. Through you, Mr. Speaker, what is the reason why this bill would -- I won't use the word ban, but I will use the word restrict. What is the reason why this bill seeks to restrict the sale of certain Glock handguns? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Because I think this country and even this state continues to suffer from an epidemic of gun violence. That epidemic of gun violence is visible on our streets. Hartford, Meriden, West Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven, among places in which these types of firearms have been found, Connecticut has very strict laws on the use of machine guns or other rapid firearms. And the sale of Glocks in their current form with a switch that can readily be attached to it has caused numerous instances of violence and death on our streets, and we are trying to increase public safety. And, frankly, considering the manufacturer has not previously taken steps to rectify the situation, we believe this is the least restrictive alternative to get them to do so. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So if I could boil that down, essentially, because Glock handguns can be illegally converted by illegally installing an illegal device to turn them into machine guns. Is that correct? Through you.

Mr. Speaker, that's not the way I put it. I would rest on my previous answer. Through you.

I understand that. I boiled it down. That's why I said I was boiling it down. Okay. So Glock handguns in their current configuration can be converted into a fast-firing firearm. So we're talking about a little device. They call it a Glock switch, that is attached to a Glock to convert it into a fast- firing firearm. Is that correct? Through you.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And that little device, that Glock switch, is already illegal in this state. Is it not? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I believe it's illegal when it's attached to the Glock firearm. One of the things that this bill does is make it clear that the Glock switch is illegal when it is merely in the possession of the same person as the convertible pistol. Such that if somebody was, say, driving in their car and they're pulled over and they've got the Glock with the Glock switch attached to it, the officer comes up to the car and they quickly pop out the switch to it, then that would still be in the illegal possession of a machine gun under this statute, punishable as a D felony offense. That's part of the import of the bill, Mr. Speaker. It's why this bill is going to make us safer. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A Glock switch is already illegal under federal law. Is it not? Through you.

Mr. Speaker, through you. I'm not aware, but certainly, federal law seems to be changing fairly rapidly, and we are trying to make it illegal under Connecticut law. Through you.

Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm a little bit baffled that we have a bill before us that seeks to ban a class of firearms that are used for lawful purposes because they can be converted to an illegal machine gun with a Glock switch that is already a felony to possess under federal law, and the good chairman is not aware that that's already a felony. I'm a little baffled by that, but I shall move on. For the benefit of the chamber, I would indicate that it is already a felony to possess one. And we heard fairly extensive testimony on that issue in the judiciary committee. Perhaps the good chairman was not there that day, but the Glock switch is already illegal. And what this bill does is it makes regular, lawful, useful, constitutionally protected handguns that are used for lawful purposes, for self-defense, for target shooting, for marksmanship, for training, makes those illegal. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, although the good chairman is not aware that the Glock switch is already illegal, is he aware that it is already a felony to attach one to a Glock handgun? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I think I addressed that in my last answer. I said yes. And I also did say that I did think that a Glock switch was illegal under federal law. My point was that it's not clear it's illegal under state law, which is why we're passing this bill. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So attaching a Glock switch to a legal Glock handgun is already a felony under both state law and federal law. Is that correct? Through you.

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

So, essentially, what we're doing with this bill is banning or restricting. I'll use the word banning because you wouldn't be able to buy one or make one after October 1st. So I'm going to use the word banning. We're banning a legally constitutionally protected arm because someone can illegally use it. Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the good chairman identify any other constitutionally protected product that's been banned from legal use simply because a person illegally converted it to an illegal product by use of an already illegal device? Through you.

Yeah. I think I'm as puzzled by that one as you are, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure I quite got all the negatives in there, but I guess what I would say is I'm not sure that a product is ever constitutionally protected that would include a firearm. I think the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, but that is certainly more limited than each and every single product. And in fact, there's a Supreme Court precedent, I believe, that reasonable restrictions on firearms can be implemented. And I believe this is one of those three, Mr. Speaker.

All right. Well, I can't think of any product that's been legal that has been banned simply because somebody illegally converted it into something else that was illegal. My esteemed colleague from Stonington gave the example of shotgun. Shotgun with a 16-inch barrel could easily be converted into a sawed-off shotgun simply by sawing off the barrel. We don't then ban all shotguns. How about pipes, pipe bombs, regular hardware store pipe can be converted into an illegal pipe bomb simply by adding gunpowder and a fuse. Shall we ban pipes? We had one of the people who testified at the judiciary committee came up with an analogy. He got it from somebody else who I don't know, so I'll attribute it to our testifier. And I'll summarize a little bit that if an underage kid illegally buys alcohol, brings it home and mixes it with orange juice, and illegally drinks it, illegally gets drunk, goes out and drives a car illegally drunk, illegally goes through a red light, illegally has an accident while drunk, this legislature would ban orange juice. Doesn't make any sense. Seems to be a habit around here. Through you, Mr. Speaker, if I were to invent a device that can illegally convert every single handgun in the state into an illegal machine gun, can the state of Connecticut ban all handguns? Through you.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that's a little too hypothetical for me to give an accurate response on. Thank you.

Okay. Well, the answer is no. It's just that simple. You can't ban all handguns. You can't ban constitutionally protected handguns. We have Supreme Court precedent out the wazoo on that issue. You can't do it. That's what we're doing. We're banning essentially the most popular firearm that is used for self- defense and other lawful purposes. That is not going to pass constitutional muster. Now, I understand this bill may have started many months ago, but we just had a Supreme Court decision in March. That said, the government cannot ban a product that is used lawfully, that is sold and marketed for lawful purposes, simply because somebody can use it for illegal purposes. It was last month. Well, that's exactly what we're doing in this bill, or I take that back. That's exactly what you're doing in this bill. I'm not doing it. If Glock switches are an issue, then let's address Glock switches. Let's not ban Glocks. Let's not ban the most popular and most used firearm in the state for lawful purposes simply because some creep happens to figure out a way to make it a machine gun. I can rattle off at least a half a dozen US Supreme Court cases that this bill would run directly a foul of. To save you all, I won't do that. But I certainly have them in my head. And should this bill go through, they will certainly be trotted out, and this bill will go down because it is yet another attack on the constitutionally protected rights of the people of this state, and it will not stand up in court. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I say it with a smile.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope I'd be more serious. We've had a very good run here in the state of Connecticut on gun responsibility going back 37 years. In 1990, we passed the first gun responsibility law since World War II, when we did the Kids and Guns Act, which criminalized the negligent storage of firearms. There had been six kids who died in the summer of 1989 because an adult had, in my humble opinion, stupidly and negligently left a loaded gun where they could get their hands on it. They played with it, and the six kids died. DJ Kainey was one of them. His mother, Susan, was the proponent of the Kids and Guns Act, which passed overwhelmingly in this house regardless of party, or geography, or anything else, ideology. And that began this long series of gun responsibility laws. Most of them, like this bill today, are proactive. They're looking to stop something from happening. Something that could be fatal. Something that certainly is harmful. And this is the latest example of that, and I do want to congratulate Representative Stafstrom. He has been a staunch defendant for people who could be harmed by guns, and he's done a terrific job over the years. Only twice have we been reactive. The kids and gun bill, I just referenced. And of course, dealing with the massacre at Sandy Hook in 2012, if my memory serves me well. And I wanted to say John McKinney, who was a state senator at the time from Fairfield County, did a terrific job chairing the very special select committee, if you want to call it that, that result in that. But, in 1994, we banned the civilian possession of military-style assault weapons. And that was litigated in the state courts. And this is rising because the Connecticut constitution specifically says citizens and only citizens have the right to bear arms in their own defense and defense of the state. And I've always found this interesting, and the court -- the Connecticut Supreme Court, because we're talking about Connecticut law, as Representative Stafstrom has alluded, this bill deals with Connecticut law, not with any other kind of law. But the court found yes, there is this constitutional right of citizens to bear arms in their own defense and that of the state. But the legislature, under its general police powers, can define what firearms are defensive weapons. So we're within that constitutional limit, which is much broader in my opinion. The state constitution, I think, is more protective than the federal. So, I think with all that background, that history we've had for 37, this is just the next step, and it's being very proactive. And we're not banning a particular group of guns, although we could possibly have that power under the state constitution. We're just saying you can't have these guns, have manufacturers of these guns, bring them into the state if they're too easily converted into a semi or even fully, automated weapon. And it's interesting. I've heard, in some of the discussion we've had over the last few days, Glock already makes these. It's not like they're going to have to turn around and produce and design a new weapon. They already make them. They're illegal in, I think, California, and in Maryland, and in Germany, our friends in the EU. So I'm hoping that we can not only follow these other jurisdictions that have done this, but that we can continue to be the proactive jurisdiction dealing with making our streets, and our homes, and our schools, and all of our institutions much more safe here in Connecticut. I'm delighted to have seen in the last few years the number of violent crimes in this state keeps plummeting. Murders keep plummeting. Gun violence keeps plummeting. I'd like to get it down to zero, obviously. But I think that it is just -- my conscience says support this bill. It will save lives, as we have done in the past with a lot of the bills this jurisdiction has adopted, and that will be safer. We'll all be safer. Kids will be safer. Adults will be safer. Neighborhoods will be safer. Cities will be safer. The state of Connecticut will be safer. So I would very much encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

House Bill 5043, as amended by House “A”: Total number voting 150 Necessary for Passage 76 Those voting Yea 86 Those voting Nay 64 Absent not voting 1

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure and moment of -- well, yeah, I am speechless. I just got a text a little while ago that somebody was downstairs, wanted to see me. And we have the probate court staff of the town of Wallingford here to greet the chamber. And introducing them, we have Deb, Sue, we have judge Patrick Birney, and believe it or not, this is my wife, Rhonda. So I always hear much condolences are given to my wife for having to put up with me because you guys know how I am. Very much appreciate them being here. They were here training, actually, across the street at the Supreme Court. So we have a fine probate court led by Judge Birney, and I welcome them to the chamber. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Chamber will come back. Will the clerk please call calendar number 255?

Representative Kavros DeGraw, you have the floor.

Good afternoon.

The question before the chamber is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and the passage of the bill. Representative Kavros DeGraw, you have the floor.

Will the clerk please call LCO 3873, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule A.

The representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to the summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Kavros DeGraw, you have the floor.

Thank you. The question before the chamber's adoption of House Amendment Schedule A. Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Kavros DeGraw?

Okay. All set. Representative Haines of the 34th District, you have the floor.

Thank you. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Representative Gresko of 121 District.

Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Representative Nuccio of the 53rd District, you have the floor.

Please proceed.

Representative Kavros DeGraw.

Representative Nuccio.

Through you, Madam Speaker, it is a condo community.

Representative Kavros DeGraw.

Representative Nuccio.

Representative Kavros DeGraw, did you hear that?

Representative Nuccio.

Representative Kavros DeGraw.

Representative Nuccio.

Representative Kavros DeGraw.

Representative Nuccio.

Representative Kavros DeGraw.

Representative Nuccio?

Representative Kavros DeGraw.

Representative Nuccio.

Representative Kavros DeGraw.

Representative Nuccio.

Representative Kavros DeGraw.

Representative Nuccio.

Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Representative Rosario, you have the floor.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill before us? Representative Baker of the 124th District, you have the floor.

Thank you, Representative. We are still on the amendment. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark on the amendment before us? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the house? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be open.

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. And the clerk would take a tally, and will the clerk please announce the tally.

The amendment is adopted. (gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark on the bill as amended? Representative Arzeno of the 151 District, you have the floor.

Representative, we're still on the bill. After we vote for the bill, you can do your presentation. Thank you.

Will you remark on the bill as amended? Representative Ackert of the 8th District, you have the floor.

Please proceed.

Representative Kavros DeGraw, you have the floor.

Representative Ackert.

Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the house? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be open.

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. If all the members have voted -- I'm sorry. And the Clerk would call the tally. Please announce the tally.

The bill passes as amended. (gavel) Now we can have announcements. Representative Arzeno, the 151 District. You have the floor.

As we all know, today is Earth Day in the capital, and also we have the Connecticut coalition for climate action. And they had a poster contest. 16 finalists of 200 posters, and six of the finalists are from Greenwich. So, we are here with Representative Courpas and Representative Meskers to introducing -- introducing, let me see the names. Chris, Sander, Augie, Reid, Everett, and Kyle. And we have also an alumni from the school, from Brunswick, Representative Matt Blumenthal, honoring them here today as well. And I present them here, and they are very pleased to come and see all of us in the chamber. (applause)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. For purposes of an introduction.

Thank you, madam. There's a gentleman standing here between me and Representative Santos, and I'm hoping our interns are thinking about this because, well, back in the 20th century, he was an intern here for the legislature. He came to work for the house for a while. But talk about your success story. Since then, he was not only on my board of education for a few years, but he's currently the probate judge for the city of Danbury. Please give a warm welcome to Judge Joe DaSilva junior. Thank you. (applause)

Page 28. Calendar 333. House Bill Number 5311, AN ACT CONCERNING THE NON-ISSUANCE OF A STANDING CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE ORDER IN THE CASE OF A FAMILY VIOLENCE CRIME. Favorable report of Judiciary.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Also from the great city of Meriden, I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a great bill for court transparency. It's a great bill for victims' rights. This bill pertains to situations where there is a criminal defendant who is convicted or not found guilty due to a mental illness, and they are found guilty of a family violence crime. So these are crimes like harassment, stalking, assaults, first, second, third degree, assault with a firearm, and the like. For family violence crimes where the court elects not to issue a standing criminal protective order, the court has to state a reason why a standing criminal protective order is not granted. Like I said, good for court transparency, no cost associated, and office of the victim advocate testified in support of the bill, and I move adoption.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, standing here in April in the legislative session of 2026, I want to be the first one to say good bill ought to pass. Thank you.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

House Bill 5311: Total number voting 150 Necessary for Passage 76 Those voting Yea 150 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 1

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise for personal announcement, if I may. The House Republicans will be caucusing in Room 110. House Republicans caucusing in Room 110. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Always good to see you. I move that we recess subject to the call of the chair.

The House of Representatives will reconvene immediately. Members to the chamber. The House of Representatives will reconvene immediately. Members to the chamber.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to it for the purpose of an introduction.

Thank you. Welcome. I hope you have a chance to learn a few things and see how things operate. Welcome, we're glad to have you here.

Congratulations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for an introduction or announcement as well.

Thank you. Representative Piscopo and I are the last remaining members of the class that Peter was in with us back in the 20th century. Never mind. We won't talk about how long ago, but Mr. Smith, we're so happy to see you here. In which case, we will return to the call of the calendar. Mr. Clerk, 348, please.

The distinguished chairman of the GAE committee government administration elections. Representative Blumenthal.

Questions on acceptance and passage. Will you explain the bill, please, sir?

Mr. Clerk, 4526, please. Which will be designated House Amendment Schedule A.

Gentleman's asked to leave the chamber to summarize. Is there any objection? Hearing none, Representative Blumenthal.

Questions on adoption of House Amendment Schedule A. Will you mark further, Representative Blumenthal, or no? You okay? The distinguished ranking member of the Government Administration Election Committee, Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Very good, ma'am. Is there an objection to a voice vote on the amendment? Hearing none, we will do that. Anyone else care to speak on the amendment? If not, I will try your minds. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. (members) Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. (gavel) Now on the bill as amended, Representative Mastofrancecso.

Unfortunately, we can only do introductions and announcements between bills. So hi. Welcome. Enjoy your day here, but that's the best that we can do right now, I'm afraid. Sorry.

Appreciate that very much, ma'am.

I'm sorry. I didn't quite hear that, Representative Mastofrancesco. Could you repeat yourself, please?

I couldn't quite hear you.

Thank you. Represent Blumenthal, do you care to respond?

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal?

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal?

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal?

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm ready.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal?

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal?

Representative Mstrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal?

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal, did you want to comment?

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, the cross-references for Section 9-153E, 9-153F, and 9-158C all refer to those sorts of voters. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And the municipal clerk sends these ballots electronically. The reason why I'm questioning is because it's a new section. And what you're telling me that this is already in place. So I'm just trying to figure out what's new with this section, because it is underlined. What's new compared to what we currently have in place? Through you, Mr. Speaker, if you can elaborate on that, exactly what is new? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, nothing is substantively new. This is just a clarification to spell out exactly what happens under existing law. Through you.

Thank you. And through you, Mr. Speaker, does I'm just curious on towns. You know, each town has to send these ballots electronically. Is there certain software that is consistent across the state for all these municipalities that they have to use, or is it just simply emailed? Is there a security code that they need to put into or is it encrypted on the other end, where someone would have to open that email for security measures? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, it's just email.

Thank you. I'm sorry. Can you repeat that --

Through you, Mr. Speaker, it's just email. The law does not direct anything different. And, again, in this area, we are directed what to do by federal law.

Thank you for that. And again, why I was questioned, because it's all underlined, and it seems to be new language, and I just want to ensure -- actually, to figure out actually what is new. I'm looking on lines 310, and it talks about mailing applications for a ballot, and it mentions about a committee or agent including with the mailing. Can you elaborate on that? What exactly is this section doing? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. There have been and continue to be various groups and individuals who will mail unsolicited absentee ballot applications to others to assist them in obtaining an absentee ballot if they wish. We are going to require, going forward, that these individuals have to include, with that mailing, a disclaimer indicating that they paid for it, and where a candidate committee is involved, that the candidate approved it, much like any political advertisement in our system. And we're going to mandate also that whoever sends those absentee ballot applications out has to also explain the various ways an absentee ballot may be returned under our law. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And as you brought that up, what exactly information do they need to put in there of how an absentee ballot is returned? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. They have to include the list of ways that an individual can return an absentee ballot, which is laid out in Section 9-140B of our general statutes.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker, does it still apply for this particular section that an application for an absentee ballot has to have the year on it, and then there is -- they have to be numbered of actually how many applications that they are taking out. Does that still qualify under this section? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So in here, they are required to put if it's -- an application is sent out through a committee, or a campaign, or an agency, a third party could be mailing applications to voters. Do they have to put a disclaimer on the application, or is it just a piece of paper that is inserted in there? And if that is the case, how do we know that they have done that? We're requiring them to do that, but we have no proof that, in fact, they followed the law unless somebody complains. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, it can be a separate piece of paper included in the envelope. If anyone receives an absentee ballot application, unsolicited mailing, that does not include that disclaimer, then they would report it, and that person could be investigated and prosecuted as appropriate. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think this section really could address -- and I've always had a problem with this type of thing. The unsolicitation of applications. And this is where it's very easy to manipulate someone, go out and collect ballots. This is part of really where the ballot harvesting begins. It has always been my philosophy, Mr. Speaker, that we're not preventing anybody from voting. We have all the access you want. But if you want an application, you want to vote by absentee ballot, you should be the sole person requesting it. And, obviously, if you're unable to do that and you need a family member to help you do that, that's all fine. But what's happening here is that we have campaigns, we have third parties going out with hundreds and hundreds of applications, getting them out to people, taking them back, going to collect them, mailing them for people, and then going back and collecting the ballot when they get it. That's where the fraud begins. It's what they call ballot harvesting. And it's a big problem. Unfortunately, in this bill, it doesn't address any of those problems that we're having, but we can address it, Mr. Speaker. So let me just propose this. Mr. Speaker, the clerk is in possession of an amendment, and that is LCO 4472. I would ask the clerk to please call the amendment, and I'd be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule B, LCO Number 4472, offered by Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this amendment really goes to the heart of what I just talked about, and it does not allow for the unsolicitation of absentee ballot applications. If you want an absentee ballot, you should request it. If we want to start telling our voters in this state to put more trust into our elections and to really stop the fraud that is going on and the fraud that can't continue, this is a really good amendment, and it should pass. You should be the one requesting that application. Nobody else should be doing it for you. Obviously, unless you are incapacitated, and you obviously cannot do it, we certainly make accommodations for them. Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.

Ask for a roll call vote.

No. I just move adoption and ask for a roll call.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the description by the good proponent of the amendment. I would urge rejection of this amendment. There's a number of issues with it. One is that, ultimately, an application for an absentee ballot is just that. It's a form on which an individual places their information and their signature to signify to town clerk or another election official, as the case may be, that they would like to vote by absentee ballot. And as a result, it's just a piece of information. I think there would be significant First Amendment issues with barring individuals from being able to mail what is functionally just a government form that they can get off the Internet, that they could photocopy. They could do any number of things with -- Preventing them from setting that could violate the First Amendment. It would also interfere with a number of very benign activities that assist people with understanding their rights and being able to apply for an absentee ballot if they wish. And for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

House Amendment Schedule "B": Total number voting 146 Necessary for adoption 74 Those voting Yea 48 Those voting Nay 98 Absent not voting 5

There we go. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not surprised that this amendment fails. You know, we offer a lot of amendments in our committee here in any of the bills coming out of GAE, and they always fail. I don't know. There's no real intention here in this body to bring our confidence up to our voters that our elections are run clean and fair. It's unfortunate. I'm sure this will be one of the many no votes we'll have on our amendments tonight. But listen, they make sense. Just because they're a Republican amendment, you can't vote for them. I mean, it's absolutely ridiculous that we actually have to go through this. Through you, Mr. Speaker, let's talk about Section 5. If the good chairman could kind of explain to me what's going on here in Section 5. What's the current law? What are we changing and why, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Voters who have registered by mail and did not provide, when they apply to register, a form of identification that is satisfactory, if they are going to vote by absentee, have to provide identification under our current law. And this section, Section 5, simply makes conforming changes for the fact that we will now no longer have an inner and an outer envelope. We will only have the return envelope. And so, it provides that there has to be another envelope so that the identification can be returned to the individual. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And this is for people registering by mail or online. I believe the good chairman said that the envelope is for them to return some sort of identification. What type of identification do they need to return, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. The forms of identification are listed, I believe, in 9-140a. I don't have all of them memorized, but they can be either a photo identification or one of a list of forms of identification. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you, what happens if a voter does not return any type of identification? They just simply go online, they register to vote or they mail it in. They don't submit any type of identification or verification. What happens? Do they get to vote on election day, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. If they have never submitted or presented identification as part of their registration process, and they submit an absentee ballot without identification, then that ballot will be rejected. They can still go in-person and vote, but they will have to present identification there. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If you wouldn't mind repeating that, that if they sent it in via absentee ballot, that ballot would be rejected because they did not send any supporting documentation in verifying who they are when they registered to vote, if I'm understanding you correctly.

That's okay, Mr. Speaker. But if they fail to do that, they can still go physically to the polls and vote. So, they can vote at the polls, but they can't vote by absentee ballot. Is that correct, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. If they find out that their ballot was rejected under our new curing systems, they could attempt to vote by absentee again, and that time present or include the identification as well, or they could go in-person and vote. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Which really is ironic. So, we're rejecting their ballot because they didn't show any identification when they registered to vote, but yet now they can go to the polls and physically vote and not show an ID. That makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. So, are you saying, through you, Mr. Speaker, that they can actually go to the polls and vote in-person, and it's okay without showing an ID, but if they sent it in via absentee ballot, that would be rejected, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Not quite. Either way, they have to show identification. If they go in-person, they have to show ID. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, they don't really have to show an ID. What type of an identification do they have to show? Through you.

Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to pull up the list so I can read it off for the good Representative.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Yes, Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

There will be no revelation of anyone's votes. Just the fact of whether their vote was accepted or not and where it is, and whether it needs to be cured. Through you.

Thank you. Okay. So, thank you for that clarification. So, moving on to Section 9, this is a really big section and everybody in this room should be very concerned about it. I know I am. Current law right now allows for someone who is permanently physically disabled or if they have a long-term illness to sign up for what they call permanent absentee ballot status. They would need to have a doctor's approval on it. They would send it to the state, which makes sense. And every year, every time there's an election, they automatically get an absentee ballot as they should for someone who is disabled and the doctor agreed with that and certainly verified it for them, because we want everybody to vote that is disabled and can't get to the polls. So, that part is fine. We've been doing that for a long time. But here's the kicker to this, and this is really important. This bill removes the requirements for people to apply for permanent absentee ballots. Right now, it's only for the disabled. It allows everyone to do it. So, you no longer need a doctor's backup note or information from the doctor that you are disabled. You don't have to be. So, anybody can sign up for permanent absentee ballot status. What happens here is there's no way to track if someone has moved out of state, if their address is no longer valid. You don't come off of this every year or every two years. It's permanent unless a couple of things happen. Maybe your ballot comes back, it is undelivered, there's wrong address on it, then it would be up to the registrar of voters to actually clean up the voter rolls if they are doing that. I mean, let's face it. We sign up for a lot of things, and we can't even remember that we've done that. Look at subscriptions you do on the internet. This particular section is seriously concerning. This is a gateway to universal mail in ballots in the State of Connecticut without any protections whatsoever in place. We have none whatsoever, and this opens the floodgates to it. Through you, Mr. Speaker, how long does it remain in effect? If somebody signs up for this process, how long is their name on the permanent absentee ballot list, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. There is no time limitation delineated. They stay on until they move or they go on the inactive registration list. Through you.

Thank you. Here's the kicker, people. What's going to happen here is the Secretary of State is going to be allowed to do a mass campaign to get people to sign up for permanent absentee ballot status. Now, remember, we have no protections in place whatsoever to verify who that voter is. None. This bill does nothing to address voter integrity, deals with any of the issues that we had in Bridgeport. But instead, what we are doing is we are expanding access to absentee ballots, basically universal mail in voting. And if you remember the beginning of our comments, our good chairman of our committee talked about that. He mentioned that it's absentee ballots for all because that is the goal here. This is a very, very serious problem here. Now, there are some states out there that do mail in ballots, and they're pretty good at it. But here's the difference. They have checks and balances in place to verify who the voter is, and we have none. We have none whatsoever. I'm curious, through you, Mr. Speaker, if someone signed up for this and they were one of the voters that were on the list that had to vote with a provisional ballot because they never showed their identification, would they be allowed to sign up to be an automatic permanently absentee ballot status, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. They would theoretically be able to sign up, but their ballot would not be able to be counted unless it were accompanied by identification. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Okay. They can sign up for it, they're going to get a ballot in the mail. They're going to get a ballot in the mail. Their sign up should be rejected immediately because they have a line or an asterisk next to their name on the voter rolls that they never verified their identity. But yet we are going to go ahead and send them a ballot, okay? But they can send it back, but the ballot won't count. But guess what? That ballot could get into the hands of anyone. That's the big problem here. It's absolutely absurd. These policies were in place for permanent disabled people to vote as we should for them, do everything that we can to get them to vote. But that is out the window now. Out the window. This opens the door to, boy, I could tell you, a lot of fraud. Can you imagine what's going to be going on in Bridgeport? I can only imagine. Getting all these people to sign up for their absentee ballot. Through you, Mr. Speaker, when they sign up for a permanent absentee ballot status, how are those ballots delivered? Are they electronically or through the mail, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Through the mail.

Thank you. How is someone removed? See, the difference is right now when you apply yourself for an absentee ballot, every year it resets because every year you have to apply. You may have moved. Things could have changed. Maybe you've changed your party affiliation. For whatever reason it is, it resets every year. This does not. You are on the voter rolls as a permanent person that just wants to receive an absentee ballot, and you can request it. Through you, Mr. Speaker, if somebody signed up for this program and they change their party affiliation, how does the register of voters know that they're going to automatically get an absentee ballot application? Like I guess I'm curious, what is the system in place that's going to have checks and balances in there that's going to tell the town clerk, maybe it's during a primary, that you're Democrat, Republican, unaffiliated, whatever, probably more specifically for a primary, that you're going to automatically get this ballot if they've changed party affiliation, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. The permanent absentee ballot list is kept separately from the voter registration list. So, what would happen is that they would continue to receive absentee ballots. But if they changed their party registration in a primary, they would receive the other party's primary ballot. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the good chairman wouldn't mind explaining that again, how that works if they change their party affiliation during a primary and they're on the list for a permanent absentee ballot status. Did you say, did I hear you correctly saying that they are going to get a ballot for the other party, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. So, the permanent absentee ballot list is kept separately from the voter rolls. It's a different list. I'd put it this way. The permanent absentee ballot list says who gets a permanent absentee ballot. The voter rolls say where the person lives and what party, if any, they're registered with. So, at the time at which absentee ballots are mailed, perhaps the ballot sets are mailed, the town clerk and registrars would be looking to the voter rolls to see what ballot should be mailed to the individual, and they would do that based on the address and the party registration and the voter rolls currently for that individual. So, if they had validly switched their party, just as if they had validly switched their address, they would receive the relevant ballot. Through you.

Thank you. And so, I understand there are two separate databases that they obviously need to work with each other. Currently, right now, someone who is permanently disabled, if I'm reading this correctly, the current law is that the registrar of voters, they actually send a written notice to anybody with a permanent absentee ballot status to see if there are any changes. Is that correct right now with the current law, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. From time to time, they do do so. Through you.

Thank you. I'm looking at the bill, and it says the registrar of voters shall send written notice to each elector with permanent absentee ballot status in January of each year. So, I don't necessarily agree that it's time to time. It seems by the current law that they do it on a yearly basis so they can actually update them for someone who is disabled. None of this based on the new law would take effect. Is that correct, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, they would not receive a separate written notice related to their permanent absentee ballot status. However, registrars do send out notices about the individual's address and whether they're still living there, and those would continue to go out separately. Through you.

Thank you. And I can see a problem here because people are moving and they are not notifying the town that they've moved and they've changed their address. It's up to the elector to actually submit that and get off the list. Now, you can move, and certainly people can still obviously get a ballot at that address because maybe it's not recorded yet with the post office and something is actually still delivered there, or maybe it's a relative or somebody living in the house. They could have moved. How many people move out of their home and still get mail there? For anybody that has kids, sometimes they move out or they go away to school, but they're still obviously getting mail at home. I'm curious why the Secretary of State wants to engage in a campaign to encourage people to join the permanent absentee ballot status. I mean, how will that work? Is the Secretary of State going to send out mass mailings to people? Is she going to be on TV? Are there going to be billboards, through you, Mr. Speaker? And how much is that going to cost, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Starting line 724 of the bill, it indicates that the Secretary of the State shall develop and conduct a statewide public awareness mailing as soon as practicable after the effective date of this section to educate the public about the changes being made by this bill to absentee voting. Through you.

Thank you. So, let's talk about this for a moment. So, the Secretary of State is going to do a campaign. Is the Secretary of State going to be actually involved being the one sending out? I mean, is her name going to be on this mailing that you're going to mass mail probably to every voter in the State of Connecticut when this year she is actually a candidate for office? I guess my question would be, is that a conflict? Should the Secretary of State be allowed to do that, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I would imagine that the Secretary of the State's office would be indicated as the source of the mailing. Much like our own mailings, the requirement that the mailing be done as soon as practicable is meant to keep it well out of the voting period, and we would not anticipate that it would come anywhere close to it. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, this is ironic, though. We have an election coming up in '26. Our Secretary of State is on the ballot, yet she's going to be engaged in a campaign to encourage voters in the State of Connecticut to sign up for permanent absentee ballot. To me, there should be something written in here or some law that prevents that from happening under any circumstances. To me, there's certainly a conflict of interest. Through you, Mr. Speaker, is the goal here to, at some point, because it has to be. Just look at the language. And maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. To actually have universal mail in voting, people voting only by absentee ballot. That at some point, every voter in Connecticut will get an absentee ballot. Is that the ultimate goal here for this, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure if I can speak to an intent that is not in the provisions of the bill. I will say that this bill does not have any legislative intent to accomplish that goal. I can't speak for a future legislature. I don't know if it's proper to speak for myself. I generally think that it's appropriate to have application for mail in voting, and I don't think we have any plans to change that in the immediate future. Again, I can't speak for this body as a whole. I'm not sure I'm allowed to. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, our chairman can't say what's going to happen in the future. But for me as ranking member, I can certainly predict it. I mean, the title of the bill says an act concerning absentee voting for all. It's pretty obvious what the goal is here. Like I said, other states do this. They mail ballots to everybody, but they have serious protections in place. Photo ID, signature verification. They know who their voter is. We know none of that in Connecticut because as the good chairman said, you can actually go in to vote with just your bathing suit. You have no photo ID, no nothing at all. That's the problem here. So, I'm curious as to why we're doing this. This section to me probably is the most dangerous section. We've taken an area where we've helped the permanently physically disabled people in this state, and we've opened it up to every single voter in the State of Connecticut with absolutely no protections in place whatsoever. With that, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment, and that is -- let me get it here. LCO 4489. I would ask the Clerk to please call the amendment, and I be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

Is that it?

House Amendment Schedule "C", LCO No. 4489 offered by Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, what this amendment does, it just strikes Section 9 entirely. There will be no permanent absentee ballot status. It returns the integrity back to the permanently disabled people that so well deserve it. It does not open the door to every single voter. It does not allow the Secretary of State to engage in a massive campaign to promote this section, permanent absentee ballot status with no protections at all. And it just basically strikes the whole section. So, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption. I would ask for a roll call vote when the vote is taken. Thank you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I would urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. 12 states currently have similar provisions allowing for permanent absentee voting for all who wish to join that list. States like Arizona, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Virginia, even New Jersey. And it's actually a very good system. It makes it easier for people to be able to obtain an absentee ballot. It eases the administrative and logistical burdens both for the voters and for the elections officials. It is a direction in which many other states are going. And it is one that accords with the protections we do have in our system, which do require identification when that person first registers to vote if they are not already presenting it. And so, for all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been a strong proponent to access to voting. I have voted for early voting. No excuse absentee voting. I have voted for everything that I believe gives the opportunity to securely cast their ballots. This one section of this bill is where I pause. It seems we have made access to voting very easy. Whether you go down to the clerk's office and ask for an application and then get the ballot and stand right there and vote, you can do that. Whether you go on the Secretary of State's website. Think about this. You go on the Secretary of State's website and ask for an application and have that process be as simple as possible. And it's done for -- and it just strikes me that we're going to do this, that I am placed on a permanent application, permanent ballot. Through you, Mr. Speaker, just a brief question, and this would go to either one. Sorry, I paused because I'm struggling with why what we're doing right now isn't easy. So, right now -- I can't frame this question the way I want to. And I apologize, Mr. Speaker. You apply once right now through this legislation of Section 9, and you are automatically mailed every ballot for every election and referendum in your town. Is that how I read this, or is it just the state elections, through you, Mr. Speaker?

I guess it should be the good chair.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the good chair, I would say.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, to the good Representative, the answer is yes. That is what would happen. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I think about the -- and it's through the mail, correct, through you, Mr. Speaker. That's through the mail, right? So, postage. That's correct, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes.

And I know it's a small fee, or used to be a small fee to mail something. You know, so the cost incurred by the municipality. If you actually look at the turnout of our municipal elections and our referendums, they're pathetic, unfortunately. I don't see the necessity to do this because of the good work that I believe we've done in this building with substantial early voting days, no excuse absentee ballots. If people aren't voting, it's just they're not going to vote. And to mail a ballot every election, every referendum, and the fraud potential is the concern that I have here. It's truly the fraud potential. And I still get mail returned to me. I moved out of my house six years ago, and I still get my mail mailed to that address even though multiple address changes have been installed. The component also of this Secretary of State under line 722 and 730, shall do a campaign. What is the fiscal note on that C of that section through you for that campaign, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. It is a one-time cost of $1.3 million.

I did hear $1.3 million. Is that correct, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Well, I don't care if it's a half a time or three quarter of a time. 1.3, one-time cost to have people sign up for this process. Not a small amount of money. I just struggle with the component of the potential fraud. Ballots being mailed to wrong addresses. A ballot being mailed, not an application for a ballot, a true ballot being mailed. Again, I want everybody to vote. I heard about groups complaining. Oh, you know, they got a bus and they brought voters to the voting polls. Great. Get them to the polls. Get them to vote. It's not illegal. Get people to go and vote. That's what we want to do. And those that want to get an absentee ballot seem to be able to do it, and we even made it easier. That wasn't in law very long that we made it easier, where we're going to say no now. Now, let's say your town has three or four referendums. You're going to get mailed those three or four referendums. You've got a municipal election. You've got a special election. You've got a statewide election. You're going to get something mailed to your house. I just think that the potential, unfortunately, to have my vote essentially wiped out or any one of our votes wiped out because of a potential fraud component that I believe Section 9 brings in. So, at this time, I encourage everybody, please, let's get this section out of this bill and move the good pieces along. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just some comments and --

-- some questions through you, sir. So, I stand in support of my colleague's amendment to strike this entire section. Much like some of the other comments we've heard, the direction we're heading as a whole when it comes to election related legislation I find to be a little bit worrisome. The direction we seem to be heading seems to be like that of Washington state. For those of you who don't know, Washington state is a vote by mail only state where you actually have to go out of your way and jump through several hoops to vote in-person. So, it's actually easy, it's sort of like the inverse of what we're experiencing right now where to actually make elections more inclusive in Washington state, they would have to go backwards and make it, you know, more feasible and accessible for people to vote in-person. While I understand what we're trying to accomplish here in Connecticut, the way we're going about it is setting a very, very bad precedent. And not only that, but it's causing a clear and present danger in the present, in the now. Let me give everybody a concrete example of how this can cause an issue. I've spoken about this example before in committee and to individuals, and maybe even on the floor, so forgive me if I'm repeating myself. But when I was running in a primary a few years ago, I was doing the door-to-door canvassing, and I was at the end of a street, and in that section began a few sort of side streets off of the main drag there. And so, I'm walking to this house and I knock on the door. And as a lot of us know, we use door canvassing apps. Both parties do. And usually, they have pretty good information. But for this one particular case, the individuals that were listed in the app that were supposed to be registered voters at that address that I was at, at that door that I was at, none of them live there. I went through the list. I spoke to the person that answered the door. I said, "Do you live here?" And she said, "Yes." And I said, "Are you any one of these registered voters? Are you, you know, person A, person B, person C, person D, person E?" And she said, "No, I'm not any of those people. That was a family that used to live here, and they've moved to Meriden or they've moved somewhere else." And I'm not saying they did anything wrong or they're intending on doing anything wrong, either the people that left or the current occupants of that residence, but it highlights a failure in our system. And when I brought this issue up before, I was criticized because the critics said that, hey, this doesn't constitute anything. These things happen all the time, which I acknowledge. And that there's no way that this could be turned into fraud. Well, with the passage of this bill, that sort of scenario can very easily be weaponized and turned into fraud. Think about it. We're no longer talking about absentee ballot applications. We're talking about being on a list where absentee ballots get delivered to your home without you even asking perpetually. Maybe you put in a request once, now that triggers, you know, you to be put on this permanent list where you're getting an absentee ballot at every single election cycle. Now, imagine if those five people that don't live there get an absentee ballot sent to that address for five different absentee ballots. And if that person at that address had some sort of bad intentions to affect the outcome of an election one way or the other, they could theoretically. And with the passage of this bill, practically, fill every single one of those ballots out, send them back, and they would be counted. Because to then try to reverse engineer that sort of situation and prove that there was fraud would almost be impossible. We are opening ourselves up to a lot of liability, a lot of costs. But most importantly, we're opening up ourselves to diminishing the integrity of the voting process in this state. Voters need to know that when they go to the ballot box or when they vote by absentee, that that vote counts. And what I mean by that is not just that that individual's vote is read and put through the machine and counted, but that it's not being diluted by fraudulent votes. Doesn't make a difference. It doesn't help if my vote is counted, but five other ones are counted. My legitimate vote is counted once, but five other votes are counted fraudulently. People will start to lose faith in the system. They'll start to lose faith in the institution of representative government. And we don't want to be one of the states that pioneers that sort of negative movement, that problematic scenario. We should be going in the opposite direction. We should be purging voter rolls of people that are deceased, have moved out, correcting these systemic issues so that there's not five people registered to vote in an address where they don't currently live, for the sake of everyone. For the sake of the town clerks, for the sake of the registrars, for the sake of the voters, for the sake of those individuals, for the sake of the person that lives at that address currently, and for the sake of the principle of it. Unfortunately, like I said when I started with my remarks, that doesn't seem to be the direction that we're going in. We're going in the opposite direction of let's bring everything to your front door. We'll bring your ballot in bed. I think that might be the next, you know, thing we're going to do is voting in bed, like breakfast in bed, but voting in bed, right? And I've spoken up against, you know, bills that try to move us into this sort of utopian future because oftentimes, we are moving way too fast, but also the future isn't utopian. It might actually be dystopian. The right to vote is a right, absolutely, but it is also a privilege when you look at it relative to our fellow countries around the world where voting is sometimes not a right. Forget about privilege, it's not even a right. And we really need to work to protect that institution. Free and fair elections cannot be free and fair, we can't say that we have free and fair elections if we can't track down who is filling out these ballots and if there's any fraud or not. We need to make sure that it's one person, one vote. And it's very hard to do that when you have this automatic system that just spits out absentee ballots. Again, we're not talking about absentee ballot applications as before that would be a common sort of counterpunch in years prior that, oh, hey, you know, Republicans, hold your horses because we're not talking about sending out absentee ballots. We're just talking about sending out absentee ballot applications. But now we're actually talking about sending out absentee ballots, and that changes everything. I don't want to beat a dead horse. When I stand up to speak, I want to make sure that I speak from the heart, and I speak about substance, and that I don't just stand up to talk for talking sake. But with that said, I cannot stress the point enough. I could offer countless other examples like the one that I offered in my election, in my race. But I'm not going to do that. I'm going to save some of my other remarks for after we vote on this amendment. But I would strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment because it's a good amendment, and it shows that we're serious about protecting the integrity of our elections in the state. So, with that, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And like I said, I'll reserve the rest of my comments for after the outcome of this vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for a couple of comments, if I may. Thank you. I must have missed the announcement earlier about it being opposite day here in the State Capitol because I understand the goal of this is to increase election integrity, make our election processes more secure, and this literally does the opposite. I mean, you are talking about a provision in this bill about sending absentee ballots to anybody permanently who signs up. You are literally talking about a scenario where you are creating a hotbed for cheating. You are creating a hotbed for fraud. You are making it so much easier to do to anybody who has a nefarious motive, period. I have absolutely no idea why anybody would want to support this specific provision, except if you really wanted to help people cheat. This is such a great amendment. It's so simple. It takes this really awful provision out of this bill. And I would encourage everybody to support it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Years ago, I submitted a bill for a constituent, and he was requesting permanent absentee status based on his disability. And I submitted that bill, and years ago, we changed the law. I was happy to support that. I think it's important, especially when somebody is disabled and they have difficulty getting to the polls. I do see a lot of individuals who struggle, that many, even though they have this option, still want to vote in-person. In fact, I think it was an election or two ago, there was a gentleman who came with plastic bags on his feet to come vote in-person, and he was adamant about walking himself, getting into the polls just so he could vote even though we offered and said we could bring a ballot out to him. No, he wanted to vote in-person. And I resided in Florida for many years, and they have absentee voting, no excuse absentee voting that they have had for many years. Of course, not without problems down there as well, mainly keeping the ballot secure where those ballots are kept, who has access to those ballots, boxes found later, whether they contained ballots or not. And the system down there is different. They do have an elected position for registrar of voters, though it could be either party. They don't have one from each party like we have up here. And I have to say that is definitely I think one of the best systems I find, and much better than somebody elected that could be either party and not necessarily represent the party that a certain individual comes from. So, with that being said, there are some portions of this I do have questions about. And as my good colleague to my left mentioned, the issue of removal. And like him, I also had those experiences where I went to doors and the person on the voter list that I get pretty close to, either when I'm going to do the door or sometimes even close to election day, is not the person that lives there. In fact, there's many other people who may live in there. And in looking at section's line 711 to 723, there's an option here for an elector to submit the change of address form, which is great. However, I don't know many people who fill that out. I think when you're moving, you have a lot of things to do, a lot of things to pack up, move. If your child is changing school, just moving in and of itself. I don't think that your voting address and your ballot is even something that comes across an individual's mind. And so, quite often as we see, this definitely isn't done. And we see that more and more, at least I do when I do doors. And it's something, of course, that I bring to the registrar, tell them as far as I know, this person is not living there anymore. But usually, the mail still goes there. It's not necessarily returned. And I know, I can see here that such elector's absentee ballot is returned as undeliverable is one of the reasons why somebody would be moved. So, in line 715 to about 717, one of the other ways that somebody can be removed is if the elector previously resided receives information or data used to maintain the statewide centralized voter registration system. Basically, the registrar of voters receives that information that the individual no longer lives there. These lines go on to state that it's a centralized voter system under 9-50c that the elector has moved outside the state. So, my question for this would be actually for the proponent of the bill, not the amendment itself, is on line --

Yes. Well, the amendment removes this. So, that's why --

Thank you. So, my question under this would be 9-50c states that the Secretary of State may enter into an agreement and share information with other states in order to maintain that voter registration system. And if I may, through you, if the proponent of the bill could tell me, because this could decide whether I support this amendment or not, what agreements has our Secretary of State entered into with other states and what systems are used to establish whether somebody has moved, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I can't say all the substance of the agreements that the secretary has entered into with other states. I do know we're a member of the ERIC system. I almost said the eCRIS system. We also have that. But the ERIC system through which states share voter registration information in order to correlate their voter lists and maintain them up to date. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And if you could just clarify, you mentioned there is the ERIC system, but is that a system that the Secretary of State is using and has entered to an agreement with another state to utilize, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the states that participate in the ERIC system must agree to enter into it. So, I think that's the substance of the agreements we've entered into is the ERIC system. A number of other states have entered into them, and we have as well. Through you.

And so, is it the good Representative's representation here that we have, our Secretary of State has entered into an agreement with another state for this system, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. We, along with 25, or excuse me, 24 other states and the District of Columbia are members of the ERIC system, which is how we have entered into agreements to share information on voter rolls. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's reassuring. I feel a little better about that provision then. I am though still then a little confused. Well, let me ask this first, Mr. Speaker. When did the Secretary of State enter into that agreement, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I do not know off the top of my head, but I know we've been in it as long as I have been in office. So, to my knowledge, at least since 2018.

Thank you. And that's good to know, although I still, I remember last election, did have a lot of individuals, again, just like my colleague, who did not live in the house that they were listed under. So, I don't know if this system is being utilized at all, is being utilized correctly. However, I mean, usually, individuals eventually get a license in the state that they've moved to. It might take them a little while. So, I'm sure there are individuals who, right around election time, are not able to show up in the system. However, I have seen. And I know not everybody does doors. I have to do doors every two years. I enjoy doing it. And there are a lot of individuals who are still in the houses where, or still on the list in the houses that they no longer live. And in some cases, I can think of one individual who hasn't lived there for probably 10 years. I know it's been quite a long time since he lived in Connecticut, and for whatever reason, can't get his name off. And I know he has a Florida license. Still on the voter rolls, still listed in the house in Bristol. The other time I have also heard of this is from landlords at times. There are certain areas that have more transient individuals, transient housing, and people come and go maybe within a year or two. They rent for a while, then leave. Of course, we have ESPN in town, and individuals will have a certain contract. We have nurses as well. Sometimes they end up staying longer than they initially intended. And individuals under contract with ESPN who stay, but then eventually leave. And I have landlords I've spoken to who have gone after the individual has left, and there they have seen envelopes and ballots mailed to the apartment or the house. And, you know, it's also unclear whether the individual who lived there actually even asked for the ballot. I mean, if they left, not sure why they would be asking for an absentee ballot. But sure enough, this individual has found ballots, and many of them be especially landlords who have a multitude of different units. Seems to be a constant ongoing problem. And my question would be then for the proponent of the bill, do we have any safeguards for when this occurs? When a ballot is, let's say, found delivered to a house, what is the correct steps for a landlord to do with that ballot in that example, through you?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The correct response is to return the ballot as non-deliverable like you would another piece of mail. Through you.

Thank you. And I would agree with that. However, I find that quite more often than not, that with an address there, if it's the right address and the person did live there, that the mail still gets delivered. I understand you can maybe write something on it and the postman picks it up, takes it back. Great. But that doesn't necessarily stop a ballot from being sent and, of course, resent in the next election. And again, in these units and these houses, that's exactly what's happened. Not just once, but then a ballot again and again and again. In lines 711 through 719, it does talk about the few different ways where a name can be removed. So, my question is, if I called up the registrar of voters and said this person doesn't live there, you know, I'm thinking of the one that hasn't, and I say, "Remove his name. He's not there anymore." What happens at that point, through you? Is the name just removed, or is there any type of verification done, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. That is not one of the mechanisms by which someone can be removed from the permanent absentee voting list. I will say that there are various ways in which registrars and other elected officials investigate whether people's voter rolls are up to date or their voter registrations are up to date, which is separate from the permanent absentee ballot list. You're not getting an absentee ballot, even if you're on the permanent absentee ballot list, if you don't have a voter registration in the state. So, it may trigger an investigation regarding the voter registration, but it would not be one of the mechanisms for removing someone from the permanent absentee ballot list. Through you.

Thank you. And so, if though I'm doing doors then. And as my colleague mentioned, and the individual is stating that that person no longer lives there, and we report that back to the registrar of voters, is the name -- the fact that we have witnessed that the person doesn't live there and we are informing the registrar of that information, that cannot then not be used to verify or change or remove a name, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. It could potentially be used to initiate investigation regarding whether their registration is up to date. It would not remove them for the permanent absentee ballot list.

Okay. Thank you. And I do appreciate that answer. That is good to know. I'll keep that in mind going forward. Again, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons that my colleagues have stated, I agree. I think there's some work that has to be done. My colleague in the 99th talked about opposite day, and I find that I have to agree. I had a discussion with somebody from the SEEC recently just about some of the changes. And they mentioned that the bill that we passed last year, it had intentions of, for candidates, making filling out forms and getting donations more secure and a kind of quicker and better process. And in that discussion, she stated that it's actually made it less secure, that they cannot -- They go by the form. They can't actually verify whether the person lives there. And so, now using a straw person to get a donation is a lot easier apparently in the state. And my point in saying that is that's what we do here all the time. We constantly pass bills that that we don't necessarily walk through, that have issues, and I have a feeling that we're doing that once again. So, for that reason, I will be supporting this amendment. I think it's a good amendment. And until we can come up with a few more ways to secure our absentee ballots and make sure that they aren't being requested by somebody who doesn't live there anymore, I think it's a good idea to wait on language and on legislation such as this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

House Amendment Schedule "C": Total number voting 147 Necessary for adoption 74 Those voting Yea 48 Those voting Nay 99 Absent not voting 4

Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And the funding put aside for that I believe you said is $1.1 million. Is that correct, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. $1.3 million.

Thank you. $1.3 million. Now, is it just going to be one mailer? Because it says a statewide mailing campaign. Is there any other -- because I believe it's going to cost at least 1.3 million to mail all those out. When we had applications for absentee ballots for COVID, I believe they probably spent more than $1.3 million. So, I'm wondering if there's any other campaign that they are going to use, besides mailing, to create public awareness on this, through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This is a single mailing. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And when will this mailing go out and what is the cutoff time for someone if they get this mailer, they decide that they want to sign up for this automatic absentee ballot system? What is the cutoff date that they can do that, through you?

Would the member please rephrase her question? I'm not sure I understand it. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question was, when will this mailer go out -- I guess maybe a three-part question. When will the mailer go out, and who -- it will go to every town, but who will it target in every town? Is it every eligible voter that will get one, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Every eligible voter, yes.

Thank you. And when will this mailing begin? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. As soon as practicable is what is designated by the legislation. Through you.

Thank you. And one, I'm curious what the cutoff time would be for someone to sign up for this automatic absentee ballot system. What is the cutoff date, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. There is no cutoff date for signing up to the permanent absentee ballot list. I guess you would just need to sign up -- you need to apply for an absentee ballot before or when it's practicable to do so for the relevant election. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, technically, someone could sign up for this permanent absentee ballot program up until a couple days before the election, or a week before the election. Is that accurate, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. They would be signing up through an absentee ballot application. So, yes. They may not receive the ballot in the mail if they did that in time. You know, I would advise them that they should do it at their town clerk's office if they're doing it within that time period. But, yes, they could sign up then, just as they could apply for an absentee ballot then. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And for someone to sign up for the automatic absentee ballot system, do they do it on a piece of paper or can they go online and actually sign up for this process, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. They do it on the absentee ballot application. Through you.

Thank you. And again, I'm assuming that there's nothing in their application when they sign up for this. So, let me understand this correctly. It's on the absentee ballot application. So, it's not a separate mailer that the Secretary of State is mailing out to people to encourage them to sign up for this automatic absentee ballot system. Is that correct, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This mailing is separate from applications for absentee ballots. Through you.

Thank you. So, I'm assuming it's separate. So, when they send back their application for an absentee ballot, there'll be something on there, I'm assuming a checkbox, that they can sign up for automatic absentee ballot. Is that correct, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. When they fill out an absentee ballot, they will be able to check a box that says I'd like to be on the permanent absentee ballot list, and then they would be on the list. Through you.

Thank you. And through you, Mr. Speaker, is it allowable for the Secretary of State to just send out absentee ballot applications to every eligible voter in the State of Connecticut? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. There is currently no legal prohibition on that. This bill does not affect that. Through you.

Thank you. You're right. This bill does not address that, but the Secretary of State technically can send out an application to every eligible voter in the State of Connecticut. So, pre-printed on these applications for an absentee ballot, there'll be a check mark saying that they want permanent absentee ballot status. What about other people that are distributing absentee ballot applications? Is it the same application they are using as well, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. The new absentee ballot applications would have a space for checkbox to join the permanent absentee ballot list.

Thank you. I got to tell you, this is an open door to misuse of absentee ballots, hands down. I don't understand why we have no protections in place for this, that we are just blatant after -- are you kidding me? After what just happened in Bridgeport, not only does this bill not address any protections whatsoever, doesn't put anybody really in jail for committing absentee ballot fraud, does nothing to stop what happened in Bridgeport, but no. What this body is doing, ah, let's just expand it even further and make it even easier for people to cheat the system, and put nothing in place for protections to protect the integrity of our election. Mr. Speaker, it's so outrageous to me, I can't even comprehend it. That's how outrageous this is. Other states do this, but they have their problems. But I'll tell you right now, they have protections in place. We have nothing. It's just outrageous. And the arrogance, the arrogance of this body to promote something like this after what we saw happen in Bridgeport and what we see happening in other towns is absolutely outrageous. It's unfortunate that that amendment didn't pass, which I knew it would, because I guess my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel that expanding access to voting without any protections in place is okay. And I'm so tired of hearing people say that we disenfranchise voters here in the State of Connecticut. We have the most restrictive process for people voting. Nobody's stopping anybody from voting. It's so ridiculous the absolute ridiculous argument that the other side makes. We're expanding access to voting because we don't want to disenfranchise. Show me once when somebody was disenfranchised that they couldn't vote. You can vote by absentee ballot. You can vote early voting. You can get a ride to the polls. You can go to town clerk and get an application. You can go right online and get an application. But the other side constantly, constantly is saying that we are restricting access to voting. I'll tell you what's happening in the State of Connecticut. Voters are staying home because they don't trust the process and they don't feel that their vote is counting. If anything, voter participation is down because of the policies that we have in place here. It's no different than people not wanting to use a certain credit card because it's not secure. There are certain credit cards out there that are more secure than others, but people don't want to use them because maybe a certain company or a certain brand is not as secure as others. So, what happens? People stop using them. It's the same exact thing when it comes to voting. If people don't feel that their vote counts and their elections are secure, they're not going to vote. Very, very frustrating. And that was Section 9. We're on to Section 10 right now, Mr. Speaker. Section 10 talks about, and questions to the chairman of the committee, about absentee ballot counters. Can you explain to me exactly what that section does, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. So, this part of the bill indicates a time when absentee ballot counters must arrive at the central counting location or to the relevant polling places when counting is going to take place. So, it says that they have to arrive not later than 15 minutes prior to the time specified or agreed to as applicable under subsection e of Section 9-140c. Through you.

Thank you. And I guess I'm looking at, I guess on my copy it's around line 757. That the return envelope, when it's marked rejected, and they have to put the reason for the rejection on there. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes.

Thank you. Hold on a minute. There is some information in this section, I believe, Section 10 that talks about the moderators. I'm looking at between lines 834 and 844, somewhere around there. It's talking a little bit about moderators. Can you explain to me what their role is in this, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This bill does not change any aspect of this part of the process. This is existing language. And this basically just sets out the process for what happens when the voter's intent is difficult to ascertain from their markings on the ballot. It says what the counters do, how they escalate it to the moderators, how the moderators decide whether the marking is ascertainable as to the voters' intent, and how they have to endorse it with their decision. Through you.

Thank you. Thank you for that answer and for clarifying that. I'm looking at between Sections 11 and Section 15. It seems like there's nothing major changes. They're really just conforming changes. Would the good chairman of the committee be able to tell me what those changes are? Through you.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Through you. Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. Jumping on.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, these provisions deal with different kinds of recanvases. Let me just verify that I'm thinking of the right one. Okay. Yes. So these provisions deal with different kinds of recanvases, and they basically just say that the towns can use tabulators to do their recanvases. They don't have to use the exact same tabulator that they used originally. They can use the secretary's office and a speed tabulator if it's appropriate. That's what these provisions do for various different kinds of recanvases. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So they can use a different tabulator to do a recanvas and get the totals different than what they used on election day. Through you. Is that correct?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. This is really aimed at allowing high-speed tabulators to be used for recanvases. Through you.

Thank you. And current law in the past, did they have to use their current tabulators that are there, or do we have to wait for Secretary of State or another tabulator to be brought down? I'm just curious. What prompted this change? Did we see something in a recanvas that maybe was incorrect, that this could certainly make the process better? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, the change is that we now have high-speed tabulators. And so, before, I think the law was probably ambiguous as to which tabulator exactly you need to use, but there was no option for any different kind of tabulator because we didn't have high-speed tabulators. These provisions are meant to allow recanvases to be done with the high-speed tabulators that we have now. Through you.

Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. I'm looking at Section 40. Actually, let me just -- Section 39. I know it's just a technical change in Section 39, but it looks like it's adding in the Federal Elections Assistance Commission. It's just a technical change on that. I think it's around line 1880 to 1884, somewhere around there. Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, actually, let's go down to Section 40. And this actually talks about someone who has not attained the age of 18 yet. But they will be 18 years old on or before the day of an election. We are allowing them to vote, is that correct, on election day? Or can they vote the day before because they turned 18? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, they would be able to vote -- this provision says they'll be able to vote absentee as long as they're going to be 18 by election day. They would not be able to vote in advance of election day because they wouldn't be 18 yet, but they would be able to vote in person on election day if they wanted. And because absentee votes are not counted till election day, they should also be allowed to vote by absentee if they so wish. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, basically, what I'm reading this is they would not be able to use the early voting process because they have not turned 18 yet. Maybe they don't turn 18 till the day before the election or two days before, but they cannot use the early voting process. Is that correct? Through you.

Though you, Mr. Speaker. They can do so. I misspoke before. They can use the early voting process as well. The votes in early voting are not counted until election day, either. Even if they go through the tabulator, the counting internally does not happen until election day, so they can vote through that method as well. Through you.

Okay. Yes. Thank you for that clarification. So they can, they're not quite 18. How does the register of voters know? Are they on a supplemental list that they're turning 18? They just registered to vote. How does that work? Going into early vote, how does the registrar of voters or the checker there know that this person is not quite 18 yet? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I would imagine that the registrar would know based on the birth dates. Through you. Which are part of the record. Through you.

Thank you for that clarification. This is different than the constitutional change that has been going through our committee that they've been trying to pass about letting 16- year-olds vote. This is completely different. Is that correct? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Not sure I understood the question, but I'll try to answer it anyway. Dangerous proposition. We previously allowed 17-year-olds to preregister to vote, and so this would -- essentially, they would be on that list, and this would allow them to vote absentee. Through you.

Thank you. Where are we? Oh, hey, look at this. We're on Section 41. We're getting there. Section 41, it talks about minor parties and what the state bylaws are, and what really governs the local minor parties. Can the good chairman of the committee please elaborate exactly what is the current law when it comes to minor parties, and what are we trying to change here? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, the law has been ambiguous in this area in relation to minor parties. And so this clarifies that if a minor party does not have local rules in a particular municipality, the minor party's state rules, as filed with the Secretary of State's office, will function as the local rules for the minor party in that municipality.

Thank you. So, I'm understanding this correctly, is that we're making sure that the minor parties in the state register their rules with the state of Connecticut, with the Secretary of State, and that they follow those rules. Is that correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes.

Thank you. I actually agree with this section. There's some things in this bill that I agree with, but the other parts are so egregious, I obviously can't support it. But this section, I actually agree with, and I appreciate the chairmans of the committee actually including this in here, because we have minor parties in this state that basically have their own rules. They change them on the fly. They don't file them with the Secretary of State. They're not required to follow their rules, but yet we are. I think that's a problem. So I appreciate, actually, this section being in here. So thank you for that. Section 42 talks about the availability for town committee primary petitions. What is that actually doing? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Okay. So, this just lines up when petition forms are available for municipal elections compared to state elections, so that they're on the same timeline. Through you.

Thank you. Thank you for that explanation on that section. On Section 43, if we can let the people know what we're talking about in Section 43, which I believe it talks about violations when it comes to elections, and one that seek and consult with the attorney general regarding that. Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This specifies that the attorney general may act on a referral or consultation by the State Elections Enforcement Commission and other circumstances. Through you.

Thank you. So if there's an alleged violation through SEEK, that somebody files with SEEK, we're saying that as a SEEK can turn this information over to the attorney general for investigation and having the attorney general investigated as opposed to state. Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. And this is specifically for complaints about election official misconduct. Through you.

Thank you. So, is there a qualification or a bar that SEEK has to follow in order for them to refer something over to the attorney general? Because what I don't want to see is a lot of things sent over to the attorney general. I don't want to see people that are filing complaints being harassed, obviously, and just sending it over to the attorney So what is the bar? What are the qualifications? Can SEEK just say, you know what? This looks suspicious. I mean, there should be some preliminary investigation by the election enforcement's commission before they make that decision to send it over to the attorney general. I don't see that addressed in here. Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This legislation does not address that standard. Obviously, a complaint would have to be made to SEEK about the relevant election official, and then SEEK would have to decide to consult with the attorney general on it. Obviously, we've been encouraging them to consult with whoever they need to consult with, sooner rather than later. We had legislation, specifically several years ago, that mandated that they have to refer any complaints where they think there's an allegation of criminal misconduct, or there's probable cause to think there's criminal misconduct. They have to refer that to the chief state's attorney's office within 90 days. And so, the idea here is if they do feel the need to consult with the attorney general's office, they can do so. This lays out the circumstances, and they should do so in a timely fashion. Through you.

Thank you for that clarification. So, listen, obviously, if there is some wrongdoing that people are doing, the attorney general should be able to investigate it, obviously. I just want to be careful that we are not sending over inquiries, I guess, to the attorney general, just because maybe we have the same people filing complaints all the time, and we just don't want to deal with it. And maybe we want somebody that has a little bit more influence to look into it. I just want to make sure that, obviously, this process is not abused. Either way, there are times when the attorney general, obviously, should get involved and needs to get involved. Section 44 talks about the risk-limiting audits, and I know we've been trying to do some risk-limiting audits in our committee for quite a while. If the good chairman can explain to me exactly what are these audits going to do, and what is the goal to accomplish? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, the distinguished ranking member is correct. This is a bill we've been trying to pass for a long time on a bipartisan basis. Risk-limiting audits are essentially audits of vote- counting equipment to ensure that they are properly counting the votes. I will not get too deep into the technicalities of it, but long story short, using the power of statistics, certain number of votes are hand-counted. That is compared to the counts done by the tabulators in the election. I studied history and literature and became a lawyer, and that's why I don't understand those statistics. But suffice it to say, UConn statisticians do and are going to be handling that portion of it. And, basically, this part of the bill lays out what all the requirements are for these risk-limiting audits, what bounds are okay and acceptable. And then the secretary is going to promulgate regulations on exactly how the audit should be done. Through

Thank you. Yes. We've been trying to work on a bipartisan basis with our chairs of our committee to do some risk-limiting audits. They are a good thing if they're done properly. So certainly, I support that. On Section 45, what we're doing on this section, it looks like we're changing the date or extending it. But was the town clerks have to report the name and address of each person elected in a municipal election? What is the date that we're changing on, and how many days out, and why? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, this is a change from the previous law says within 10 days after the municipal election, it would be changed to not later than the last day of the month in which the municipal election was held. My understanding is that this is to assist as part of the risk-limiting audits program. Through you.

Thank you. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, this was not a request by the registered voters or the town clerk, is that correct? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe so.

Thank you. In Section 46, it's municipal elections, which need to be audited to be at least 5% of the voting districts. How does all that work when the municipalities have to do an audit? And where it's looking now, it's 5% of the voting districts. Exactly what does that mean, and how does it work? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, this is part of the risk-limiting audit process, and I don't know why 5% is the percent. I believe it has to do with the relevant statistical principles. Through you.

Thank you for that. So I'm going to leave in Sections 47, actually, down to Sections 56, deal with the risk-limiting audits. Is that correct? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. That is my understanding.

Thank you. So now we get to the other concerning part of this bill for me is Section 57. Let me get to it. Excuse me for a moment. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So Section 57 is obviously a concern to me. I think we spend more time in this building dealing with perhaps what's going on on a federal level than we do with dealing with the issues that are here in Connecticut. It seems to me that this section is -- I don't know. Assuming that ICE is coming to Connecticut and intimidating the people at our election, at our polling, which I don't see that happen. And there's certainly no evidence of that whatsoever. So if the chairman can please explain to me exactly what's going on here in Section 57. This is a whole new section that we have. If you can, please explain to me what's going on here? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, Section 57 prohibits any officer or agent of any organization or entity authorized by the federal government or any state to use force or detain or search individuals from generally being within 250 feet of an election site without permission. There are a number of exceptions that are listed out in lines 2,640 through 2660. But basically objective of this provision is that, currently under our state law, it is illegal for any of these people to be at a polling place. But we certainly don't want them being within, close to the polling place in a manner that's our election officials, and our secretary of state have not approved. We want people to be able to be at the voting locations feeling free from intimidation or fear. And so, excuse me. This provision would help accomplish that by barring these individuals from these areas except if they've been given permission by election officials or they meet one of the exceptions. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So if I'm reading this correctly, are you saying that our police officers cannot interfere, detain, arrest any individual that's at a polling place within 250 feet? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, they could not unless they met one of the exceptions. One of the exceptions is permission or request by the moderator or by the Secretary of State. There's an exception for exit in circumstances where there's a serious risk to life or property. There are exceptions for them to be able to transit through those areas directly and for not longer than they need to. But ultimately, yes, they would not be able to generally arrest someone or detain someone in those areas. One other exception I failed to mention is if they have a warrant that mentions that they're supposed to arrest someone or make a seizure in that area, and the warrant spells that out. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So let me just throw out a scenario here. What happens if a fight breaks out at a polling? And I'm not talking about immigration or any of that kind of stuff. A fight breaks out at a polling place, and there's a police officer there, and the fight needs to be broken up. And somebody did something better. Is this what this is saying, that the police cannot interfere and get involved in breaking up that fight? Through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. No. In fact, the bill actually lists that in several ways as an exception or would fit under several exceptions in the bill. One is if there's a serious threat to life or property, which if there's a fight, certainly there would be. Additionally, they are allowed to come at the request of the moderator to suppress disorder. So that would be another situation which they'd be there to do that duty. So, short answer, no. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Honestly, it's outrageous. So, what I'm gathering here is that there's a fight. Maybe it's a couple. Maybe it's a married couple that when they're in line to -- they're in the parking lot to go in to vote, they get into an argument. One of them hits each other. It gets out of hand. So if my understanding is correct. The police officer has says, oh, no. I'll be right back. Let me go ask the moderator if I can interfere. Is that basically what I'm reading here? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, no. If there were a serious threat to life or property, they'd be able to intervene, which it sounds like that could be. Also, I think in practice, when you generally have a disturbance at the polls, the moderator will make that call and request assistance from the police. And so I would anticipate that either the police would be able to intervene directly, or they would receive a call from the moderator, or they would be there and the moderator would, at some point, learn of why they were there and give them permission. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's outrageous. It's absolutely outrageous. Are moderators trained? Do we have to train our moderators now? They're volunteers to go to a polling place to be trained on how to deal with a situation that arises, that maybe it's just an argument or a fight. You mentioned that it's a reasonable threat, but who's to make that decision? A moderator who's not trained or the law enforcement. Through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. The law enforcement would. That is the exigent circumstances exception, which they decide themselves whether it's been met. So that's separate from the permission or the request of the moderator. So the moderator could request or give permission to the law enforcement to be there for whatever level of disturbance. Maybe it's just someone yelling, or we could think of a million different examples, or maybe not a million, but a number of different examples of how people could be a disturbance or be interfering with the poles, or what have you, in any number of pedestrian or more dramatic ways. The moderator could request the local law enforcement's help for any of those. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. It's just outrageous. Again, we're tying the hands of our good law enforcement in our towns, which is absolutely crazy. There's something in here about wearing a mask. What does that mean? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, this creates a general prohibition against wearing masks within 250 feet of a polling location. It does create exceptions for -- if the mask is for religious observance or medical reasons, and it also says that the criminal penalties would only apply if the individual essentially refuses to comply with directions from the moderator to remove their mask. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me just say something. When COVID came out in 2020, I was the first one to say that we should not be mandating that people wear masks. And people thought I was absolutely crazy because it was COVID, and there was a virus going on. And my philosophy was, if you want to wear a mask, wear it. If you don't, don't. And the Democrats, the majority, were insisting that people wear a mask because of COVID. And now what we're telling people is that they can't. Some people wore masks during COVID. Maybe they really didn't want to. Maybe they weren't afraid, but they just wore it because they were told to do so. Actually, here, we're absolutely doing the opposite. So you can wear a mask. This is just outrageous. You can wear a mask for medical reasons. Do you have to show a note when you go to vote? Do I got to get a note from my doctor or my teacher to say I need to wear a mask because I'm sick? How does that work? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, no. That would not be how the provisions enforced. I also forgot to mention another exception, which is that someone's allowed to wear a face covering if it's reasonable given the weather conditions, provided that if the moderator requests that they remove it for some purpose, they have to comply. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's really scary just listening to my colleague over there using certain worms words. And listen up, people. The word is allow. Allow. We now have the government telling us what is allowed to do when it comes to wearing a mask, not wearing mask, what kind of clothes you can wear, what kind of clothes you can't wear. The word allow that the government is using here should alarm every single person in the state of Connecticut, because that's what the state has become. Very scary. What about clothing? Is there certain clothing that somebody can't wear when they go to the polls? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Under existing law, you're not allowed to wear clothing that would carry electioneering material. So that's an existing prohibition. But this bill does not create any new prohibitions in that regard. Through you.

Thank you. So, existing law does not allow you to wear what type of clothing at polls? Through you. Can you repeat that?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Currently, under state law, you're not allowed to wear clothing with materials that have electioneering material on them. So advocating for the success or defeat of any candidate or measure, within 75 feet of the polling location. Through you.

Thank you. Yes. And that is a law within 75 feet. But this bill is talking about 250 feet. Does that 75 feet still take place, still in effect with this bill? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. This bill has no effect on that provision.

Thank you. And so to wear a mask, you got to be 250 feet away from where you enter the building, where the actual voting machine is? Where does that 250 feet take place? And why 250 feet? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, it's from wherever the 75 feet is currently counted from, and it is a reasonable amount of space that's used for a number of other provisions that create zones around protected locations. Through you.

Thank you. I'm looking at something in here. It says and if you violate any provisions of this, it's a class C felony, and you can be disenfranchised. What does all that mean? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Exactly what it says. If you violate one of these provisions with the requisite state of mind, if it's a C felony provision, it's punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years. The D felony provisions are punishable by a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to laugh. So we're going to maximum sentence of 10 years for violating this for -- is that for wearing a mask? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, excuse me. The mask provision is a D felony, so that would be a maximum sentence of five years. A criminal penalty can only apply if the individual refuses to take off the mask or leave the moderator's direction. Through you.

Thank you. So we get a maximum of five years for wearing a mask. But guess what? We don't have a minimum mandatory sentence for election fraud, but you certainly get to a max of five years for wearing a mask. Mr. Speaker, this is so outrageous and such a violation of someone's individual rights. Talk about disenfranchising voters. This type of a law keeps people home from voting. But I think that's what the other side wants, because you know what? The heck with him. We're going to get all to vote by absentee ballot by mail. We don't want him to go to the polls. It's absolutely absurd. I have a feeling that my colleagues are going to have a pretty good time with this section of the bill. An increased penalty, a felony, and yet we have no minimum mandatory sentence for somebody doing election fraud. What the heck is going on here? I just want go through another section here that is really incredible. There's other bills in here that we added through you, Mr. Speaker. Can the chairman please tell me what other bills that were added to this amendment? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, this amendment contains provisions that were previously in 5001, 5533, 5330, I believe, and 5529. Through you.

Thank you. I think through you, Mr. Speaker, 5529 is one of the bills that was put in here. 5530 is a task force, I believe, to study absentee ballot access in certain cities. You can explain to me that. I thought there was one of the bills in here where people in those cities are having a hard time getting absentee ballot. They can't go to their town. They have to get through the state. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. There is a provision for a task force for, functionally, submunicipal elections. So cities or boroughs within towns to try to determine the best ways to ensure that they can get access to absentee ballots in those elections, and that is section -- I believe it's close to the end. Yes. That's Section 70. Through you. And then there's also another bill in there, Section 395, which is now Section 71. Through you.

Thank you for that clarification. I want to just talk briefly about one of the sections in here. It never ceases to amaze me. I have to laugh sometimes. You have to have a sense of humor with this job. Section 72, it talks about voter participation. And let me just explain to people what it does is that -- I'm going to use the word the Democrats use on my side, that it allows, or my majority party, a municipality to establish a pilot program to promote the goal of achieving 100% voter participation. Now, I guess my first question here is, why do we need a law for that? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. So this provision creates a task force to look at the problem of voter participation and increase voter participation and civic participation. And it also creates an opportunity for municipalities to engage in pilot programs, as the good Representative previously discussed. I guess I would say, based on our levels of voter participation in many of our elections, we need to do whatever we can, whether it's through law and otherwise, to try to increase that participation. Because right now, frankly, it's woefully insufficient. Many of our municipal budget referendum, for instance, may have a 15% turnout rate. That's no way to get people involved to understand and to determine democratically how to run a city or a town. We had a 35% turnout rate in a recent election in Stanford, in my city, for mayor. And that was a huge election for us. It was back in 2021. Huge election. 35% determining who's going to be the chief elected officer of the city for the next four years. So I know that there are many other towns and cities across the state who would say the same thing about their elections. I think we need to do whatever we can to increase participation in our elections, participation in our civic life. And so this measure is just one of the things that we can and should be pursuing as a state. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the good chairman that voter participation in some areas is weaker than others, and in some areas, it's actually pretty high. But I think voter participation is down because of the policies that we create in this state. Voters are staying home because they won. They don't feel that their vote counts. They don't feel that their legislators or their leaders in their town are listening to them. They don't trust the process. That's why voter turnout is down. Increasing absentee ballot access is not going to change that. We had early voting we put in. Didn't really increase voter participation that much. But it's actually amazing that if a town wants to increase voter turnout, this is a pilot program that a town can use. They can do it. We don't need to create a law for a pilot program? I'm just curious. Are they not allowed under current law to try to increase voter participation? Is that why we have to do this statute? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. No. They're already allowed to do pilot programs if they so wish. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I don't understand why we are putting that into statute. They are already able to do so or allowed, as the chairman of the committee says. I don't like to use that word, but that's the word they use. To try to get a 100% voter participation. I can tell you right now, it's not happening because you cannot legislate behavior. We have our census that goes out, and there's people that don't even participate in that. And if that's one thing that people try to participate in, that they don't want to -- there's people that are mandated to go to jury duty that don't even go. You are never going to get 100% participation. What is the goal here? Are we going to start fining people for not voting? It's absolutely ridiculous. Towns can actually take this into their own hands right now and try to increase voter participation. Your town committees can do it. Your state parties can do it. There's no need to create a law here. And as I mentioned before, voter participation is down because of the laws and the policies that are put in place in this chamber. And I can tell you right now, it's not because of the minority party sitting on this side of the room. That's just a fact. We are not in control. None of our policies could possibly pass that would make a difference. So everything is based on the majority. That's just fact. We can't blame us for it. People need to really trust the process in our voting laws, and they just don't have that. They just don't feel that they -- look what happened in Bridgeport. Nothing. I don't know. We have people still walking around, and I know the process takes a while. But somebody got arrested for it, went to court, and they did it again. It's very, very frustrating. Mr. Speaker, there's so many parts of this bill that are just so outrageous. The voter participation, security measures at the polls, interfering once again with our great police officers, not allowing them to do their job because somebody is afraid that it's going to be an ICE agent, or -- I don't know. What are we always trying to do? Protect the criminals? If there's something bad going on at a polling place, I can tell you right now, I want a police officer there, and I don't want him getting permission from a moderator who has absolutely no experience whatsoever when it comes to crime and protecting the citizens. The section about automatic absentee ballot program it's it's another outrageous thing. We should be trying to secure our elections in this state. This bill does none of that. I will end it there, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure my colleagues have a lot to say about this. One more question. I do that all the time. I always think of something. The longer I stand up here, the longer I think of a question. In the back here, there's a repealers. There's some sections that are being repealed, and I believe it's Section 9- 192BK. Why is that section being repealed?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. It's my understanding that those provisions are no longer relevant given the new absentee voting system. And then, 9-192B is an outdated training requirement for registrars. Through you.

Thank you. 9-192B, it requires that -- excuse me. The assistant register of voters to receive at least ten hours of instruction. That's being repealed. Do they get no instruction at all? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. There's actually another section that governs that now, and I think it requires more instruction and certification, actually. Through you.

Thank you. And then one more Section 9-159. It talks about repealing this session. Elector was returned an absentee ballot to the municipal clerk, and you find out that they're able to vote in person. They have to do it before 10:00 a.m. They have to proceed before 10:00 a.m. That is being repealed. Is that correct? Through you.

Through Mr. Speaker, yes.

And through you, Mr. Speaker, why is this section being repealed?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, this was a provision that was relevant given the previous system, where the votes were not open until election day. The absentee votes were not -- they're still not opened, but they had the double envelope system. And so, there was a provision so that you could withdraw the ballot during the fine period, and this time limit was relevant to when the outer envelopes would be opened. Or maybe it's the inner envelopes. I don't actually remember. But the long story short is now that we're going to a single envelope system, and we're providing for checking at different points, this section is no longer relevant. Through you.

Thank you for that clarification. I'll end there, Mr. Speaker, and just say that I'm really disappointed in -- sometimes in our GAE committee, we agree on certain things, and that's wonderful, but we have done nothing in that committee this year to address election integrity. Not one thing. All we have done is expand it without putting any other protections in place. Like I said, there's probably some good pieces in this bill that I agree with, but the other stuff is so outrageous and so egregious, I could never support it. And I would suggest to my colleagues, hopefully, that they will follow my lead. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you to the chairman of the committee for our debate. Thank you.

Ditria, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few questions to the good proponent of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'm going to start with Section 8, the ballot tracking system. What specific cybersecurity measures will protect the sensitive voter data? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, this provision does not say which measures are required. Through you.

Thank you. And through you. But are there measures that you just may not know about? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are cybersecurity standards that work across state government, that set out requirements for what level of cybersecurity and what measures are required. And I think that the secretary would have to comply with those in finding this software and using this software system. We're not setting out some unique set of cybersecurity measures here. Through you.

Thank you. And through you, Mr. Speaker, and you may have said this already, but I don't really -- just want confirmation. What's the full cost to taxpayers, including long-term maintenance?

One moment as I pull up the fiscal note. Through you, Mr. Speaker, it's an annual cost of $75,000 beginning in fiscal year '27. Through you.

Thank you. And through you, how will the smaller communities implement the system without disruption? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. The system is going to be paid for by the secretary's office, and so they would have access to it through her office, and they would receive instruction on the system through their training requirements that are set forth in law. Through you.

And through you, what is the contingency plan if the system fails close to an election? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, we would use the old system, which has paper voter rolls, paperless poll books. In terms of actual tracking, these are -- we currently have the capability to show when the ballot has actually arrived, under current mechanisms, but I believe they depend on some sort of software as well. So I think, if there were a problem with the new software, I believe that they'd be able to use the old software, but I'm not a 100% sure. Ultimately, all these records are backed up somewhere on paper. Through you.

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, maybe the good proponent could get that information for me later. Thank you. And through you, who's accountable if the voter data is compromised?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I think it would depend on the circumstances and who was in the wrong. We currently have a CBRS electronic voter roll system through which we have this data stored. This tracking system would just -- excuse me. This tracking system would just be delivering the information on the status of the ballot to the voter and tracking it throughout the process. So it may be that the secretary's office is accountable in some way. I am sure that there are provisions in the contracts for if the company or the vendor that doesn't do their job, they may be accountable, civilly liable. And there may be others if they share data improperly. It would depend on the circumstances. Through you.

Thank you. And through you, Mr. Speaker, in this section, I feel most of us do that before launching a statewide system, we need to make sure Connecticut ensures that it's what? Secure, it's reliable, and it's fully funded. That's all my questions for Section A. I'm going to go on to Section 9. Mr. Speaker, and through you, this is the permanent absentee ballot expansion section. What safeguards are in place to prevent the ballots from being sent to outdated or incorrect addresses? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, this section contains a number of mechanisms through which someone can be removed from the permanent absentee voting list. In addition, if they change their address within the state, their registration will change as well, and they'll remain on the permanent absentee voting list, but the ballot will be sent to the address of their new registration. Through you.

Thank you. And through you, Mr. Speaker, do we require address confirmation before sending out a ballot?

Through you, could you, Representative, rephrase the question? In particular, not sure what she means by address confirmation. Through you.

I could try and rephrase it, but through you, do we confirm that it's the person's correct address? Is there any way that we make sure it's the correct address we're sending it to, that it corresponds to the person it's going to? I don't know how to rephrase that. Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. If they register in a new location, then that would be the most updated registration. We'd know that there'd need to be a change. Separately from the permanent absentee voter list, registrars send out confirmation notices to make sure that people are still at their same addresses. And if, obviously, if they get returned with the person not living there anymore, then that's a confirmation that they're not there anymore. Through you.

Thank you. And through you, do we know how often the voter rolls are audited before ballots are automatically sent? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, depends what you mean by audited. We do mandate a number of cross-checks with other lists on a yearly basis at the Secretary of State level. Through you.

Thank you for those answers. And just a comment, Mr. Speaker. Access without safeguards, Mr. Speaker, is not progress. It's risk. And I think we could all be really concerned about that. Connecticut must ensure what things? Integrity of our elections before expanding absentee ballot access in the state. I think it's a pretty simple statement, a two-sentence statement. Just the way this bill is written today and what we heard from our good ranking member, I don't feel confident that this is going to do what the intended goal was. And therefore, I cannot support it today, and I encourage all my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. How you doing, Mr. Speaker? Good to see you. I don't serve in GA, but I do want to ask a couple of questions to the good chair of GA. And before I ask the questions, I think we all feel we want to give the greatest access to every voter in this state and in this country, and I would argue it's probably the most precious right, along with the First Amendment, we have. But I do have some concerns, and I just want to ask the questions of the good chairs. So through you,

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So we had early voting, I think, the last two years, and I think it was fairly successful. I'm sorry. Yes. Early voting. It was pretty successful. I know in North Haven, it wasn't 87th District. And I don't remember if I support it. No excuse. But I personally think it goes too far. But did you work through you, Mr. Speaker, with the GA committee, with the registers and our clerks and our towns, and also address the deficiency in funding because I know the biggest complaint for most registers and clerks is their lack of funding from day one. And so through you, Mr. Speaker, those are my questions.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I can't detail all of the testimony we got from the registrars and the town clerks. We did get a considerable amount, and we took a considerable number of their requests and suggestions. This bill does contain funding. I don't believe that it's separate funding for early voting. I will say that at some future data, it may be appropriate to reconsider, or to consider the appropriate amount of early voting and certain other details related to early voting. But it'll be difficult to do so before we actually implement no- excuse absentee voting, and so we know how people choose to share the vote. And so, that's why it's so important that we're working to pass this legislation today so that we can have one system that's the most accessible, secure, and efficient across the board. Through you.

I appreciate that answer, but like I said, I think it's our most precious right, along with the First Amendment. I think I asked a good chair four years ago about funding. We are guaranteed funding for the towns and the registrants, and it was never fully funded. And when you have a bill that's almost 3,400 pages or the need for more voting and more access, which I think we should have, I think we should also fund or help our registers and our clerks. And I don't think I see that in this bill, and I hope it wasn't -- appears to be an oversight, and maybe that could be corrected eventually, but I think that's a problem. When you look at the chain of custody, was that ever a concern as far as sending out mass absentee ballots and getting it to the right homes and then right back to the town hall or to the registers and clerks? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, the process does not change for the chain of custody of absentee ballots under this bill. It'll be the same process that's been used in the past and has been used successfully. Through you.

I appreciate that. I do like the provision. I served in the Navy, and I turned 18 in boot camp, and I registered to vote in boot camp. It was right before the election, and I voted in boot camp. And my vote, I did check when I got back home from leave, and it was counted. So I think that's important for men and women. I was actually in states, but now if you're overseas -- and I think this address and it federally addresses it. If you're overseas, that vote should count. That men and women that serves this great nation should count, along with their family if they're with them. So I like that provision. And I have a question on section 57 about local law enforcement, not federal law enforcement. Through you, Mr. Speaker. So I was asked by some local law enforcement, and -- I know in the 87th District, there's police at every station. They're there all day, and I think -- I welcome them there. I think most people welcome them there. Will this in any way hinder our men and women if there's a fight? I know the questions were asked, and I apologize for reasking it. So I want to clarify the protection of our men and women, state law enforcement. That they could intervene at any time during a scuffle, a potential, an emergency, or whatever it might be, they could intervene through, Mr. Speaker. Without the moderator, I apologize, without the moderator.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. If under the exigent circumstances exception, there were a fight or scuffle that posed a serious risk to life or property, which I think pretty much any physical fight or scuffle would, they would be able to intervene without the moderator. I will say also that even if they did intervene, and maybe someone had some doubt as to whether it rose to that level, the fact that the moderator came out and said, oh, good that you're here. Yes. Of course, you have permission to be here and keep people safe in this manner. That would retroactively bless what they were doing there anyway. So they would be provided for on either end in that sort of scenario. Through you.

I really appreciate that answer, and I think our law enforcement does also, our state law enforcement. I don't know if it's relevant, but AI is so prevalent. It's been prevalent for quite a long time, but it's going to be more prevalent. Is there any consideration with this legislation for protections against AI in a negative way? Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the good chair.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Not in this bill, but we do have another one. And I hope you have the opportunity to vote on it soon.

I appreciate it. Just really a couple more statements. I lost the train of thought for a second. So when folks voted for this, I believe it was last election for the -- no excuse voting, I don't think anybody envisioned a bill near the 3,400 pages and so many components. I would argue that good share didn't envision these many components. Why it's so large? I have no idea. I would think if we knew that, I think the vote might have went the other way. Again, I want people to vote. I think everybody on both sides of the aisle want people to vote. I wish more people voted. I know for myself, I speak at civics classes at least eight to 10 times a year in North Haven High School. I'll go to any school. I'll go to Hamner. If there anybody that wants me to go, I'll speak. And I never preach Republican or Democrat. I just preach democracy and civics and getting involved. And then with that, I love this country. I served our nation. I don't like that we're bringing so much federal politics into potentially elections. I'm adamantly against any federal officials at a polling place. It bothers me to the core that we're even discussing this. This is the greatest nation in the world because our freedoms and our rights. And I think sometimes countries, we have 250 years. We've had a lot of great things, and I believe we'll have a lot more great things. But I think when a country is potentially harming elections, I think that's a sad day in a country's long history. Not as long as Europe and Asia, even Middle East, but I think we have to be careful. So I just want to put that on the record. I support our federal law enforcement. I support our local and state law enforcement. This is why we need, and I've said it since I've been here, to work together, both federal and state, and put nothing in their way of that. They should always communicate and work together. And when that doesn't happen, we have potentially what's going to happen with some federal law enforcement stuff and polling places. And I'm 100% against that. So that's all I have to say. I love this country, and I love this state, and I thank you for the time.

Good. Good evening, Mr. Speaker.

So I've got a couple of questions here to the proponent of the bill.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. What states have actually taken on a plan, a program, and this kind of approach? And conversely, what has been their success rate, and what has been whatever increase or decrease there conceivably could be in people taking advantage of something like this through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through Mr. Speaker, currently 36 states in the District of Columbia have some system of absentee voting for all or no- excuse absentee voting. I couldn't give you the particularities of every single one of them. But suffice it to say, I do think it is universally popular across those states. And they've observed a high success rate, and what they view as a high success rate. Through you.

Thank you, through you, to the good proponent of the bill. I believe District of Columbia was named, and I'm trying to recall were any other states named in that group and what was their success rates. Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. There are 36 of them. I had a document up earlier that had -- let's see if I can find it. Through you, Mr. Speaker. So, 36 states, as I said, in DC have no excuse absentee voting, so what this bill would accomplish. They range across the country, all sorts of states, big states, small states. You got states from Idaho to Montana to state of Washington to Nevada to Florida to Georgia to North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Maine, Wisconsin, all sorts of different kinds of states that have no excuse absentee voting. None of them has gone back on that and restricted that again. It depends what you mean when you say what their success rate is. I think in terms of what I consider successes, they have a high level of popularity for their no-excuse absentee voting systems. They've had these systems for a while. They haven't gone back on them. So I would say all of those states have a high rate of success or have had high success with no-excuse absentee voting. Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, thank you for the answer to the question there. Cybersecurity. There was a little bit of a discussion there. Can we get a little deeper in what kind of cybersecurity that would be needed to ensure that some bad actor could hack in and throw an election in the wrong direction? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, we've got the best cybersecurity system for our elections on Earth, and that is paper ballots. So at the end of the day, anyone has any question about the election and what the outcome was, and whether computers played a role in misleading people or anything like that, we can get to the bottom of it with the physical paper ballots. Through you.

And again, through you, thank you for the answer from the proponent here. There would have to be a trigger of some nature for a paper ballot actually to be checking and counter checking how the success and security of the paper ballots would be. So based on that, how would that play into the cybersecurity so as not to have to do hand counts or machine counts of paper ballots? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure I completely understood the question, but I think what it's getting at is we have -- every vote ultimately comes down to a paper ballot. Those ballots are secured throughout the process, locked up. There's multiple individuals with oversight of those ballots throughout the chain of custody. We have very strict rules about them. Those rules are not laid out in this bill, but we've talked about them in the past on this floor, where we talked about early voting and other measures related to voting. So we have actually a really good system for election security in relation to ensuring that the votes actually say what they say, which is that we have those paper ballots, we have a democratic registrar, and we have a republican registrar. There are two commanders on the nuclear submarine before you allow a nuclear weapon to go off. We want to make sure that there's public confidence in the elections that there's nothing that's happening that could be sneaky or not above board. And so we have a lot of these checks in the system to ensure, at the end of the day, that the votes say what the voters intended them to say, and then we have oversight and transparency around that. And so, ultimately, we don't want to depend on cybersecurity for votes and what they say. We want the paper ballots, and this bill wouldn't change that. Through you.

And, through you to the proponent of the bill, thank you for the answer there. Funding obviously for something like this, and the need for ongoing funding. Do we have a price tag? A, for actually doing this, and B, for maintaining it in the future so as to ensure that there's plenty of resources to make sure that everything is working properly. And if it has to be overhauled, would there be a price tag on that or funding per se? Through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This bill does provide significant funding. We will need to see, as things go forward, how the vote shares play out, how people choose to vote, whether it's by absentee, by early voting, or by election day voting. And we'll need to adjust funding as things go forward, but there's a significant amount of funding in this bill addressed to the new measures. Through you.

And, again, through you, Mr. Speaker, thank you to the proponent of the bill on his answer there. I have concerns over this. I'll be perfectly candid. We're taking a big lift here, and I've heard other people making comments, other Representatives making comments here. And I've heard from a number of people pertaining to this. And if it's successful, well, that could be a great thing. But if there's problems with it, which could be problematic, that would actually tarnishing the actual voting process in the state of Connecticut. We've got a good process right now. It works. There's a lot of believability, honesty, faith, and comfort in the voting system that we utilize today. And I have a concern that we don't necessarily have that in what's being proposed here. And that is a concern, and it's something that needs to be addressed. I tend to think we need to take a very cautious step here and make sure that we don't do something that could undermine the confidence and the security of our voting system, because we've done a good job on it. And that's why I'm raising some concerns here, and that's why I am concerned over where this could go. And I'll be listening to the commentary. And I think through you, Mr. Speaker, the proponents' answers to my questions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good evening. How are you?

Good. Just a couple of questions and then maybe some comments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, through you, in the process of going through section by section by section, I honestly have to say I've lost myself in some of that. And one of the things that I heard about was some repealing language. And I wanted to just get clarification from the proponent of the bill as to what exactly was repealed, of what we had going on with voting in the state of Connecticut versus through this bill, what do we have now that's been repealed? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, as I discussed with the ranking member of the GA committee, the repealer eliminates several sections that are no longer relevant. Two of them based on new aspects of the absentee voting procedure, and one of them an outdated training requirement. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank the proponent. The last bit was training, I believe, you had mentioned. Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. There's a provision in the law that requires, I believe, deputy registrars to get 10 hours of training. They're subject to other certification and training requirements that are in excess of that, and that provision was duplicative. Through you.

Okay. Forgive me. I just want to be clear then. Municipalities are no longer being required to get the required training because that was currently in the bill that municipalities had to make sure that the deputies got trained, and they had to pay for that. Is that now not in the bill? Through

Through you, Mr. Speaker. It is in the bill. They will have to get trained and certified to the relevant certifications for registrars, and this other provision is made duplicative, redundant by that provision.

Okay. Again, I'm not sure what he said in the last, like, three words. So if he could repeat through you, Mr. Speaker

Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Well, I'll put it this way. The deputies are going to be subject to other certification requirements that make these old training requirements redundant. So they're going to be irrelevant after this because the new requirements that come into play will provide for them getting certified in a way that these 10 hours of training doesn't do anything. Through

I got it. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Thank the proponent for me. Okay. So the reason I'm asking those questions is because I want to see what is this costing our municipalities, being a former municipal leader? These are the things that I see. And one of the things that we talked about when we initially put the absentee ballot situation, and we've had these many discussions, we extended the voting time and days, for early voting, and we've done a lot to make voting very accessible. So one of the things in extending our voting time frame is that, that was at the time when we were having these discussions, it was promised that the Secretary of State's office would make the towns whole as far as the payments to more personnel needed. You go to 14 days. Voting goes from 6:00 in the morning till 8:00 at night for 14 days. That's a lot of personnel. That's a lot of time for getting people in to take these jobs and to man the polls, and for 14 days of it. So that's something that the towns took on, and we all had to scramble in our budgets to find another $25, $30,000 to pay for that. So, again, I'm looking for cost savings here and hoping that if we're extending the realm of absentee ballots, and absentee ballots are available to many more people, then is the 14 days or 15 days of early voting even necessary at this point? Because we're making it easier to vote when we use the absentee ballots for any excuse, anytime, anywhere. And we're mailing them, and we're sending them by email. So, at some point, these poll workers that are there for 14 days don't really have a whole lot to do. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the clerk to call LCO 4519, and if you ask the clerk to call it, and I'd be allowed to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule D, House Bill Number 4519, offered by Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, again, Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to do here is we're looking at this expanding of the absentee ballots and how we're basically saying anybody and everybody can do this. Do we need poll workers there for fifteen days, which is what we're doing currently? So what we'd like to do is this amendment will reduce the primary elections, or I'm sorry, the regular elections, from fifteen days down to six. The primary elections, instead of eight, they'll be four days. And then any special election will go from five to three days. And so we're hoping that maybe that will help, some cost savings, actually. So this is actually a friendly amendment in a sense that we're saving all this money. We're basically cutting what we're spending now, currently on a statewide basis, by half. So what we'd like to do is do that, help the towns, and I think that this is a good amendment, and I look to move the adoption of the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank my good colleague for introducing that amendment and for her summary. A discussion about this amendment could be in the offing at some point in the future, but it's a little early tonight. And the reason why I say that is because, actually, accomplishing absentee voting for all and passing no-excuse absentee voting could give us the opportunity in the future to modify early voting or aspects of early voting in a way to make it more efficient and easier on our registrars. But tonight, we don't know what the vote share breakdown will be between people voting in person on election day, in person and early voting, by absentee voting when they all have the opportunity to do it. So I can imagine a time in the future where we have a discussion about modifying the early voting period, the hours, or other details of early voting. Once we've got absentee voting fully instantiated, and we see how people are going to use it as opposed to early voting or election day voting. But, obviously, we don't have that information tonight. We would need to hear from our registrars, town clerks, and our Secretary of the State in a public hearing. And so for all those reasons, I urge rejection of this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if it's okay with you and the proponent of the bill itself, I have just a quick clarification underlying bill because it relates to the amendment for my town, if that's okay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. This amendment is relevant to early voting, and in a town of Stonyton where I live, early voting is done in the community room of the Stony police department. And that was done because of the security measures that were set up, et cetera. I believe if this bill passes, that may have to change, and moving to 10 days may make it a lot more beneficial for my district. So if I could to the good proponent legislation, it says in lines 2664 in 2665 that, previous to that, no police officer shall knowingly lord it or remain within 250 feet of an election site, which would include a place for early voting. So, in Stonington, if the early voting is done in the community room that is within the police department, and, actually, police officers are in and around that all day, 24 hours a day, would that voting place then have to be moved? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe so. If it were in a police building, they wouldn't be loitering. They would be doing whatever role that they were meant to be doing there. So that would be my understanding. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll again point my good colleague to 2664 and 2665. It doesn't say loiter and remain. It says loiter or remain. I would argue because I've actually spent a lot of time in that building, in that parking lot, over the last 24 years. Police officers on duty remain within 250 feet of that building all day long, 24 hours a day. So during that time period, they would be remaining there. So, looking at the word remain, would that then have to be moved? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Actually, a separate exception. A separate exception that could be applicable to them would be the permission of the moderator, which would allow them to be within that space for whatever purpose they're supposed to be within that space. And so they would not be loitering or remaining under the law under that circumstance. So if they worked it out with a moderator, I think they continue to be in that polling place. Obviously, if there were conflict there, then I think they might have to find a different polling place. Through you.

So that seems a little targeted, right? Because there's only one guy that's name will be on that ballot that has to work in that building. So, through you, to the good chairman, based on his last statement, would a police officer who works in that building, whose name is on the ballot, potentially cause that conflict for the moderator? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I think there are perhaps other provisions of law that could implicate an individual who's on the ballot being within a certain space in a building where voting's taking place. The fact of the person being on the ballot would not matter for this provision. If they were there simply because they're a police officer, they'd be able to get permission from the moderator or from the Secretary of State. Through you.

Thank you. And if the good proponent could point me to the line in the bill, he said that you could get permission from the moderator to remain there. And forgive me. I've been trying to go through this, and I listened to the debate section by section. I saw that the moderator could authorize certain things. But could you put me in line in the bill where it says the moderator can authorize a police officer who's not there to enforce the law to remain within 250 feet? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, lines 2657 through 2660 of the bill. It says the Secretary of State or the moderator can request us -- we can request to suppress disorder or can give permission to an officer, agent, or person to be present. Through you.

I see it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it. In favor of this amendment, I put in something similar. Well, it's a short session, so I asked the Government Administration and Elections Committee to put in a bill something similar to this. But this amendment is even better than my bill, I must admit. It's a compromise. This shortens the days of early voting. Every one of us last the fall in the municipals and even in the primaries, some had primaries, and in the municipals, we went as state reps since we went to visit them. I'm sure every one of us paid a little visit to the early voting place, and they had just about -- had it seven days in a 14-day stint. They were going bonkers. It was terrible. Republican and Democrat registrars were just at wits' end. It was grueling. It was terrible to put our towns through this. And the good proponent of the amendment that brought it out mentioned that it was a lot of stress on them and a lot of stress to the town. A lot of money for the towns, too. This just makes simple sense. I don't know why the good chairman of this committee accepted it in a positive manner. He said, yeah, this does make sense. It can work, but he said something like, we're not quite ready to put it in the bill. I don't understand that. It's a 108-page bill. It's 3,382 lines. We could put this amendment in this bill. We'll send it upstairs. It's very doable. Accept one of our amendments. Don't get in this mindset where any one of the amendments we just propose is just rotten, and you got to vote it party lying down. Please just accept one of these amendments. I have letters from democrat and republican registrars just begging me to do something about early voting. And I'm sure, every one of you have heard it from your registrars and your elected officials. So thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the time here. And I would just make one last appeal to the other side of the aisle to just accept this. It's doable. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise for the purpose of a statement. And so if the good chair wants to take a break and get a glass of water, I've got a Steve Dargan story I wanted to tell. So if you want a couple minutes -- I've got a good one.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. So, my good friend from the 76th was part of this story. I was a freshman legislator, and I was all excitable at the time, as I still am. Didn't have the five-hour energy, but I was a lot younger. And there was a bill that came out of public safety, and it went to judiciary, and I had a few changes to it as a freshman. And my good friend Jerry Fox was the chair. And I asked him what to do when it came out of judiciary. I had these things I want to change on the bill. There's three things. I can't even remember the name of the bill it was, but he said, when you get a chance, go talk to the chair of public safety, Representative Dargan, and see if he'll agree to your changes. Well, sure enough, freshman, I forget. So it was funny. I don't know. So it was my first day of session or second day of session I've ever been a part of -- and all of a sudden, the bill comes up on the board. I'm like, oh my goodness. I recognize this bill. This came out of judiciary. I got three ideas. I want to fix it. And so I go to my good colleague from 76th, and I say, John, Representative Piscopo, this bill came through judiciary. I want to get it fixed. And he'll do three things. He said, well, listen. What we do is they don't really take our amendments, our ideas. So we're going to make them three amendments, take an hour and a half, maybe two hours, and we'll make them look bad on our votes. You're not going to go anywhere, but you can run on reelection to how you want to fix the bill. And So I said, okay. Well, what if I go ask him? And John's like, well, you can ask him, but you're probably wasting your time because what we'll do is do the amendments, go talk to staff. And I said, what if I just go ask him, Representative Dargan? Well, he's a good guy, but you're not going to get anywhere. Well, I go running up to Representative Dargan, and I say, hey, I got these ideas, I'm talking fast. And Representative Dargan goes -- there's the questioning going on or whatever, he's got the mic down behind. And he goes, who are you? And I go, Tom O'Day. I represent New Canaan. I replaced John Hetherington. He goes, oh, John Hetherington. Great guy. Great guy. Great guy. What do you want? And I said, I got these three ideas in this bill. It came through judiciary. I forgot to talk to you about fixing them. I want to fix them. And then he goes, what are your three ideas? So I go, He goes, slow down. Slow down, son. Slow down, son. What's the first one? And I tell him, he goes, yeah. I like that. That can be on consent. I had no idea what that meant. Representative Dargan then said, which second one? I tell him, he goes, you know what? I like that one too. That can be on consent. Again, I'm like, I have no idea what that means. It sounds good. So he says, what's your third one? I tell it to him. He goes, I don't like that one. If you just do the first two, they could be on consent. We're good to go. Right? I go, okay. I go running back. So John goes, how'd it go? You want us to do the amendments? I go, what does on consent mean? Well, I learned at that point in time that you always try and reach across the aisle. Steve Dargan's an amazing man. Good man. And obviously, this week, being on this side of the aisle, it's been a little tough. We've had a lot of bills that we haven't had anything put on, and none of our amendments have gone anywhere. So I went up and talked to the good chair of GAE, about trying to -- any of our 20-some odd amendments any good? And he's sorry. Sorry. Nope. We're not going to agree to any of these amendments on this bill. Because it's not only us, it's also the Senate. So, I tell that story for two reasons. One, out of respect for Representative Dargan. Sad day. Two, to implore all my friends on the other side of the aisle. This amendment is a really good one. And I see the good chair coming back here, had a glass of water. This amendment, I believe, is consistent with what the Secretary of State actually wanted. And so my question to the good chair isn't it true, sir, that the Secretary of State, when the bill was initially passed for early voting, wanted a shorter period of time than ultimately what we passed? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. Would you mind asking the good Representative to repeat the question?

Will do. I'll tell you the story later. I will repeat that. Just the question is, through you, Mr. Speaker. My recollection is the good Secretary of State had actually -- which is consistent with this amendment, requested a shorter period of time for early voting. And so I guess my question to the good chair isn't it true that this amendment is consistent with what the Secretary of State had originally recommended for the times set for early voting? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. The secretary originally proposed 10 days of early voting. I don't believe that's what this amendment has, but it was less than what we currently have, which is 14. Through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And thanks to the good chair. I wasn't trying to trick you. I had thought that this was consistent with what she had requested, but as many of you know, my memory isn't as good as it used to be. But as I understand the comments, I know you've been up for a long time tonight, answering questions on this, but the purpose of the current bill that's before us, as amended, is to make it easier for people to vote, and I get that. But it's been pointed out from this side of the aisle many times. Every single election, there is fraudulent voting. Whether intentional or unintentional, whether it's one or a million, it happens at every election. And each time somebody votes improperly or twice, Chicago's got a problem with that, a reputation with that. Not here in Connecticut, but we do have problems. But each time that happens, it disenfranchises those of us who want our vote to matter. And I think we all agree, we don't want fraudulent voting. And so before we had no-excuse absentee voting, before that becomes into play, the compromise was, let's have early voting so you can either vote early or vote by AB, absentee. Well, with no excuse absentee, do we still need early voting? Some would argue you don't. You could just do the no- excuse absentee ballot, which is what we're getting to. So, why would you need early voting? Now that we have both, frankly, the mailing early voting, as you've heard from this side of the aisle, is where we have the most concerns about the fraud. So I guess, to the good chair, would you agree that the mail-in voting is the part that causes the most concern for fraud as opposed to in-person voting and early voting? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure it's proper for me to offer an opinion. I would say that with both kinds of voting, there is fraud or misconduct from time to time, but it is very rare. Through you.

Fair enough. And I apologize. You're not supposed to ask for opinions in that -- I know better than that. So I guess I'll finish up on this amendment to say, why say no when it feels so good to say yes? I just did amendment or two. So let's see some green up there on our board. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had these remarks directed to the underlying bill, but I think it's pretty relevant given this amendment and the discussion of the number of days. The good proponent of the bill did indeed ask. I remember sitting here three years ago when the push was for 14 days, well beyond the Secretary of State's request for 10 days. Earlier today, I sent an email out with the link to the bill, sent it to my -- I got five towns, all my registrars of voters, that's 10, Democrat and Republican. I heard feedback sitting here via text from one of the Democrat registrars of voters, and they've been struggling. I think everybody in this room, I think we'd be fibbing a bit if we didn't admit to the fact that we've heard from our registrars of voters and the pressure that early voting put on them with 14 days and having to secure the ballots and the hours that they worked, the added expense for meals, overtime, and the pressure that we put them under. A lot of these people are volunteers or slightly paid more -- just a bit more than a volunteer. And these are in my districts, a lot of these people are retired, and they are worn out after this period of time. Whatever the motivation was to be the best and the furthest, forward thinking, we went from zero days to 14 and bypassed the 10 days at the Secretary of State, and we put pressure on our -- the volunteers, the people who are taking care of making sure these elections are secure. So the Democrat registrar of voters in one of my town, I'm not going to call her out because she didn't request that I share this publicly. But in reading the bill, her quote is security is going to be tricky. Registrar of Voters is in charge of counting that, but the clerk has to be responsible. The clerk owns the vault. So they've got to work together in unison where they haven't had to in the past at this volume. And now we've got one envelope, not two. The whole process changes, so it's going to require, on top of -- we've given them early voting, which they're just starting to absorb, and hoping that we make some changes. Now we're going to throw on yet another set Last year, they had new voting tabulators. That required training. I can tell you it didn't go smoothly. No knock on the Secretary of State, but those things were not rolled out in a timely manner. My registrars of voters were scrambling. So she's asking for fewer days. 14 days is too much. I'll quote her at that. I won't quote how many she's asking for, but it's less than what we're asking for, fewer. So I would just like to issue my support for this amendment, ask all of you in the room to admit that you know if you're plugged in and you're talking to your registrar's of voters, nobody's patting us on the back for 14 days. So I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I stand in support of the amendment. And like I said earlier, when I asked a good chair of GA questions, our registers were really stressed to the limit. They were not giving any more dollars in this legislation or even the last two years, and I don't think we're going to get any more by the end of the session for them. And I think this will help them instead of 14 days. Obviously, it's five days. Maybe I said earlier how important, and I believe the election process First Amendment in our election rights are vitally important. I arguably the most important rights we have. Why can't we, as a body, work together? Compromise. Obviously, it's not going to happen tonight, but compromise for seven days in the future. Do what's right by our registers, and -- like, the good Representative from the 125th said, it's tough to be in minority, but I believe we have good ideas. And not just our ideas. It's the registers, both Democrats and Republicans, and the great state of ours that support not 14 days, but five to seven days. So I think seven days -- this is five days amendment, but I would hope in the future we could compromise and work together as a party for the people we represent. So I support the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's been a bit, but good evening again. So we're back to talking about this amendment, and what we'd like to do is be able to give the towns, all our towns and our cities, a break. This bill will open up voting even more, create a system where people can vote by mail. They'll get ballots emailed to them, et cetera, et cetera. So voting is going to be that much more accessible and available. And with that, this amendment is basically going to help these towns to not have to man the polls for the mandatory right now of two weeks or fourteen days. So we'd like to, you know, ask for this amendment to be adopted, and I ask for a roll call vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, obviously, this is actually one of my amendments that I proposed. And, obviously, I stand in full support of this amendment. It really is a no-brainer. This is a perfect example of where you can work in a bipartisan fashion with the other side that we try to negotiate these things. Hopefully, at some point, I think our good Representative from the Fairfield County area talked about that, bipartisanship. It's sad that we don't have it in this building because we can do great things together. It just always seems to be one way, but this is a really good amendment. Towns are struggling. You know that there's many towns out there when on election day or even the early voting period, the total vote turnout could be under a thousand people. So just think about somebody, the staff, and the helpers that have to be there at these locations, small locations, for two weeks when only a thousand people come out total. It's unheard of that we would put this mandate on every single town in the state of Connecticut and not lowered. It's very easy. It'll save the town's money. The Secretary of State wanted it. And I actually believe that maybe some people on our committee want it. But when we proposed and talked to our chairmans on this, they really didn't have any appetite to do that for this year. Now maybe they talk about maybe next year, the hour after. Let's see how this works. We already know how it works. It's been tried and proven that is very costly to towns. Towns are having a hard time getting election workers. Cutting this down to a reasonable time frame, I believe, would be satisfactory to everybody. So easy amendment. I support it. Unfortunately, I don't think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will support it because it's a Republican amendment, and we can't do that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. I rise in support of this amendment offered by my colleague. I sit on the GAE committee and when we were working on the early voting bill a few years ago, we saw a lot of testimony from registrar voters. And they generally all had one common concern, which was that the cost of this -- of early voting would be -- it would be very hard to figure out exactly what each town should get. Because obviously, Bridgeport and Hartford is bigger than Plymouth and Thomaston. And it's very difficult to know what each town should get before we know basically, how many people are taking advantage of early voting, and what the flow of voters is in and out of the voting locations. But now that we have something to work with, we know that, quite frankly, not a lot of people, especially during primaries, are taking advantage of early voting. I know that in one of my towns, I think there is maybe one person that voted in person during the early voting window for the primary. During a window of about five or six hours, there's only one person that voted. But now, just imagine all the costs that are associated with operating for the day. You're paying the staff, the electric, the air conditioning because it's the summer. All these little costs that we don't think about, but that add up. And second to only education, unexpected early voting costs were the most talked about thing, talked about item, at least for my towns, as far as the folks that work at town hall and city hall, and what they needed from us at the state level. Better funding for education, and cutting back, or getting more money to operate, early voting. So another way to tackle that problem would be to alleviate some of the financial burdens associated with early voting. And you do that by either cutting early voting completely, which we can't do because we just passed a constitutional amendment and then a bill to have early voting, which is fine. But where did we come up with this number that we have right now? Because it's not what the Secretary of State originally wanted. What she wanted was less, less than what we have now. And this amendment, I think is a good compromise. We hear that word a lot, in this profession that both sides should compromise, so that we can come to a happy medium and get things done for the people of Connecticut. Well, this is a great compromise. I think we started off at a very high number, what we have right now. We're seeing that it's not really working well. There's days where it's completely dead. Nobody's taking advantage of early voting, but the costs are still accumulating. The lights are still on. The people are still getting paid. And then we have the other side where, we need some form of early voting. So I'm not saying bring it down back to zero, but what we have right now is too much. So I think this is a great amendment to shave it down a few days from, what would it be? 14 to 10. And I think that would be that happy medium, that compromise and that, coming together of both sides that I think all of our constituents are looking for. So I urge my colleagues to please actually consider it and vote for this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just have a couple of comments on this. The amendment here that's before us, I think, is definitely more reflective of what we're seeing in our towns. I talked to a lot of people all over the place, and I go to a lot of places as ranking member of appropriations. Some of them, I often question, why are they inviting me here? I [have?] nowhere near here, but, that's kind of our job. Ranking members, we have to go do things. And I've never had a single town tell me that they want 14 days of early voting. As a matter of fact, all of the towns that I have talked to has said, this is too much. One of my towns, one of my smaller towns, when early voting is open, on the best election that we had, not the worst, the best election, it cost them $1,500 per vote, to run the polls being open. We had maybe four or five people register to vote early. I think this is kind of a good example of the bill the underlying bill that we're doing right now. The people of State of Connecticut voted for early voting. And I think that's a great idea. I was a supporter of early voting. I think it's great. And then left up to the legislature to decide how to implement that, we go to the highest extreme, like the most amount. And then when our towns come and say, hey, this is too much. We're struggling. We don't have the money for this. It costs too much. We don't have the turnout, etcetera, etcetera. We say, we know better. So this amendment here takes us down just by four days to 10 days, which I think would definitely be better for our towns. And this kind of falls along with this underlying bill. The underlying, the thing that people voted on was no excuse absentee voting. That is what was voted on, and it was supported over 60 something percent in the state. And, again, I'm fine with no excuse absentee voting. But what they didn't ask for is a permanent ongoing, have your ballot mailed to you for every election. Sign up once and forever and ever you get a ballot mailed to you. I think what we tend to do in this chamber is, we see something like this, we put it in front of the people, The people vote for something, and then we take it to the absolute extreme. And even when we know it's the extreme, like the 14 days, and we put something on the table to bring it down to a reasonable number, we get told no. So I stand in support of this amendment. I don't think reducing from 14 days to 10 days disenfranchises anybody, especially when we have no excuse absentee voting coming also. These things in conjunction with each other is unlimited voting from, when they start this out. Like, there's no barrier to voting at that point. So bringing down the number of days that we have for early voting just seems like the rational next step to do. So I definitely stand in strong support of this, and I'm very, very disappointed that after all that negotiations that, at the end of the day, we're still going to just say no because it's a Republican amendment, Sir. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few comments, and, it's hard not to reiterate what some of my colleagues have already said. But I just want to start off with, I often see the other side, the other party, our opposition, who claim that we work in a bipartisan fashion. And I think this is an example where we really could do that, and we really aren't doing it. And it's not because we don't want to. We want some kind of compromise. And I do think this would be a really good example of us all coming together, on this particular amendment to show that we can do that. They can do that. We can all do that. In my towns, the turnout for early voting was dismal. I live in rural Connecticut in the Northeast Corner in very small towns. And I went out myself to go to each one of the voting places, just to check out the turnout and talk to the individuals there. And it was dismal. Some of them were sitting there and they said at 5 o' clock in the evening, they had one person come in. One person. Many of the people that I saw working there had headphones on. They were listening to music, reading books. There was nothing else to do. They were sitting there waiting for that one person to come in and cast their vote. In addition to that, finding staffing is really, really hard. In a time where employees are really hard to find, the towns are struggling to keep the voting polls staffed. I really think this would be a good opportunity for us to come together and come up with something a little bit more reasonable that our towns could afford and that makes more sense. I strongly support this amendment and I hope that we can all come together to do the same. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I hope you can use your incredible powers as speaker to help move this amendment. We've got to reduce the number of early voting days. I know most of the legislators in this chamber have one, two, three towns. I represent eight towns. Eight towns. So when you hear a chorus of registrars, from both sides of the aisle screaming at you, that 14 days is ridiculous. I hear it in full orchestration and nine part harmony because I've got 16 registrars that are all telling me we've got too many early voting days. As my colleagues have mentioned, there are days when we've got five people being paid to sit around waiting for one person to come in the door. I have towns where the entire paid staff of the entire town, including the road crew, is six people. And you've got five people sitting around being paid for 14 days for one person to walk in the door. It's crazy. And I hear it at 100 decibels every time I talk to one of my 16 registrars. We got to do something to cut this down. It isn't reasonable. Up until a couple years ago, we didn't have any days, and we did just fine. Let's cut it down a little bit. Let's make it six days instead of 14. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. Alright. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I see you tonight. And I'm, basically in agreement with what all of my colleagues have said tonight. And I think this is an opportunity for us to come together and, and listen to our registrars of voters. As everyone has mentioned, this isn't just a Republican registrar, of voters issue. This isn't a Democrat registrar of voters issue. This is something they're both saying. And I know I don't have 16 registrar of voters, but, I do have eight. And, I hear from them. And what I thought was interesting, was the person that I heard the most from on this was actually, the Democrat registrar of voters in Old Saybrook. This lady doesn't support me. This lady doesn't put my sign out on her yard. She puts my opponent's sign out on her yard. And, she said to me, we got to cut this down. And, what I really wanted to say, but I didn't say it, is I really wanted to say, then ask your own party. But of course, I didn't say it because, you know. And I think that's what's so frustrating about this, is we hear it from them. We're advocating for them. Doesn't matter what side of the aisle. And, this is so common sense and what happens, what I worry happens, and I've seen this over, the last 12 years I've been here, is things have gotten so political that the opportunity to turn around and say that we are trying to reduce the amount of people that are voting. The term voter suppression, is used so frequently, to bash us when we're hearing it from Democrats, to do this. And I don't know why we wouldn't just do this. It's okay to say that, maybe what we did and I voted for it. Maybe what we did was too much, and now let's scale it back. Let's scale it back to what the secretary of state wanted. We don't need to go beyond that, and maybe let's have some listening sessions with our registrars. But, unfortunately, it doesn't seem like that's going to happen, but I will be sure to tell the old Saybrook Democrat registrar when I see her, we tried, but her own party killed it. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it. This is an issue that, to me is pretty darn easy. But let me reflect on it in a way that I think everybody here might understand. Representative Dubitsky just talked about, being bombarded by 16 registrars over this issue. Alright. So did my friends on the other side of the aisle. All of you have had this experience because, in Newtown, we also had days where we could not staff 14 days, in a way that was adequate, because we wound up with too many people on days where folks didn't show up, and not enough people on days when they did. So we have the secretary of the state telling us it needs to shorten up. We have every registrar in the State of Connecticut telling us it needs to shorten up. And I wonder why can't we shorten it up? And then the words that I've heard in this chamber once or twice come back right into my face. We don't pass Republican amendments. So, ladies and gentlemen, if you would just please give me a second of attention. I'd like to propose that we not consider this a Republican amendment, because the person who's providing the most pressure to me in my life, is my democrat registrar back in Newtown, and she scares me. On Easter, when we did our Easter lunch with the bunny, I was a server and then I was a bunny escort. I won't name names, but my registrar was the person flipping pancakes in the kitchen. When I went back into the kitchen, I thought I was going to get my face pressed into the grill. She says, five days. You got it? Five days. I live a charmed life, ladies and gentlemen. I really--, except for when I'm getting pressed into a grill. But, I'm a very lucky person. When I come to work here, as the ranking member of the Aging Committee, I work in a nonpartisan way with two fantastic Democrat chairs and with a committee where the Republicans are outnumbered about 75 to two. So, we can't accomplish anything there if we don't work together. And the funny thing about it is, the chairs and I and the ranking member, we find a way to think together, and we put aside the fact that we don't pass Republican amendments when it makes sense for the people that we're charged with legislating for, which are the growing population of seniors in the State of Connecticut. Well, you know what? Today, on this bill, we are charged with understanding the best way to do our early voting. Now the 14-day thing has already not worked. So why don't we admit that? And then why don't you please, please consider that my Democrat registrar is going to hurt me, if you don't vote for this damn amendment. So for God's sake, we're providing [background noise] no excuse absentee. We're providing something that I hate, which is this automatic, we're going to get you an absentee ballot for the rest of your freaking life if you sign right here, which defies all logic. But we'll talk about that in a few minutes. But please, for god's sake, save me from my Democrat registrar and vote for this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't have any Easter bunnies or barbecue grills, and I'm certainly not going to beg, but I do have a few thoughts. I sit on this committee, and I have for a number of years. And to the secretary of the state's credit, she comes, she sits before us, and she honestly answers questions. I don't recall her ever disagreeing with the multiple requests to reduce the number of days. I talk to my registrars of voters. I talk to my town clerks. And just like my colleagues have said, it's not just the cost. It's the staffing. Not all of us live in wealthy or large communities. In order to find folks who are willing to sit there is difficulty. And if we have the wrong individuals sitting there who are not dedicated or well trained, we're going to jeopardize the very foundation, our voting. Listening to hours of testimony here and sitting through some pretty lengthy hearings in that committee, I can only think of two reasons why this amendment wouldn't pass. It is either the arrogance of the majority, or it is the fact that this committee, the GAE Committee, is broken. There are some committees, Sir, where we work together in a very bipartisan manner. I will let the leadership of this chamber decide which of the two reasons this amendment won't pass. Thank you, Sir.

Good evening, Mr. Speaker. How are you this evening?

I'm doing alright. And I say that with intention, not as a passing comment. And all I can ask is that my colleagues lend me their ear for just a moment or so. I don't drone on up here. I don't go on and on. I'm not one of those people that's good at getting up here to kill time, by any means. I respect each and every one of your time and your dedication to our job. And I want to say one of the great things I've heard, aside from tonight, by the way, my good friend from Newtown did a fantastic job. I've never been so impressed with his speech. I want to call upon the many times we've heard our own speaker in this chamber tell us that we're different. We're not like Washington. We're Connecticut. We work together. We get along. We listen to each other. We've all heard it said, and I like to believe it. Mr. Speaker, I like to believe those words. Unfortunately, there are times, there are times in this chamber, there are times in committee, where maybe the concept of winning comes before the concept of being right. And I think the people of Connecticut deserve better than that. I think we deserve each other more to that. And we let the politics get in the way. We let these titles, and these names after our names, get in the way of us doing the right thing for each other and for our communities, sometimes. And I think this is one of those times. And sadly, this is one of those times I wish I could talk to every single person in this chamber. And as I look around, there are some who are busy working, there are a lot of empty chairs, and there's people who are carrying on their own conversations. This saddens me, Mr. Speaker. It saddens me that we can't have the conversations that built this building. Mr. Speaker, I recently found, that I have a relative who served here, my seventh cousin, back in the era of the civil war. And his comment, I found his quote when he was speaker of the house, I found a quote that he said that was very simple. And I think if we mildly translate it to what we're talking about today, we can see it. He said, "he wants to see patriotism over partisan thought". If we could see that in ourselves, if we could see that being right is more important than any of the rest. The winning part isn't as important as being right is important. And while I see a few people looking forward, looking to me talking, I see a lot more people not, and it's defeatist. It's defeatist in what we do. We're supposed to take pride in working together and working alongside one another. And I actually Mr. Speaker, one of the quotes that came to mind for me was Samuel Goldwyn on this whole thing. Great movie mogul. And his quote was, "I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong". And it kind of feels the same way. It feels like that's what we get. That we're being told, I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong. That's what it feels like. So no one wants to come back in here next year, or next week and say things like, gee, I told you so or maybe we should have done this. Maybe we take that step and actually consider doing what's right as opposed to winning the fight. And Mr. Speaker, I wish more people could hear the words I just used and said, but sadly they're falling on deaf ears sometimes. I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good evening. Mr. Speaker, I've listened to the debate this evening. I want to thank the proponent for bringing out this very important amendment. I had the distinct honor today of meeting, the town clerk from the Town of Watertown as well as the town clerk from the City of Waterbury, and both of which expressed some concerns about the lack of participation in the early voting. So just to recap what folks said before, I went to vote early. I believe in the process. I voted early last year in our municipal elections, and I was astounded what I found when I, walked into town hall on that, I believe it was the Sunday prior to election day. Only six people had voted as of 3 o'clock in the afternoon. Both registrars were present. The town clerk was present. Multiple poll workers were present. And the hallway at our town hall, you could hear a pin drop. That's how quiet it was. Now look, the last thing we want to do is disenfranchise people from voting. We all believe that people should have the right to vote. But with this constitutional amendment, and with the law changing to allow for no excuse absentee ballot, the logical thing to do would be to lower the number of days for early voting. Just think about it. You can now vote absentee without an excuse. So 14 days prior to the election to vote in person doesn't make much sense. It puts a strain on our municipalities. We're here every day telling people we should lessen the unfunded mandates in Hartford, whether it be education, whether it be on the town side of the budgets. Property taxes keep going up. They're the most regressive tax. We've talked about it ad nauseam in this building, yet we have a chance to lessen the unfunded mandate on municipalities, and for whatever reason, people feel that they don't want to do that. That is concerning. I don't care which party you're in. If you go and call your town clerk right now, whether you're in a city, I represent part of a city, or you're in a town, I also represent a town, your town clerk is most likely going to tell you, that 14 days is too much. Now we may have some changes from the feds on our voting. So what we're doing today, I don't know, may not even mean much in the future. But right now, we should be taking into consideration our town budgets, property taxes, local unfunded mandates that are driving up our property taxes. We're not doing that. This amendment seeks to address that at least a little bit, bringing it down from 14 to--, is it seven, Tammy? Yes. It's seven. So it's getting late. And, I know that, some people are saying we ordered breakfast here. I don't want to have breakfast here. I want to leave here and go back to my town and my city and tell them that we actually did something to help them. And it's pretty easy. We could just lower the number of days for early voting. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that my friends on both sides of the aisle will vote yes on this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've heard a lot of debate tonight on this particular issue. We've heard some jokes. We've heard some moving testimony. We've heard from a lot of smaller districts who've had some real, or smaller towns rather who've had some significant concerns and issues. Thank you. With this early voting issue. But I represent as my counterpart from Watertown, an urban district. And we have the opposite problem of these small towns where we have actually in the City of Torrington, we saw a mass of individuals come out for early voting, which it's great to see people involved in the electoral process. That's what all of us here want to see. But we were, for lack of a better term, flooded, and really unprepared for that flood, in terms of the support from the state because really this is a state mandate as has been said. We're talking about in the City of Torrington many, many, many ballots over many, many, many hours which requires many, many staff. And if you look how the state tried to support the towns, you'd scratch your head because you would think that the state would provide adequate funding to help for the increase in cost, that the expansion of early voting imparted onto these towns. But what did you actually see? A pittance for the most part, for districts like mine where to start out every town got about $10,000. I mean, that makes absolutely no sense for a district like mine. We exceeded that cost probably within a couple days of our early voting period. And my counterparts in urban districts on the other side would agree with me if they talk to their registrars, would say, listen, our property tax rates are high enough, our mill rates are high enough, this is an exorbitant cost and we are getting nothing from the state. In this year, I believe we only have for fiscal year '27 about $1,300,000 designated from the state to assist our municipalities. It's about if you give everyone the same amount, it's about like seven grand, for each municipality. It's simply not enough and yet again we are going off the backs of our property taxpayers in the State of Connecticut and saying we need more. We need more from you. Your mill rate isn't high enough. In the State of Connecticut when they had a chance to do something about it, when they had an opportunity to help you out, they left you high and dry. To me, that is not a winning message. That is not something that makes us more competitive as a state. That is not something that helps our municipalities. That just contributes to the affordability crisis that we're facing in this state. And I would really encourage my fellow colleagues to support this amendment because it's great policy. It's not just a Republican amendment. It's really just a good amendment. It's good policy. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess I could stand here all night waiting for it to switch and take up some more time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment. I do hear from my towns that, this is a problem. I think there is a way to deal with this by, perhaps population, perhaps by voting site, but, certainly, we need some relief. It's a good amendment. Mr. Speaker, I also, heard about breakfast a little while ago, and my favorite breakfast spot in Wallingford is Dad's. I usually get a omelet, spinach, mushroom, Swiss omelet, home fries. They open up at 07:30 in the morning. So, if we're still here, I'll pay. So we got it going. So, good amendment ought to pass, and I hope my colleagues support as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment with a few comments. It is shocking, shocking to me that we cannot come to an agreement on this amendment. The most practical, logical amendment I think we can offer here, at least somewhere in between, I, like many of my colleagues, have gone around and talked to registrars and other, people that are involved. And I don't know anybody who wants 14 days of early voting, other than the 102 people on the other side of the aisle in this room, theoretically in the room. We have put such a burden onto our local municipalities, telling them you have to provide for these numbers of days for early voting. And this puts stresses on poll workers trying to find people to volunteer to do these jobs, and our registrars. In Naugatuck, our registrars are part time. They work at election time, basically. And now we've told them, you have to now dedicate two weeks of your life outside of your normal job, your regular day job to run these elections. And, by the way, find people to staff them for two weeks during all these hours. And we're putting tremendous stress on our local towns and municipalities with this policy. And, when we debated this in committee, a lot of the argument was, if we have to do early voting, and we're going to open up all these days, because it's going to increase turnout. We've seen turnout, turnout has not increased. Maybe it's spread out while it's at the same time adding stress on our towns. Mr. Speaker, we often talk about affordability here. Affordability, this session in particular has been harped on also by the other side of the aisle. And we have an opportunity right now to pass an amendment, to create policy that will directly affect affordability for all of our towns, a direct impact on our local property taxes, because we set this policy, and we said you figure out how to pay for it. We have not funded them, now that we've pushed that burden onto our towns. And so we have an opportunity here right now to come to an agreement, to directly affect our local tax burden for our constituents. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope before this night's over, we can find some sort of agreement around this amendment, work together in a bipartisan manner, and hopefully this passes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise just for a couple of comments, if I may. So what I'm hearing from all my colleagues, which certainly want to align my comments with them, is that people don't want this. And it's clear. Our registrars don't want it. The people who are running our budgets and our towns don't want it. Quite frankly, based on the turnout you see with early voting, people don't want it. They don't need that long. I'll tell you what they do want. They want lower electric bills. They want lower taxes. They want people staying out of their zoning. We're literally up here giving them things that they don't want, and depriving them of the things that they do want. We're doing the exact opposite of everything that the people are clamoring for. Let's just have some common sense here tonight. Give the people what they want. More efficient government, less intrusive government, better organized voting, period. This is a great amendment. Let's pass it. Thank you.

It's all good. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise with some support for this amendment. So I represent four towns in the northern border between Connecticut and Massachusetts. Four large towns, land wise, represent probably about 30% of the border between Connecticut and Mass. To the second largest town in the state, Woodstock, still very sparsely populated, the third largest town in the state, Stafford, area wise, and the great distinction of representing the beautiful town of Union, Connecticut, population 805. Okay. So for two weeks, they had to be open early. They had eight voters come in two weeks. So the simple math is 0.57 voters per day, at a cost of about $3,000, which is some over $350 per early voter for the town of Union. They have a very small budget. This is a big, big issue for them. And I've heard from all four towns, but this is a common sense solution. I think it should be even more, but this is a compromise. And I have a hard time believing that people who aren't going to support this amendment have registrars in their towns and cities that wouldn't support this amendment. And again, and this affects your tax base and everything. This is a common sense solution, and I urge everyone to vote for this amendment and do the right thing. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Just briefly a few questions, to the good proponent of the amendment and maybe I think the good chair may be bored, so I got some questions maybe for him, if he was willing to take them. But the good proponent of the amendment my understanding, after the concept of having early voting was passed, towns were initially offered $10,000, 10,500 roughly, the small towns anyway, to cover the expenses. And does the good proponent know how much either her town or some town got, from the state and how much it actually cost the early voting, 14 days? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, I believe we got somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 or $8,000. And if I recall the first time we did it, it cost our town in East Haddam about $25,000 for early voting. Through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and, thanks to the good proponent. Does the proponent know how much this early voting cost all the municipalities combined for the early voting? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

For the entire state? Through you.

Representative Haines.

Representative O'Dea.

Thank you. I was trying to find that number and doing some research and this is where I was wondering if the good chair of GAE would be willing to answer the question if he knows. I saw some writings in the Connecticut Mirror, which I appreciate their excellent work. I said on the radio recently that I'm a fan of Keith Phaneuf. But I saw that the secretary had asked, secretary Thomas had asked for, $5,000,000 to cover the cost to municipalities. And I'm wondering if that was the cost to the municipalities throughout the state for early voting, if the good chair of GE or the good proponent of the amendment knows? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Haines.

Representative O'Dea.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative O'Dea.

Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Representative Haines.

Thank you, representative. Representative Blumenthal.

Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Representative Callahan.

Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on amendment before us? Will you remark further on amendment before us? If not, will the staff and guests please come to the well of the house? Will the members please take their seats? The machine will be open.

Have all the members voted? I got you, Representative Comey. Don't run. No sprained ankles. Okay. Have all the members voted? Please check the board. Diligent review to make sure your vote has been properly cast. We're all set. Machine will be locked. I'd ask that the Clerk please take and announce the tally on House Amendment "D" as in dog.

Chair, will stand at ease for a moment. Chamber will come back to order, and the chair's going to recognize the majority leader, Representative Rojas. CLERK 2: Just announced that the amendment failed.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I move we pass this bill temporarily.

Favorable reports, senate bills.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move the ["A", "B"?] tabled for the calendar.

Members missed votes as noted, and, have a safe trip home. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The clerk is in possession of a list of names of members who are unable to make votes are absent, and the reasons for not voting. Thank you very much.

Hi again, Mr. Speaker. Appears we've completed our work for the day. And with that, I move we adjourn subject to the call chair.