From Ballot Boxes to the Wild West: Connecticut’s Evolution of Voting

Connecticut has spent the last six years fundamentally changing the way we vote. What began as a temporary response to a public-health emergency has evolved into a dramatically different election system, with permanent absentee-ballot drop boxes, early in-person voting and, beginning in 2026, no-excuse absentee voting for every eligible voter.

The question isn't whether every eligible citizen should have a reasonable opportunity to vote. Of course they should. The question is whether, in making voting easier and more convenient, Connecticut has also made it harder to verify that every ballot was legitimately cast, properly handled and accurately counted.

Subscribe

Convenience matters. So does confidence.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Connecticut introduced absentee-ballot drop boxes as an alternative to returning ballots by mail. In 2021, the legislature made them permanent. Connecticut has established rules governing their use, including security requirements and restrictions on who may return another person's ballot.

But drop boxes fundamentally change the process: a voter can complete a ballot away from election officials and deposit it without appearing before them.

Bridgeport demonstrated why that distinction deserves attention. Following the 2023 Democratic mayoral primary, litigation led to a court-ordered new primary, and subsequent state investigations resulted in criminal charges against several people involving absentee-ballot handling. Those charges remain allegations, not convictions, but the episode illustrates why election procedures must be designed not only for honest voters, but also to withstand attempts at manipulation.¹

Then Connecticut added early in-person voting. Established by the legislature in 2023, early voting began in March 2024.² This provides convenience while preserving an important safeguard: the voter appears at an official location, interacts with election officials and casts a ballot within the election system's controlled environment.

That raises a reasonable question: Why expand remote voting further when Connecticut already provides multiple days of in-person voting?

In November 2024, Connecticut voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing the legislature to expand absentee voting. In 2026, Public Act 26-42 eliminated the previous requirement that voters have a qualifying reason to vote absentee. Now every eligible voter can request an absentee ballot.³

There are legitimate reasons for absentee voting. People may face illness, caregiving responsibilities, travel or other circumstances that make appearing at a voting location difficult. Those voters should have reasonable options.

But Connecticut now allows voters to cast ballots by mail, through drop boxes or through early in-person voting. The question is whether adding more remote options improves access enough to justify the additional challenges of verifying the circumstances surrounding a ballot.

Connecticut has safeguards. Town clerks process applications, track returned ballots and follow procedures designed to prevent double voting and improper handling. But verifying that a ballot is associated with an eligible voter is not necessarily the same as verifying the circumstances under which a remote ballot was completed.

Public Act 26-42 also created a 250-foot restriction around election sites, including polling places, early-voting locations and absentee-ballot drop boxes. The law was publicly discussed in the context of concerns about federal immigration enforcement near polling places. Yet the statute's language extends to certain federal, state and local officers authorized to use force, search, detain or arrest.⁴

That raises another reasonable question: In addressing concerns about federal enforcement, did Connecticut write a law broad enough to affect the traditional role of state and local law enforcement in protecting election sites and responding to emergencies?

These are not questions about suppressing the vote. They are questions about maintaining public confidence.

In just six years, Connecticut has moved far from the traditional model of going to a neighborhood polling place, being checked against the voter list and casting a ballot under the supervision of election officials.

Voting should be accessible. But verification should be strong. The chain of custody should be protected. Election workers and voters should be protected. And every legitimate vote—and only legitimate votes—should be counted.

A healthy democracy should be able to welcome those questions.

Voting should be convenient.

But confidence in our elections is priceless.