SB 820 — AN ACT CONCERNING A STATE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

If any such party and such municipality fail to agree to a reimbursement amount, either such party orSB820 such/ municipalityFile may file an action for a declaratory judgment with LCO {\\PRDFS1\SCOUSERS\FORZANOF\WS\2021SB-0010 of 23 R02-SB.docx } Substitute Bill No.

820590 the10 superiorSB820 courtFile forNo. the judicial district in which such municipality is located for a clarification of rights.

590 or such municipality may file an action for a declaratory judgment with the superior court for the judicial district in which such municipality is located for a clarification of rights.

Such director shall be a member of the faculty of The University of Connecticut with LCOSB820 {\\PRDFS1\SCOUSERS\FORZANOF\WS\2021SB-0011/ ofFile 23 R02-SB.docx } Substitute Bill No.

820590 doctoral11 levelSB820 expertiseFile inNo. demography, statistical analysis and electoral systems and shall be appointed by the Governor.

590 doctoral level expertise in demography, statistical analysis and electoral systems and shall be appointed by the Governor.

(d) All data, estimates or other information maintained in the state- wide database shall be published on the Internet web site of The LCOUniversity {\\PRDFS1\SCOUSERS\FORZANOF\WS\2021SB-00812of Connecticut and made available to members of 23the R02-SB.docxpublic }SB820 Substitute/ BillFile No.

820590 University12 ofSB820 ConnecticutFile andNo. made available to members of the public at no cost, provided no such data, estimate or other information may identify any individual elector.

590 at no cost, provided no such data, estimate or other information may identify any individual elector.

(NEW) (Effective January 1, 2022) (a) A municipality shall provide language-related assistance in voting and elections to a languageminoritygroupinsuchmunicipalityifthedirectorofthestate-languageminoritygroupinsuchmunicipalityifthe LCOdirectorofthestate- {\\PRDFS1\SCOUSERS\FORZANOF\WS\2021SB-0013wide ofdatabase 23determines, R02-SB.docxbased }on Substituteinformation Billfrom the American SB820 / File No.

820590 wide13 databaseSB820 determines,File basedNo. on information from the American Community Survey, that:

590 Community Survey, that:

(c) In the case of any municipality described in this section, which seeks to provide only English materials despite a determination by the director of the state-wide database under this section that such municipality is required to provide language assistance to a particular LCOprotected {\\PRDFS1\SCOUSERS\FORZANOF\WS\2021SB-0014class, ofsuch 23municipality R02-SB.docxmay }file Substitutean Billaction for a declaratory judgment in the superior court for the judicial district in which such SB820 / File No.

820590 protected14 class,SB820 suchFile municipalityNo. may file an action for a declaratory judgment in the superior court for the judicial district in which such municipalityislocated forpermissiontoprovideonlyEnglishmaterials.

590 municipalityislocated forpermissiontoprovideonlyEnglishmaterials.

or LCO(10) {\\PRDFS1\SCOUSERS\FORZANOF\WS\2021SB-00815Any additional subject matter the Attorney General may identify for inclusion in this subsection, pursuant to a regulation adopted by the Attorney General in accordance with the provisions of 23chapter R02-SB.docx54 }of Substitutethe BillSB820 / File No.

820590 (10)15 AnySB820 additionalFile subjectNo. matter the Attorney General may identify for inclusion in this subsection, pursuant to a regulation adopted by the Attorney General in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54 of the general statutes, if the Attorney General determines that any qualification for admission as an elector, prerequisite to voting, statute, ordinance, regulation, standard, practice, procedure or policy concerning such subject matter may have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote of any protected class elector.

590 general statutes, if the Attorney General determines that any qualification for admission as an elector, prerequisite to voting, statute, ordinance, regulation, standard, practice, procedure or policy concerning such subject matter may have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote of any protected class elector.

or (4) Any municipality in which during the prior ten years, based on data from the United States Census Bureau, the dissimilarity index of any protected class consisting of at least two thousand five hundred LCOcitizens {\\PRDFS1\SCOUSERS\FORZANOF\WS\2021SB-0016of voting age, or whose members comprise at least ten per cent of 23the R02-SB.docxcitizen }voting Substituteage Billpopulation No.of such municipality, exceeds fifty per cent with respect to white, non-Hispanic, citizens of voting age within such municipality.

820SB820 citizens/ ofFile votingNo. age, or whose members comprise at least ten per cent of the citizen voting age population of such municipality, exceeds fifty per cent with respect to white, non-Hispanic, citizens of voting age within such municipality.

(d)590 (1)16 ASB820 coveredFile jurisdictionNo. may submit, in writing, to the Attorney General any covered policy it seeks to adopt or implement and may obtain therefrom preclearance to so adopt and implement such covered policy in accordance with the provisions of this subsection.

590 (d) (1) A covered jurisdiction may submit, in writing, to the Attorney General any covered policy it seeks to adopt or implement and may obtain therefrom preclearance to so adopt and implement such covered policy in accordance with the provisions of this subsection.

(3) Prior to granting or denying such preclearance, the Attorney General shall publish notice of the proceedings for making such determinationandshalldeterminationandshallprovideanopportunity provideanopportunity for any interestedparty to submit written comments concerning the covered policy and such determination.

(4) The Attorney General may grant preclearance to a covered policy only if it is determined that such covered policy will not diminish the LCOability {\\PRDFS1\SCOUSERS\FORZANOF\WS\2021SB-0017 of 23protected R02-SB.docxclass }electors Substituteto Billparticipate No.in the electoral process or elect their preferred candidates, and upon such grant the covered jurisdiction may enact and implement such covered policy.

820(5) ability(A) ofIf protected class electors to participate in the electoralAttorney processGeneral ordenies electpreclearance theirto preferreda candidates, and upon such grant the covered jurisdictionSB820 may/ enactFile andNo. implement such covered policy.

(5)590 (A)17 IfSB820 theFile AttorneyNo. General denies preclearance to a covered policy, (i) such covered policy shall not be enacted or implemented, and (ii) the Attorney General shall set forth the objections to such covered policy and explain the basis for such denial.

590 policy, (i) such covered policy shall not be enacted or implemented, and (ii) the Attorney General shall set forth the objections to such covered policy and explain the basis for such denial.

(3) Such court may grant preclearance to a covered policy only if it is determined that such covered policy will not diminish the ability of LCOprotected {\\PRDFS1\SCOUSERS\FORZANOF\WS\2021SB-0018class ofelectors 23to R02-SB.docxparticipate }in Substitutethe Billelectoral No.process or elect their preferred candidates, and upon such grant the covered jurisdiction may enact and implement such covered policy.

820(4) protected(A) classIf electorssuch tocourt participatedenies inpreclearance theto electorala process or elect their preferred candidates, and upon such grant the covered jurisdictionpolicy, mayor enactdoes andSB820 implement/ suchFile coveredNo. policy.

(4)590 (A)18 IfSB820 suchFile courtNo. denies preclearance to a covered policy, or does not grant or deny such preclearance within sixty days, such covered policy shall not be enacted or implemented.

590 not grant or deny such preclearance within sixty days, such covered policy shall not be enacted or implemented.

LCO(C) {\\PRDFS1\SCOUSERS\FORZANOF\WS\2021SB-0019Not oflater 23than R02-SB.docxninety }days Substituteafter Billsuch No.submission, the Attorney General shall decide whether such covered jurisdiction may further implement such covered policy.

820Prior (C)to Notmaking later than ninety days after such submission,decision, the Attorney General shall decidepublish whethernotice suchof coveredthe jurisdictionproceedings mayfor furthermaking implementSB820 such/ coveredFile policy.No.

Prior590 to19 makingSB820 suchFile decision,No. the Attorney General shall publish notice of the proceedings for making such decision and shall provide an opportunity for any interested party to submit written comments concerning the covered policy and such decision.

590 such decision and shall provide an opportunity for any interested party to submit written comments concerning the covered policy and such decision.

(1) Any person who uses or threatens to use any force, violence, restraint, abduction or duress, who inflicts or threatens to inflict any injury, damage, harm or loss, or who in any other manner practices LCOintimidation {\\PRDFS1\SCOUSERS\FORZANOF\WS\2021SB-008220that causes or will reasonably have the effect of 23causing R02-SB.docxany }elector Substituteto Bill(A) No.vote or refrain from voting in general, (B) vote for or against any particular candidate or question, (C) apply or not apply for admission as an elector, or (D) apply or not apply for an absentee ballot;

820SB820 intimidation/ thatFile causesNo. or will reasonably have the effect of causing any elector to (A) vote or refrain from voting in general, (B) vote for or against any particular candidate or question, (C) apply or not apply for admission as an elector, or (D) apply or not apply for an absentee ballot;

(2)590 Any20 personSB820 whoFile usesNo. any deceptive or fraudulent device, contrivance or communication that impedes, prevents or otherwise interferes with the electoral privileges of any elector or that causes or will reasonably have the effect of causing any elector to (A) vote or refrain from voting in general, (B) vote for or against any particular candidate or question, (C) apply or not apply for admission as an elector, or (D) apply or not apply for an absentee ballot;

590 (2) Any person who uses any deceptive or fraudulent device, contrivance or communication that impedes, prevents or otherwise interferes with the electoral privileges of any elector or that causes or will reasonably have the effect of causing any elector to (A) vote or refrain from voting in general, (B) vote for or against any particular candidate or question, (C) apply or not apply for admission as an elector, or (D) apply or not apply for an absentee ballot;

(d)(1)Notwithstandinganyprovisionoftitle9ofthegeneralstatutes,(d)(1)Notwithstandinganyprovisionoftitle9ofthegeneral statutes, whenever such court finds a violation of any provision of this section, such court shall order appropriate remedies that are tailored to address such violation, including, but not limited to, providing for additional time to vote at an election, primary or referendum.

(2) Any person who violates the provisions of this section, or who aids in the violation of any of such provisions, shall be liable for any LCOdamages {\\PRDFS1\SCOUSERS\FORZANOF\WS\2021SB-0021awarded ofby 23such R02-SB.docxcourt, }including, Substitutebut Billnot No.limited to, nominal damages for any such violation and compensatory or punitive damages for any such wilful violation.

820 damages awarded by such court, including, but not limited to, nominal damages for any such violation and compensatory or punitive damages for any such wilful violation.

(NEW) (Effective January 1, 2022) In any action or investigation to enforce the provisions of sections 1 to 6, inclusive, of this act, the AttorneySB820 General/ mayFile examineNo. witnesses, receive oral and documentary evidence, determine material facts and issue subpoenas in accordance with the ordinary rules of civil procedure.

590 21 SB820 File No.

590 Attorney General may examine witnesses, receive oral and documentary evidence, determine material facts and issue subpoenas in accordance with the ordinary rules of civil procedure.

in Section 2(c)(1)(C), a comma was LCOinserted {\\PRDFS1\SCOUSERS\FORZANOF\WS\2021SB-00820-22after of"policy" 23for R02-SB.docxclarity; } Substitute Bill No.

820 inserted after "policy" for clarity;

in Section 3(c)(4), "election" wasSB820 deleted/ forFile consistency;No.

590 22 SB820 File No.

590 was deleted for consistency;

-LCO LCOSB820 {\\PRDFS1\SCOUSERS\FORZANOF\WS\2021SB-00820-/ 23File ofNo. 23 R02-SB.docx }

590 23 SB820 File No.

590 The following Fiscal Impact Statement and Bill Analysis are prepared for the benefit of the members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and explanation and do not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber thereof for any purpose.

In general, fiscal impacts are based upon a variety of informational sources, including the analyst’s professional knowledge.

Whenever applicable, agency data is consulted as part of the analysis, however final products do not necessarily reflect an assessment from any specific department.

OFA Fiscal Note State Impact:

Agency Affected Fund-Effect FY 22 $ FY 23 $ Secretary of the State GF - Cost Up to Up to 300,000 150,000 UConn Various - Cost Up to Up to 600,000 700,000 Attorney General GF - Cost 314,385 273,638 State Comptroller - Fringe GF - Cost 192,000 196,000 Benefits1 Note:

GF=General Fund;

Various=Various Municipal Impact:

Municipalities Effect FY 22 $ FY 23 $ Various Municipalities Potential Significant Significant Cost Explanation This bill generally codifies into state law several aspects of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 which bans discrimination in voting and elections and established a mechanism for certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination against racial and language minorities to seek preapproval before changing their election laws.

This will result in significant costs to the state and municipalities.

The bill requires the University of Connecticut to establish and maintain a database containing a range of elections and demographic data, results in an estimated cost of up to $600,000 in FY 22 and up to The fringe benefit costs for most state employees are budgeted centrally in accounts administered by the Comptroller.

The estimated active employee fringe benefit cost associated with most personnel changes is 41.3% of payroll in FY 22 and FY 23.

SB820 / File No.

590 24 SB820 File No.

590 $700,000 in FY 23 and annually thereafter.

The costs are anticipated to be:

(1) one-time startup computer and software costs of approximately $250,000 in FY 22, and (2) personnel costs associated with the staff to provide the analysis and services required in the bill, estimated to be up to $350,000 for half-year costs in FY 22 and up to $700,000 for annual costs beginning in FY 23.

The staff are anticipated to be a director as required in the bill, with an estimated annual salary of $125,000, as well as up to three analyst-level staff given the scope of responsibilities, each with an average annual salary of $75,000.

2 This bill requires the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) to make determinations of certain municipal plans, intended to protect specified classes of electors.

This determination process may include various municipalities simultaneously in the years following a redistricting or court litigation.

This is estimated to result in costs to OAG of $314,385 in FY 22 and $273,638 in FY 22 to hire to additional Assistant Attorneys General (AAG) and an additional paralegal to perform the analysis and casework preparation required in advance of making determinations required under the bill’s requirements.

There would also be associated costs of $129,841 in FY 22 and $133,663 in FY 23 for fringe benefits, and one-time costs of approximately $50,000 annually for proprietary redistricting software to make the determination.

It is estimated each AAG would spend two to three months each analyzing each municipality’s plan before making an approval decision.

Under the bill, OAG is given 60 days to make a determination.

The Secretary of the State and certain municipalities may incur significant costs to meet the bill's requirements.

Certain municipal plans, intended to protect specified classes of electors, could result in significant costs.

The Secretary of the State costs are estimated at up to $300,000 to meet the bill's requirements and includes the hiring of two 2The fringe benefit costs for employees funded out of other appropriated funds are budgeted within the fringe benefit account of those funds, as opposed to the fringe benefit accounts within the Office of the State Comptroller.

The estimated active employee fringe benefit cost associated with most personnel changes for other appropriated fund employees is 95.57% of payroll in FY 22 and FY 23.

SB820 / File No.

590 25 SB820 File No.

590 positions (estimated combined cost of $150,000) and a one-time consultant cost.

The Out Years The annualized ongoing fiscal impact identified above would continue into the future subject to inflation.

SB820 / File No.

590 26 SB820 File No.

590 OLR Bill Analysis sSB 820 AN ACT CONCERNING A STATE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

FILE NO.

590 SUMMARY §§ 1 & 2 – PROHIBITION ON DENYING OR ABRIDGING THE VOTING RIGHTS OF PROTECTED CLASS INDIVIDUALS Prohibits the enactment or implementation of a voting prerequisite, statute, ordinance, regulation, or other law on election administration, or any related standard, practice, procedure, or policy thatdenies or abridges the right to vote for a protected class individual § 3 – STATEWIDE ELECTIONS INFORMATION DATABASE Establishes a statewide information database to help (1) evaluate whether, and to what extent, current election laws and practices are consistent with the bill;

(2) implement best practices;

and (3) investigate voting rights infringement § 4 – LANGUAGE-RELATED ASSISTANCE Requires municipalities to provide language-related assistance in voting and elections to single-language minority groups comprising a minimum threshold of voting-age residents § 5 – PRECLEARANCE OF COVERED POLICIES BY COVERED JURISDICTIONS Subjects “covered jurisdictions” to preclearance by the attorney general or Superior Court before enacting or implementing certain election-related actions or policies § 6 – ACTS OF INTIMIDATION, DECEPTION, OR OBSTRUCTION Prohibits acts of intimidation, deception, or obstruction affecting the exercise of one’s voting rights BACKGROUND SUMMARY This bill generally codifies into state law several aspects of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA,” see BACKGROUND) which banned discrimination in voting and elections and established a mechanism for certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination against racial and SB820 / File No.

590 27 SB820 File No.

590 language minorities to seek preapproval before changing their election laws.

The bill prohibits the following from being enacted or implemented in a way that denies or abridges the right to vote of a protected class individual:

(1) a qualification for elector eligibility or other voting prerequisite;

(2) a statute, ordinance, regulation, or other law regarding election administration;

or (3) a related standard, practice, procedure, or policy.

Under the bill, a “protected class individual” refers to members of a race, color, or language minority group as described in the federal VRA.

The bill also authorizes the attorney general and certain parties aggrieved due to a violation to file a civil action in state Superior Court.

It establishes a statewide information database at UConn to help (1) evaluate whether, and to what extent, election laws and practices are consistent with the bill’s provisions;

(2) implement best practices in election administration to further the bill’s purposes;

and (3) investigate potential infringements upon voting rights.

Like the federal VRA, the bill requires municipalities to provide language-related assistance in voting and elections if members of a single-language minority group make up a minimum threshold of the municipality’s voting-age residents.

It also subjects certain jurisdictions (“covered jurisdictions”) to preclearance by the attorney general or Superior Court before enacting or implementing certain elections policies or requirements (a “covered policy”).

The bill authorizes court action to prevent enacting or implementing a covered policy without this preclearance and to seek sanctions against the covered jurisdiction involved.

The bill prohibits any person from engaging in acts of intimidation, deception, or obstruction that affect the exercise of one’s voting rights.

It allows certain aggrieved parties and the attorney general to file an action in Superior Court to civilly enforce its provisions and makes violators liable for damages.

The bill also authorizes the attorney general, inany associatedaction orinvestigation andinaccordance with ordinary civil procedure rules, to examine witnesses;

receive oral and SB820 / File No.

590 28 SB820 File No.

590 documentary evidence;

determine material facts;

and issue subpoenas (§ 7).

Lastly, the bill authorizes the Superior Court to award reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs to a prevailing party, except the state or a municipality, that filed an action to enforce the bill’s provision.

A prevailing party that did not file the action cannot receive reasonable attorney’s fees or costs unless the court finds the action is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation (§ 8).

In general, under existing law, the secretary of the state administers, interprets, and implements election laws and ensures fair and impartial elections, and the State Elections and Enforcement Commission has broad authority for enforcement of election laws (see BACKGROUND).

EFFECTIVE DATE:

January 1, 2022, except the preclearance provisions are effective January 1, 2023.

§§ 1 & 2 – PROHIBITION ON DENYING OR ABRIDGING THE VOTING RIGHTS OF PROTECTED CLASS INDIVIDUALS Prohibits the enactment or implementation of a voting prerequisite, statute, ordinance, regulation, or other law on election administration, or any related standard, practice, procedure, or policy that denies or abridges the right to vote for a protected class individual The bill prohibits any qualification for elector eligibility or other voting prerequisite, statute, ordinance, regulation, or other law regarding election administration, or any related standard, practice, procedure, or policy, from being enacted or implemented in a manner that denies or abridges a protected class individual’s right to vote.

The bill specifies that a violation includes impairing these electors’ ability to elect their chosen candidates or to otherwise influence the elections’ outcome, based on the totality of the circumstances, which is a legal standard that considers all relevant facts and circumstances rather than specific factors.

Prohibited Election Methods The bill specifically prohibits an election method from impairing protected class electors’ ability to elect their chosen candidates or SB820 / File No.

590 29 SB820 File No.

590 otherwise influence election outcomes by abridging their right to vote or diluting their vote as follows:

1.

a municipality with an at-large election method in which:

a.

voting patterns of protected class electors are racially polarized (i.e., their preferred candidate or electoral choice differs from that of all other electors);

or b.

based on the totality of the circumstances, these electors’ ability to elect their chosen candidates or otherwise influence election outcomes is impaired;

and 2.

a municipality with a district-based or alternative election method (i.e., other than at-large or district-based), in which protected class electors’ preferred candidates or electoral choices would usually be defeated and a.

voting patterns of protected class electors are racially polarized or b.

based on the totality of the circumstances, the ability of these electors to elect their chosen candidates or otherwise influence election outcomes is impaired.

Additionally, a municipality’s use of race, color, language minority group, or any characteristic that serves as a proxy for these for districting or redistricting purposes presumptively constitutes a violation.

But a municipality may rebut the presumption by showing that the use was only to the extent necessary to comply with the bill’s provisions, the federal VRA, or the state or federal constitutions.

Under the bill, an “at-large method of election” is a method of electing candidates to the municipality’s legislative body (1) in which all candidates are voted upon by all electors of the municipality;

(2) in which, for municipalities divided into districts, a candidate for any district must reside in that district, and all candidates for all districts are voted upon by all electors of the municipality;

or (3) that combines these SB820 / File No.

590 30 SB820 File No.

590 two methods with a district-based election method.

A “district-based method of election” is a method of electing candidates to a municipality’s legislative body in which, for municipalities divided into districts, a candidate for any district must reside;

and only the candidates for that district are voted upon by that district’s electors.

Under the bill, a “municipality” is a town, city, or borough (whether consolidated or unconsolidated), school district, or district authorized under state law.

The “legislative body” is a municipality’s board of alderman, council, board of burgesses, board of education, district committee, association committee, or other similar body as applicable.

Initiating Court Action The bill authorizes the attorney general and the following aggrieved parties to file an action in Superior Court for an alleged violation:

(1) an aggrieved person or organization whose membership includes or likely includes aggrieved persons and (2) an organization whose mission would be frustrated by or require expended resources to fulfill, due to an alleged violation.

These parties must file in a Superior Court with jurisdiction over the municipality’s location.

Notification Letter Prior to Filing Action Before filing the court action against a municipality for an alleged violation described above, the bill requires an aggrieved party to send by certified mail, return receipt requested, a notification letter to the municipality’s clerk.

The letter must assert that the municipality may be in violation of the bill’s provisions.

It prohibits the party from filing an action earlier than 50 days after sending this letter.

Municipal Resolution to Remedy Violation Prior to receiving a notification letter, or within 50 days after a notification letter is sent to a municipality, the municipality’s body may pass a resolution to (1) affirm the municipality’s intention to enact and implement a remedy for a potential violation;

(2) provide specific measures the municipality will take to obtain approval and SB820 / File No.

590 31 SB820 File No.

590 implementation of the remedy;

and (3) provide a schedule for enacting and implementing the remedy.

The billfurther prohibitsanaggrievedparty fromfiling a court action earlier than 90 days after the legislative body passes this resolution.

Under state law, if a municipal legislative body lacks authority to enact or implement a remedy identifiedinany resolutionwithin90 days after its passage, or if the municipality is a covered jurisdiction under the bill, then its legislative body may, upon passing the resolution, hold at least one public hearing on any proposed remedy to the potential violation.

Before the hearing the municipality may do public outreach, including to language minority communities, to encourage input.

The legislative body may approve any proposed remedy that complies with the bill and submit it to the attorney general for approval (see below).

Agreement Between Municipality and Aggrieved Party The bill allows a municipality that passed a resolution to enter into an agreement with an aggrieved party who sent a notification letter, so long as the (1) party will not file an action before 90 days after entering into the agreement and (2) municipality either enacts and implements a remedy that complies with the bill’s provisions or passes a resolution and submits it to the attorney general.

If the party declines to enter into an agreement, it may file an action at any time.

Attorney General Approval The bill requires the attorney general to approve or reject the proposed remedy within 60 days after its submission by the municipality.

But if he does not act on it within this time period, the bill prohibits it from being enacted or implemented.

The attorney general may only approve the proposed remedy if he concludes that the municipality may violate the bill’s requirements and the proposed remedy:

SB820 / File No.

590 32 SB820 File No.

590 1.

would address any potential violation, 2.

is unlikely to violate the Connecticut Constitution or federal law, 3.

will not diminish the ability of protected class electors to participate in the political process and elect their preferred candidates, and 4.

is feasible to implement.

If approved, the bill requires the proposed remedy to be enacted and implemented immediately.

If the municipality is a covered jurisdiction, thenit doesnot havetogettheproposedremedy precleared(see below).

If the attorney general denies the proposed remedy, then it cannot be enacted or implemented.

In addition, he must give his objections and explain the basis for the denial and may recommend another proposed remedy that he would approve.

Cost Reimbursement Under thebill,if a municipality enactsor implementsaremedy or the attorney general approves a proposed remedy, then an aggrieved party who sent a notification letter may submit a municipal reimbursement claim for thecostsassociatedwithproducing andsending theletter.

The party must (1) submit this claim in writing within 30 days after the remedy’s enactment, implementation, or approval and (2) substantiate it with financial documentation, including a detailed invoice for any demography services or analysis of voting patterns in the municipality.

Upon receipt of a claim, the municipality may ask for additional financial documentation if the provided information is insufficient to substantiate the costs.

The bill requires the municipality to reimburse the party for reasonable costs claimed or for an amount to which the party and municipality agree, except it caps the total reimbursement amount to all involved parties, other than the attorney general, at $43,000,adjustedtoanychangeintheconsumerpriceindexforallurban consumers.

If a party and municipality fail to agree to a reimbursement SB820 / File No.

590 33 SB820 File No.

590 amount, either onemay fileanactionin Superior Court for adeclaratory ruling on the matter.

Superior Court Determination In determining whether a violation occurred, the bill authorizes the Superior Court in the jurisdiction where the municipality is located to consider the extent to which protected class electors (1) have been elected to office in the state or the municipality of the alleged violation and (2) vote at lower rates than all other electors in the state or that municipality.

Additionally, in determining whether (1) there are racially polarized voting patterns of protected class electors in a municipality or (2) a protected class electors’ preferred candidates or electoral choices would usually be defeated, the Superior Court must find the following:

1.

elections held before the action’s filing are more probative (i.e., tending to prove or disprove a point in issue) than elections conducted after the filing;

2.

evidence about electionsfor membersofthemunicipallegislative body are more probative than evidence about elections for other municipal officials;

and 3.

statistical evidence is more probative than nonstatistical evidence.

Under the bill, two or more protected classes of electors that are proven by evidence to be politically cohesive in the municipality may be combined.

It does not require the court to find evidence about electors’, elected officials’, or municipality’s intent to discriminate against protected class electors.

In addition, the bill prohibits the court from considering the following evidence in making its determination:

1.

voting patterns and election outcomes explanations other than racially polarized voting, including partisanship;

2.

different voting patterns of subgroups of protected class electors;

SB820 / File No.

590 34 SB820 File No.

590 3.

whether protected class electors are geographically compact or concentrated;

and 4.

projected changes in population or demographics (but the bill allows evidence of both to be used to remedy the violation).

In determining whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the ability of protected class electors to elect their chosen candidates or otherwise influence elections’ outcomes is impaired, the bill allows the Superior Court to consider the following:

1.

the municipality’s or state’s history of discrimination;

2.

the extent to which protected class electors have been elected to municipal office;

3.

the municipality’s use of any elector eligibility qualification or other voting prerequisite;

statute, ordinance, regulation, or other law on election administration;

or any related standard, practice, procedure or policy that may enhance dilutive effects of its election method;

4.

denialofaccessofprotectedclasselectorsorcandidatestoelection administration or campaign finance processes that determine which candidates will receive ballot access or financial or other support in a given election in the municipality;

5.

the extent to which protected class individuals in the municipality make campaign expenditures at lower rates than all other individuals in the municipality;

6.

the extent to which protected class electors in the municipality or state vote at lower rates than all other electors in the municipality or state, as applicable;

7.

the extent to which protected class individuals in the municipality are disadvantaged in education, employment, health, criminal justice, housing, land use, environmental protection, or other SB820 / File No.

590 35 SB820 File No.

590 areas that may hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process;

8.

use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns in the municipality;

9.

a significant lack of responsiveness by elected municipal officials to the particular needs of protected class individuals;

and 10.

whether themunicipality hasacompelling policy reasonfor using its particular election method or ordinance, regulation, or other law on election administration or related standard, practice, procedure, or policy.

The bill specifies that none of the above items may be dispositive or required for finding that racially polarized voting exists.

It also allows the court to consider evidence of these items concerning the state, privateactors,or surrounding municipalities, but it makesthat evidence less probative than evidence concerning the municipality itself.

Court Remedies Under the bill, whenever the court finds a violation of the above prohibitedacts,itmust orderappropriatelytailoredremediestoaddress the violation in the municipality, such as the following:

1.

a district-based or an alternative election method;

2.

new or revised districting or redistricting plans;

3.

elimination of staggered elections so that legislative body members are simultaneously elected;

4.

an increase in the legislative body size;

5.

additional voting hours or polling locations;

6.

an order for special elections;

requirements for expanded elector admission opportunities and additional elector education;

or SB820 / File No.

590 36 SB820 File No.

590 7.

restoration or addition of people to registry lists.

The bill allows the court-ordered remedy only if it will not diminish the ability of protected class electors to participate in the political process and elect their preferred candidates or otherwise influence election outcomes.

It requires the court to consider remedies proposed by any party to the action filed and other interested persons.

The bill prohibits the court from giving deference or priority to a municipality’s proposed remedy.

Proposals After Letter or Court Filing Under the bill, after receiving a notification letter or the filing of a court action claim alleging a violation of the above actions or the federal VRA, a municipality must have its legislative body take certain actions, such as providing public input opportunities, in order to enact and implement either a new method of election to replace an at-large method or a new districting or redistricting plan.

Before drawing a draft districting or redistricting plan, or plans of proposed district boundaries, the bill requires the municipality to hold at least two public hearings within the prior 30-day period.

It allows the municipality to do public outreach before the hearings, including to language minority communities, to explain the districting or redistricting process and encourage input.

The bill requires the municipality to publish and make available for public dissemination at least one draft districting or redistricting plan or plans after they are drawn but at least seven days before a public hearing on them.

The information must include the potential election sequence if the municipality’s legislative body members will be elected to staggered terms under the plan.

The bill requires the municipality to hold at least two public hearings within a maximum 45-day period.

It must also publish and make available for public dissemination any plan or plans revised at or after the hearings at least seven days before adopting them.

SB820 / File No.

590 37 SB820 File No.

590 In determining the elections’ sequence if the municipality’s legislative body members would be elected for staggered terms under any districting or redistricting plan or plans, the legislative body must give special consideration to the bill’s purposes and consider preferences expressed by the districts’ electors.

Preliminary Election Relief Under the bill, an aggrieved party may seek preliminary relief for an alleged violation in Superior Court concerning an upcoming regular election by filing an action during the 120 days before the election.

To do so, the party must also send a notification letter to the municipality no later than the court filing date.

The bill allows the court to grant relief if it determines that (1) the party is more likely than not to succeed on the merits and (2) it is possible to implement an appropriate remedy to resolve the alleged violation for the election.

If the action is withdrawn or dismissed as moot due to the municipality enacting or implementing a remedy or the attorney general approving a proposed remedy, then the party may only submit a reimbursement claim for costs associated with the notification letter.

§ 3 – STATEWIDE ELECTIONS INFORMATION DATABASE Establishes a statewide information database to help (1) evaluate whether, and to what extent, current election laws and practices are consistent with the bill;

(2) implement best practices;

and (3) investigate voting rights infringement The bill establishes a statewide information database at UConn to help the state and any municipality (1) evaluate whether, and to what extent, current election laws and practices are consistent with the bill’s provisions;

(2) implement best practices in election administration to further the bill’s purposes;

and (3) investigate a potential infringement on the right to vote.

The bill requires the governor to appoint a director to operate the database who must be a UConn faculty member with doctoral-level expertise in demography, statistical analysis, and electoral systems.

It allows the (1) director to employ staff as necessary to implement and maintain the database and (2) the director and his or her staff to provide SB820 / File No.

590 38 SB820 File No.

590 nonpartisan technical assistance to municipalities, researchers, and the public on using database’s resources as described below.

Database Contents Under the bill, the database must electronically maintain, for at least the prior 12 years, the following minimum data and records:

1.

estimates of total population, voting-age population, and citizen voting-age population by race, color, and language minority group, broken down annually to the municipal district level based on information from the U.S.

Census Bureau, including from the American Community Survey (ACS), or information of comparable quality collected by a similar governmental agency;

2.

district level election results for each statewide and municipal election;

3.

contemporaneous registry lists and voter history files for each election in each municipality;

4.

contemporaneous maps, boundary descriptions, and similar items in paper or electronic format for each district;

5.

polling place locations, including associated district lists;

6.

districting or redistricting plans for each election in each municipality;

and 7.

any other information the director deems advisable to further the bill’s purposes.

The bill requires each municipality to transmit the above listed election-specific information (presumably to the database) in electronic format after certifying election results and completing the post-election voter history file.

All data, estimates, or other information maintained in the database must be published on UConn’s website, publicly available at no cost, but it must not identify individual electors.

SB820 / File No.

590 39 SB820 File No.

590 By February 28, 2022, and then triennially, thedatabase director must publish on UConn’s website and submit to the secretary of the state (1) a list of municipalities required to provide assistance to language minority groups (see below) and (2) the languages for which they must provide the assistance.

The secretary must then distribute this information to each municipality.

Under the bill, any prepared estimate on race, color, or language minority group must be prepared using the most advanced, peer-reviewed and validated methodologies.

The bill establishes a rebuttable presumption that the data, estimates, or other information maintained by the database is valid in any action due to the denial or abridgement of protected classes’ voting rights.

§ 4 – LANGUAGE-RELATED ASSISTANCE Requires municipalities to provide language-related assistance in voting and elections to single-language minority groups comprising a minimum threshold of voting-age residents The bill requires a municipality to provide language-related assistance in voting and elections if the statewide database director (see above) determines, based on ACS information, that it has the following:

1.

greater than 2%, or more than 4,000 people, of its voting-age population as members of a single-language minority group who also speak English “less than very well” or 2.

for a municipality with part of a Native American reservation, more than 2% of the reservation’s Native American (i.e., anyone recognized as “American Indian” by the U.S.

Census Bureau) voting-age citizens meeting these criteria.

Under the bill, these municipalities must provide voting materials in English and in the language of each protectedclass (i.e., single-language minority group) of an equal quality to the corresponding English materials, including registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, ballots, or other materials or information about the electoral process.

It exempts municipalities from providing these materials to a protected class whose language is oral or unwritten, instead allowing the municipality to only provide the information orally.

SB820 / File No.

590 40 SB820 File No.

590 The bill allows a municipality that must provide language assistance to seek a declaratory judgment in the Superior Court for permission to provide English-only materials.

The court must decide in the municipality’s favor if it finds that the director’s determination was unreasonable or an abuse of discretion.

§ 5 – PRECLEARANCE OF COVERED POLICIES BY COVERED JURISDICTIONS Subjects “covered jurisdictions” to preclearance by the attorney general or Superior Court before enacting or implementing certain election-related actions or policies The bill subjects certain jurisdictions (“covered jurisdictions,” see below) to preclearance by the attorney general or the Superior Court where the jurisdiction is located before enacting or implementing certain election or voting related actions or policies (“covered policies,” see below).

It authorizes the attorney general or an aggrieved party under the bill to take court action to enjoin enacting or implementing a covered policy without this preclearance and to seek sanctions.

The bill also allows the attorney general to adopt regulations to effectuate its preclearance and look-back review provisions (see below).

Covered Policies Under the bill, a “covered policy” subject to preclearance includes any new or modified qualification for admission as an elector, voting prerequisite, statute, ordinance, regulation, standard, practice, procedure, or policy concerning:

1.

districting or redistricting;

2.

election method;

3.

form of government;

4.

annexation, incorporation, dissolution, consolidation, or division of a municipality;

5.

removal of individuals from registry lists or enrollment lists and other activities concerning the lists;

SB820 / File No.

590 41 SB820 File No.

590 6.

admission of electors;

7.

number, location, or hours of a polling place;

8.

district assignment to polling place locations;

9.

assistance offered to protected class individuals;

or 10.

any additional subject matter the attorney general identifies for inclusion,pursuanttoaregulationheadopts,ifhedeterminesthat it may have the effect of denying or abridging a protected class elector’s right to vote.

Covered Jurisdictions Under the bill, a “covered jurisdiction” is a municipality:

1.

that, within the prior 25 years, was subject to a court order or government enforcement action based on a finding of a violation of the bill’s provisions, the federal VRA, a state or federal civil rights law, or the U.S.

Constitution’s 15th or 14th Amendments concerning the right to vote or discrimination against a protected class;

2.

in which during the prior 10 years, based on data from the:

a.

state criminal justice information systems, the combined misdemeanor and felony arrest rate of any protected class consisting of at least 1,000 voting-age citizens, or whose members comprise at least 10% of the municipality’s voting- age citizen population, exceeds the arrest rate of the entire municipality’s voting-age citizen population by at least 20% or b.

U.S.

Census Bureau, the dissimilarity index (see BACKGROUND) of any protected class consisting of at least 2,500 voting-age citizens,or whosemembers comprise at least 10% of the municipality’s voting-age citizen population, exceeds 50% with respect to white, non-Hispanic voting-age SB820 / File No.

590 42 SB820 File No.

590 citizens within the municipality;

or 3.

that, within the prior five years, failed to comply with its obligations to provide data or information to the statewide database (see above).

The bill does not specify who is responsible for determining which jurisdictions are subject to preclearance, or how the jurisdictions are informed of this determination.

Attorney General Preclearance The bill allows a covered jurisdiction to submit to the attorney general in writing a covered policy to obtain preclearance to adopt and implement it.

It deems the covered policy precleared if the attorney general does not act on it within these timeframes:

1.

within 30 days after receiving a covered policy on polling place locations, except that he may preliminarily grant, and reserve the right to subsequently deny, the preclearance within 60 days after receiving it and 2.

within 60 days after receiving any other covered policy, except that he may extend this timeframe by 90 days, up to two times, for any policy on implementing a district-based or alternative election method;

districting or redistricting plans;

or a change to a municipality’s form of government.

Before granting or denying the preclearance, the attorney general must publish notice of the proceedings and provide an opportunity for interestedpartiestosubmitwrittencomments onthecoveredpolicyand the determination (although the bill does not establish timeframes for doing so).

The bill allows the attorney general to grant preclearance to a covered policy only if he determines that it will not diminish the protected class electors’ ability to participate in the electoral process or elect their preferred candidates.

The bill prohibits covered jurisdictions from enacting or SB820 / File No.

590 43 SB820 File No.

590 implementing a policy that is denied preclearance.

If the attorney general denies preclearance to a covered policy, then he must provide the objections and explain the basis for denial.

The bill allows any denial to be appealed to Superior Court in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, and the appeal must be prioritized in trial assignment.

Superior Court Preclearance Alternatively, the bill also allows a covered jurisdiction to seek preclearance of a covered policy from the Superior Court.

The covered jurisdiction must submit the policy to the court in writing and simultaneously give a copy of the submission to the attorney general.

Failing to provide the copy results in automatic denial.

Under the bill, the court must grant or deny the preclearance within days after receiving the submission.

It may grant preclearance only if it determines that the policy will not diminish the protected class electors’ ability to participate in the electoral process or elect their preferred candidates.

As with an attorney general preclearance denial, if the court denies preclearance or does not decide on it within 60 days, the covered policy cannot be enacted or implemented.

The bill allows a denial to be appealed in accordance with the ordinary rules of appellate procedure, and it must be prioritized in appeal assignment.

Attorney General Look-Back Review The bill authorizes the attorney general to (1) conduct a look-back review for a period of 120 days after the bill’s effective date (January 1, to April 30, 2023) and (2) deny preclearance to any covered policy enacted by a covered jurisdiction between January 1, 2022, and January 1, 2023.

Underthebill,thelook-backreviewbeginswhentheattorneygeneral notifies a covered jurisdiction of his decision to review its enacted or implemented covered policy.

The covered jurisdiction must submit the policy in writing within 30 days after receiving the notice.

The bill SB820 / File No.

590 44 SB820 File No.

590 requires the attorney general to decide whether the covered jurisdiction may further implement the policy within 90 days after the submission.

Before deciding, the attorney general must publish notice of the proceedingsandprovideanopportunity for interestedpartiesto submit written comments about the covered policy and the decision (although the bill does not establish timeframes for doing so).

He must deny further implementation of the covered policy if he determines that it is likely to diminishtheprotectedclasselectors’ability to participate inthe political process or elect their preferred candidates.

But the bill specifies that a denial is not a basis for invalidating an election held under it.

When denying a previously enacted covered policy, the attorney general must state the objections to it and explain the basis for denial.

The bill allows a covered policy denial during the look-back review to be appealed to the Superior Court in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, which must be prioritized for trial assignment.

§ 6 – ACTS OF INTIMIDATION, DECEPTION, OR OBSTRUCTION Prohibits acts of intimidation, deception, or obstruction affecting the exercise of one’s voting rights Prohibited Acts The bill prohibits anyone, whether acting in an official governmental capacity or otherwise, from engaging in intimidating, deceptive, or obstructive acts that affect a voter’s right to exercise his or her electoral privileges.

Specifically, it bans acts of intimidation or deception that cause or reasonably have the effect of causing an elector to (1) vote or refrain from voting in general, (2) vote for or against a particular candidate or question, (3)apply or not apply for admissionasan elector, or (4) apply or not apply for an absentee ballot.

The bill bans obstructive acts that cause or reasonably have the effect of causing a delay in voting or the voting process, including canvassing or tabulating ballots.

Under the bill, these prohibited acts are:

1.

using or threatening to use force, violence, restraint, abduction or SB820 / File No.

590 45 SB820 File No.

590 duress;

inflicting or threatening to inflict any injury, damage, harm or loss;

or any other type of intimidation;

2.

using a deceptive or fraudulent device, contrivance or communication that impedes, prevents, or otherwise interferes with an elector’s electoral privileges or that causes or will reasonably have the effect of causing an elector to (a) vote or refrain from voting in general;

(b) vote for or against a particular candidate or question;

(c) apply or not apply for admission as an elector;

or (d) apply or not apply for an absentee ballot;

or 3.

obstructing, impeding, or otherwise interfering with (a) access to a polling place or an election official’s office or (b) an elector in any manner.

Court Action The bill allows the Attorney General and the following parties to bring anactionintheSuperior Court inthejudicialdistrict ofthealleged violation:

(1) an aggrieved person or organization whose membership includes or likely includes aggrieved persons and (2) an organization whose mission would be frustrated by the violation or would require expended resources to fulfill due to the violation.

The bill requires the court, when finding a violation of these provisions, to order appropriately tailored remedies to address it, such as additional time to vote at an election, primary, or referendum.

It makes violators of these provisions, and anyone who helps commit them, liable for court-awarded damages, including nominal damages and compensatory or punitive damages for willful violations.

Chapter 151 of the state’s election laws (Title 9) already details prohibited acts and associated criminal penalties.

For example, influencing or attempting to influence an elector to stay away from an election by force or threat, bribery, or corrupt, fraudulent, or deliberately deceitful means is a class D felony, punishable by a fine of up to $5,000, up to five years in prison, or both (CGS § 9-364).

SB820 / File No.

590 46 SB820 File No.

590 BACKGROUND Municipal Election Authority Under longstanding Connecticut Supreme Court precedent, municipalities have no inherent powers (see Windham Taxpayers Association, et al.

v.

Board of Selectmen, the Town of Windham, et al.

234 Conn.

513 (1995)).

Thus, for elections, municipalities may exercise only the specific powers granted to them by the state constitution’s Home Rule provision (Article Tenth) and state law (see CGS §§ 7-148 and 7-187 to 7-194).

Included in the statutorily enumerated powers are those implied by the law’s express powers and those essential to accomplish the municipality’s purpose, but neither give municipalities jurisdiction over conducting elections.

Additionally, the law generally requires municipal elections to be held and conducted like state elections (CGS § 9-228).

However, some state laws do give municipalities election-related authority.

For example, municipalities can determine whether to elect their officials at- large or by districts, where to locate polling places, and whether to change the number of voting precincts (see CGS §§ 9-168 & -169).

Dissimilarity Index The dissimilarity index is the primary measure to assess residential segregation.

It represents the percentage of an area’s demographic group needing to move to another area to achieve complete integration for the area (i.e., how evenly distributed groups are across a larger area), and ranges from zero (fully integrated) to one (fully segregated).

Secretary of the State As the state’s commissioner of elections, the secretary of the state is charged with administering, interpreting, and implementing election lawsandensuringfairandimpartialelections.UndertheNationalVoter Registration Act of 1993, the secretary has the same responsibility for federal elections.

She is also designated by the Connecticut Constitution and general statutes as the official keeper of many public records and documents, including the state’s online voter registration system.

SB820 / File No.

590 47 SB820 File No.

590 State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) SEEC has broad authority to, among other things, investigate possible violations of election laws;

refer evidence of violations to the chief state’s attorney or the attorney general;

levy civil penalties for elections violations;

issue advisory opinions;

and make recommendations to the General Assembly about revisions to thestate’s election laws (CGS §§ 9-7a to 9-7c).

Federal VRA The federal VRA of 1965 generally prohibits discrimination in voting to enforce rights guaranteed to racial or language minorities by the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S.

Constitution.

Section 5 of the act is a preclearance requirement, which prohibits certain jurisdictions (determined by a formula prescribed in Section 4) from implementing any change affecting voting without receiving preapproval from the U.S.

attorney general or the U.S.

District Court for the District of Columbia.

Another provision requires jurisdictions with significant language minority populations to provide bilingual ballots and other election materials.

The VRA originally scheduled Section 5 to expire after five years and applied it to jurisdictions with protected class voter registration or turnout rates below 50% in 1964 and “devices,” like literacy tests, to discourage them from voting.

On renewal, the law used data from 1968 and 1972 and defined a “device” to include English-only ballots in places where at least 5% of voting-age citizens spoke a single language other than English.

Jurisdictions free of voting discrimination for 10 years could be released from coverage by a court, as was the case in Groton, Mansfield, and Southbury, Connecticut.

Shelby County v.

Holder In Shelby County v.

Holder, 570 U.S.

529 (2013), the U.S.

Supreme Court struck down the federal VRA’s coverage formula (Section 4), which determined the covered jurisdictions subject to preclearance requirements.

(It applied to nine states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, SB820 / File No.

590 48 SB820 File No.

590 Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia — and many counties and municipalities in other states, including Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx.) Congresshadmost recently extendedthelawin2006 for 25years,but continued to use data from the 1975 reauthorization to determine covered jurisdictions.

The Court found that using this data made the formula no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on federalism and state sovereignty.

Although the Court did not also strike down Section 5, it is unenforceable without Section 4’s coverage formula.

Thus, changes in voting procedures in jurisdictions previously covered by the VRA are now subject only to after-the-fact litigation.

COMMITTEE ACTION Government Administration and Elections Committee Joint Favorable Yea 13 Nay 6 (04/05/2021) SB820 / File No.

590 49