Members of Connecticut’s Government Administration and Elections Committee (GAE) heard testimony on multiple bills affecting the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) during a February 23 hearing that was held fully remote as a result of the snowstorm and state of emergency.

Two of the bills heard impact the availability of election information, including ballots cast at standalone municipal referenda. A third bill, which has previously appeared, seeks to allow police departments to charge requesters fees for redacting dashboard and body-worn camera footage.

SB 224

SB 224 would close a ‘loophole’ in state statute that allows ballots cast at standalone municipal referenda to be obtained through FOIA. While all other types of ballots cast in elections are exempt from FOIA disclosure, uncertainty in the wording of state statute led the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) to find last year that sample and in-person ballots cast at municipal referenda not held in conjunction with other elections may be release under the state’s public records law.

SB 224 would make those ballots exempt from disclosure by adding language to state statute—outside of Title 9, which governs elections and was at issue in the FOIC case—stating that ballots cast are referenda are exempt from FOIA disclosure.

“Each ballot that has been cast at an election, primary or referendum, including any write-in ballot, shall be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.” SB 224 states.

The bill also replaces the language in Section 9-1 of state statute to redefine the meaning of a referendum to include votes related to home rule ordinances.

Public testimony was largely in favor of SB 224, though Jason LaChapelle, the Colchester resident who sought access to sample and in-person ballots cast during a June 11, 2025, town budget referendum and whom the FOIC ruled in favor of, submitted testimony opposing the bill.

Testimony submitted in support of the bill referenced the bill’s proposed changes as important to protecting voter privacy and ensuring elections. The Connecticut Town Clerks Association wrote in testimony that the bill’s changes are important “to ensure consistency, protect voter privacy, and maintain the integrity of the election process.”

The SOTS’ office testimony also referenced voter privacy.

“Even a well-intentioned Freedom of Information request could create unintended consequences. In a small precinct, for example, a request for ballots under a particular voting district could invite efforts to analyze voting patterns in ways that undermine voter anonymity. This bill removes that ambiguity and protects voters from that risk.” SOTS Stephanie Thomas’ written testimony states.

Thomas also appeared at the hearing to give testimony and said she had reviewed testimony opposing the bill submitted by FOIA groups and disagreed that “protecting the secrecy of the ballot” and “protecting private voter information” limit transparency. She said that while the public had a right to know, it does not have a right to inspect ballots.

Questioning Thomas, Rep. Matt Blumenthal, D-Stamford, said that he was “baffled” by the FOIC’s decision in LaChapelle’s complaint. Blumenthal said it was “really not intelligible to me why that should be the case” and called it a “Rube Goldberg machine of a decision.”

Thomas replied that it was the “perfect example of something that is a little murky in the law” and that the lack of clarity in the statute was “open to interpretation” even if it created “an absurd result.”

The SOTS’ office did not intervene in the FOIC case, though state agencies are able to do so at any point, even after the commission took the unusual step of returning their decision to the hearing officer. The SOTS did send an unsigned, undated memo to the commission. (The SOTS’ office previously contacted Inside Investigator to state they do not believe the memo should be considered undated because it was sent in an email with a send date.)

In that opinion, the SOS’ office chastised the commission for “failing to reach out” about how the statute should be interpreted and called their “election law expertise” “spurious at best.” The opinion denied that statute differentiates between referenda and elections and called the FOIC’s decision an “attempt to circumvent privacy,” which angered members of the commission.

Thomas also stated a reason the ballots should not be obtainable was due to stray markings that might appear on ballots that could be used as proof in vote buying schemes.

LaChapelle noted that the bill, while apparently responding to his case and confusion over whether sections of Title 9 or Title 7, relating to voting at town meetings, should apply, which played a large role in his FOIC complaint and the Secretary of the State’s (SOTS) office objection to the FOIC’s findings, it does not actually address that issue.

“However, rather than clarifying the relationship between Title 7 and Title 9, or establishing a comprehensive framework for referendum administration, it simply removes local referenda from public oversight under the Freedom of Information Act.” LaChapelle wrote in submitted testimony.

“It does not amend Title 9. It does not extend election audit provisions, recanvass procedures, or enforcement mechanisms to referenda held solely under Section 7-7. It does not place those referenda squarely under the supervision of the Secretary of the State in the same manner as elections and primaries. It does not create any new structure to ensure uniform safeguards. It simply eliminates one of the few existing mechanisms of public accountability.” LaChapelle continued.

The FOIC also testified against the bill, which is also incorporated into SB 226, a broader election reform bill.

“The Commission believes that instead of creating a wholesale exemption to disclosure, the committee consider shielding personally identifying information from ballots cast at municipal referenda, as the Commission did in its Final Decision.” the FOIC’s written testimony objecting to the portion of SB 226 that includes similar language to SB 224 states. “Such an approach would ensure that the identities of voters are protected, but will also ensure more transparency over the municipal standalone referendum process, for which there is currently less state oversight than there is over elections and referenda conducted in conjunction with them.”

SB 226

Among the changes SB 226 would make are:

• Changing the mechanism for determining early voting locations
• Changing the deadline by which registrars of voters certify information about early voting and same-day voter registration
• Making changes to early voting ballots that allow them to be directly deposited in tabulators
• Prohibiting early voting and same-day registration voting officials from engaging in some political activities
• Requiring absentee ballot counters to keep a log of rejected ballots
• Requiring that all districts in a municipality be examined when a discrepancy in votes is found

The bill would also restrict access to Connecticut’s voter files, a database of registered voters in the state. Currently, Connecticut’s voter files, which typically contain a voter’s name, address, and a record of the election they’ve voted in, but not what candidates or political parties they’ve voted for, can be purchased for $300 with no restrictions on who can buy them.

According to Ballotpedia, as of June 2205, Connecticut is one of over 25 states that have open access to their voter file, meaning there are no restrictions on who can purchase that data. In New England, Vermont and Rhode Island also have open voter file access.

The U.S. Department of Justice sued Connecticut in January after state officials denied a request by the federal government to turn over its voter registration list, including information like voter’ full dates of birth, Social Security number, and driver’s license.

That information is not available to most individuals who request the voter file. Under current state law, only a voters’ month and date of birth is released “unless such voter registration is requested and used for a governmental purpose.” The Secretary of the State, per the statute, determines whether something is a governmental purpose, but statute lists jury administration as an example.  The statute also specifies that driver’s license information and Social Security numbers may not be released.

SB 226 would make only a voter’s year of birth releasable and specify that month and date can only be requested and used for a state governmental purpose.

It also adds a section specifying that voter information “may only be used for election-related, scholarly, journalistic, political or governmental purposes,” limiting who could request voter file information, and prohibits it from being used for “any personal, private or commercial purpose.”

Thomas was questioned by GAE members about the changes. During that testimony, she said that the bill was related to the federal government’s lawsuit over voter file access, but there was no straight line.

In response to a question from Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, about whether the change in language to “state governmental purpose” was intended to prevent federal access, she said it was to clarify that there are other legitimate purposes than jury administration.

Thomas also stated that the change in the date of birth information that is releasable would update the statute to what election experts consider “best practice” as a result of phishing and ransomware scams. Thomas said that when date of birth information is publicly available, experts have said it is easier for individuals to fall victim to scams.

Asked by Rep. Gale Mastrofrancesco, R-Southington, how the changes in the law restricting access to the voter file, for which there is a $2,000 per use fine for improper use, are enforceable, Thomas said that her office won’t be able to police use but the change would give the public “an opportunity to fight back if someone is using it outside of the limits of whatever law we pass.”

Sampson also asked Thomas why the bill allows her office to define a governmental purpose rather than include a definition.

Thomas said other states with similar statutes have found that there are uses that might not be predictable in the future and “more specific language could have the unintended result of restricting things you might not have thought should be restricted.”

The FOIC also expressed concern about the lack of definitions within the bill.

Their testimony noted that while the bill would restrict voter file access to “election-related, scholarly, journalistic, political or governmental purposes” those terms are not defined and only the SOTS has the ability under the bill to define them, “making the Secretary the sole decision maker as to whom is allowed access to public records and to whom it is not.”

The FOIC also raised concern with a portion of the bill that prohibits “reproduction” of voter file information “in print, digital or broadcast visual or audio, or display in any other format,” noting that the Supreme Court has ruled that once information is publicly available, its distribution cannot be prohibited, which could lead to prior restraint for journalists.

SB 225

The GAE also heard testimony on SB 225, a bill that would allow police departments to charge for the cost of redacting body-worn and dashboard camera footage requested through FOIA. A similar bill has appeared in previous legislative sessions but has not reached final passage.

The FOIC has previously worked with proponents of past bills to create a reasonable fee structure and is doing so again this year.

“Today, records of a law enforcement agency often include hours of video and audio footage from multiple officers, even for a routine call for service. The process of reviewing and redacting that footage is complex and time-consuming. Some police departments have hired additional staff to manage the process. Others have assigned the task to sworn police officers at a time when many departments are short-staffed, taking time away from other duties or requiring overtime pay.” testimony submitted by the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association in favor of the bill states. “Charging a couple of dollars for the thumb drive onto which the footage is recorded is a fraction of the cost that police departments incur in preparing the footage.”

Notably, the attorney general’s office submitted testimony opposing SB 225 on the grounds that it believes FOIA already allows these fees to be charged.

The attorney general’s office is currently behind several appeals of FOIC decisions pending in Superior Court, denying attempts by the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) and the attorney general’s office to charge per-page copying fees and hourly fees for the review of records. FOIA currently prohibits both kinds of charges.

The attorney general’s office is claiming that because the 25-per-page copying fee allowed for paper records is more than the actual cost of paper and toner, the statute allows for the cost of preparing that paper, including the labor of employees preparing that paper.

The testimony submitted opposing SB 225 reiterates that argument.

“In the early 1990’s the legislature enacted Section 1-212(b), which provides for a digital records fee comprised of four categories of expenses potentially incurred in providing copies of digital records. One of the categories is salary for employees engaged in providing the copy, except for time spent on search and retrieval of the digital record. The statute even emphasizes that the time engaged in providing the copy includes time formatting or programming necessary to provide the copy as requested.” their testimony opposing SB 225 states. “So, the taxpayer is responsible for employee benefits and time spent searching for and retrieving the record. And the requester is responsible for the time spent preparing the copy for public dissemination. Redacting to honor privacy and other confidentiality laws is obviously labor that would be necessary in providing such copies.”

Remote Hearing Controversy

Monday’s GAE meeting was held fully remote due to the winter storm that resulted in Gov. Ned Lamont declaring a state of emergency and restricting commercial vehicle travel.

The decision to still hold multiple legislative committee hearings fully remote drew criticism from Republican leadership and drew concerns that power outages that left nearly 15,000 state residents without power would limit public participation in hearings held on Monday.

‘“Ridiculous. Disrespectful. Arrogance. This shows what supermajority Democrats think of Connecticut residents. During this blizzard emergency, CT Senate Republicans are putting people first, working with municipal leaders and others for public safety. That should remain the focus during the blizzard.” Senate Republicans said in a press release.

SB 224, and other bills that received a public hearing in other committees on Monday are expected to be included in emergency certification bills that will be taken up by the Senate on Wednesday and the House of Representatives on Thursday.

The Senate Republican caucus also accused Democrats of misusing the emergency certification process

“Why even have a legislature when an ‘emergency’ can be declared by Democrats and the public is rendered voiceless?  When there is an actual ‘emergency’ declared by the Governor, Democrats ram bills through. And when no ‘emergency’ exists, Democrats ram bills through.” Republicans said in a press release.

Transparency Note: Reporter Katherine Revello is a member of the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information’s board of directors. CCFOI submitted testimony on these bills.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.