Republican and Democrat lawmakers on the Judiciary Committee both warned that language lowering the legal standard by which the State Elections and Enforcement Commission (SEEC) initiates an investigation into claims of campaign law violations was so ill-defined that it shouldn’t appear in the bill if it comes to a vote in the General Assembly.
Senate Bill 1517, which encompasses a number of changes to campaign finance laws, was passed unanimously out of the Government Administration and Elections Committee (GAE) in late March but was referred to the Judiciary Committee to approve section 20, dealing specifically with how the SEEC accepts complaints for investigation.
The bill language replaces the legally definable term “probable cause,” with “reason to believe,” which would purportedly lower the standard for investigation but also left lawmakers on the Judiciary Committee baffled.
“We have no standard in this state – we never have – which is ‘reason to believe or no reason to believe,’” ranking member Rep. Craig Fishbein, R-Wallingford, said. “Having experience dealing with the probable cause standard, which is really a very low standard, I don’t know how much you could get lower and have due process, quite frankly.”
Ranking member Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, argued such an “undefined term” would be “buying ourselves a lawsuit.”
“There’s a wealth of terminology readily available out there that we could use as precedent,” Kissel said. “Certainly, we need some standard, it can’t be so amorphous that the bar is so low that, as Rep. Fishbein pointed out, there’s no due process.”
The Democratic chairs of the Judiciary committee – Sen. Gary Winfield, D-New Haven, and Rep. Steve Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, agreed that the language was inappropriate, but said they would reluctantly pass the bill with the understanding the language would be changed, because striking that language this late in the legislative session could kill the entire bill due to time constraints.
“I’m not sure what the language ‘reason to believe’ means either,” Winfield said. “If this language hits the floor in its current condition – which I don’t believe it would remain the same, but if it did – I wouldn’t vote for this bill either because I don’t know what we would be doing.”
Lead proponent of the bill and co-chair of the GAE Committee Rep. Matt Blumenthal, D-Stamford, said the provision is an attempt at a “compromise,” that would allow the SEEC to extend beyond its one-year window to determine a course of action before they have to dismiss the complaint.
“The point of this provision as requested by the SEEC would be for them to make a preliminary evidentiary determination that there is some evidence to go forward on,” Blumenthal said. “It is a lower standard in which there is some evidence, but perhaps not enough evidence as would ordinarily meet the probable cause standard for arrest or a warrant for wrongdoing under our election statutes.”
Senate Bill 1517 would also relax the time limits imposed on the SEEC. Under current law, the SEEC must dismiss a complaint if it does not issue a final decision within one year. Under the bill’s language, the SEEC would only have to “find reason to believe that a violation of state election law has been committed and commence a contested case,” within the one-year time frame.
Shannon Kief, legal director for the SEEC, testified in support of the bill before the GAE Committee in March, saying the language in section 20 “addresses an ongoing problem with the requirement that our agency resolve complaints within one year, or else have those complaints automatically dismissed.”
“This bill proposes that, instead of requiring that the Commission issue a decision within one year, it should have one year to make a ‘reason to believe’ finding that would trigger a contested case hearing. Currently, the law mandates that any required hearing— usually in the most difficult, contentious cases—must occur within the one-year timeframe. Hearings take considerable time, and rushing them serves no one’s interest,” Kief wrote in testimony. “This minor adjustment would greatly improve the processing of complaints in a fair and just manner while keeping the complaint resolution process moving expediently.”
The SEEC has in the past told lawmakers they need more funding and more staff, particularly following the Bridgeport absentee ballot scandal, which sapped the agency’s resources as they dedicated most of their investigative power toward the Bridgeport case that made national news.
And while the Bridgeport scandal garnered headlines, the agency is tasked with handling numerous other complaints that require them to issue decisions within one year, along with managing the state’s Citizens Election Program, which provides tax dollars to for political campaigns. Long-time SEEC Executive Director Michael Brandi announced his retirement at the end of 2024, and in March of 2025, Clare Kimball was appointed interim director and executive counsel.
“I will say that this provision of the bill is a work in progress,” Blumenthal said, adding the GAE co-chairs are committed to working on the language before it potentially goes for a vote.
“I certainly hope this gets cleaned up before it sees the light of day on the House or the Senate floor,” Stafstrom said.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
