Earlier this week, the State’s Government Administration and Elections Committee held a public hearing on a bill that stipulates the creation of a task force to explore different ways the state could increase voter participation, including mandatory voting. After hearing testimony from numerous state officials and other election stakeholders in support, the Committee voted favorably on the bill.
“The integrity of elections is important to everyone here,” said Avery Gilbert, director of the Civil Rights Efficacy Clinic at Yale Law. “However, by far, the greatest threat to the integrity of our elections is not the people who are voting, but those who are not.”
The idea of mandatory voting, or the legal requirement of registered voters to vote in elections, has bounced around the halls of Hartford before. In 2023, several lawmakers co-sponsored a bill that would have made mandatory voting law, but it was ultimately reserved for a subject matter public hearing. While the idea was discussed, nothing more came of it.
This year’s bill would establish a task force to study what efforts could be made to achieve 100% voter participation by January 1, 2030. It would explore different means of enhancing civic engagement, such as mandatory voting, explore how such options could be implemented, and identify the needs of municipal officials for their potential administration of such high-turnout elections.
Secretary of State Stephanie Thomas and Rep. Josh Elliott (D-Hamden) both submitted testimony in support of the bill. The bill was additionally supported by organizations such as CT AFL-CIO, 100 Percent Democracy, the SEUI CT State Council, and several other voter rights organizations.
Miles Rapoport, who served as Connecticut’s Secretary of State from 1995-1999, testified as the executive director of 100 Percent Democracy, an organization that promotes mandatory voting. Rapoport was questioned by Rep. Hilda Santiago (D-Meriden) as to what states have the highest voter turnouts, and what policies they have that Connecticut should look to adopt to increase its own voter turnout.
Rapoport said that states such as Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Colorado have turnouts that are “consistently, significantly higher than the national average.” He explained that they all allow mail-in ballots to all voters, same-day voter registration, pre-registration of 16 and 17 year olds, and more lenient voting policies regarding incarcerated residents.
“There’s a set of five or six policies that distinguish those top getters,” said Rapoport. “So the question will be, does Connecticut want to take the example of those places and adopt some of those, some or all of those policies?”
Santiago then asked what lessons could be learned from other countries that have implemented mandatory voting, as well as what means those countries use to enforce it. Rapoport cited countries such as Belgium, which has had mandatory voting since 1893, and Australia, which adopted it in 1924.
“So it’s actually a policy with 100 years of proof of concept,” said Rapoport. “There they have a very, very strong and affirmative culture about voting, that it’s part of the expectation, that it’s sort of just what you do.”
Rapoport said that typically countries use little to no penalties for the enforcement of mandatory voting and that making it law usually is enough to dramatically raise participation. He said that Australia uses “a light touch of enforcement.” Rapoport explained that if an Australian does not vote, the government mails them a letter asking why. If the non-voter ignores the first letter, they are mailed a second, and if they ignore the second, they are then fined $20.
“So it’s less than a parking ticket, but at the same time, it is enough so that it does serve as an incentive for people to do what they’re required to do,” said Rapoport.
Rapoport clarified that while he does support some form of an enforcement method personally, the bill does not call for such, and ultimately it would be up to the legislature to decide what enforcement, if any, would look like. Secretary Thomas noted in her testimony that the absence of any proposed fines makes the bill “a far more thoughtful and effective approach to increasing voter participation.”
Ultimately, the bill was voted favorably out of Committee in a 13-6 vote. The bill will have to pass both the House and Senate for it to be signed into law. If it is, the taskforce would be assembled by August 1, and their report submitted to legislature by February 1, 2026.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard of. You CANNOT MAKE PEOPLE VOTE IF THEY DON’T WANT TO. ONLY A DEMOCRAT WOULD DO THIS!!
The legislative goal of increasing voter participation is laudable. However, strategies relying on penalties may address symptoms rather than the core issue: the sense among many citizens that their individual vote lacks tangible impact, especially if their preferred candidate doesn’t win the district. True civic engagement thrives on empowerment.
I propose we consider a fundamental evolution in our electoral mechanics: shifting from electing a single district winner to a system where votes cast *to* a legislator directly determine their proportional voting power within the General Assembly.
Using the recent CT House District 52 election as a concrete example: Kurt Vail (R) received 8,421 votes and Ethan Werstler (D) received 6,202. Under this model, *both* would serve in Hartford. Rep. Vail would cast legislative votes reflecting the backing of 8,421 constituents, while Rep. Werstler would represent 6,202. (Crucially, these vote weights would be normalized statewide to ensure equitable influence across districts).
The benefits for governance are significant:
* **Enhanced Turnout:** It provides a powerful, positive incentive – every vote directly translates into legislative influence for the voter’s chosen representative.
* **True Proportional Representation:** It ends the “wasted vote” phenomenon and ensures legislative outcomes more accurately mirror the electorate’s diverse preferences, potentially reducing voter disillusionment.
* **Focus on Constituent Support:** It inherently elevates the power of direct voter endorsement relative to other factors like campaign spending.
Implementing such a system requires amending the Connecticut Constitution. Yet, as the Constitution State, Connecticut has a unique heritage and perhaps even a responsibility to lead in exploring innovations that strengthen representative democracy.
This concept of weighted representation warrants serious consideration as a path toward a more responsive and participatory government for all Connecticut residents.