A Madison woman facing questions about her conduct in this week's election said she never intended to vote twice and was only testing the state's system when she took steps to obtain a second ballot at the polls.
At a press conference on Election Day, Deputy Secretary of the State Jennifer Barahona advised voters against trying to conduct independent tests of voting systems — a phenomenon she said was popping up on social media. Barahona provided few details, but pointed to a Nov. 1 incident that took place during the early voting period in Madison as an example.
“Attempting to test the system by voting twice is not a harmless experiment,” Barahona said. “Voting more than once is voter fraud and it is illegal.”
In Connecticut, voting more than once in the same election is a criminal offense and can result in a fine between $300 and $500, along with one to two years in prison and the loss of the right to vote.
Documents reviewed by Connecticut Public show the Madison incident involved voter Terri LaChance, a 65-year-old registered Democrat in the town.
Records show a town registrar contacted the Secretary of the State's Office to raise concerns about LaChance's actions at the polls.
A letter submitted by the registrar provides little information, but includes a brief statement attributed to LaChance. In it, LaChance says she wasn't going to vote twice, but decided to "see if it was possible" and "how far would I get if I tried."
LaChance later described what happened in an interview with Connecticut Public.
LaChance said that she had grown concerned about the security of the election system after seeing social media posts with claims of voting machines changing people’s votes.
Election experts and state officials have said such issues are usually caused by calibration problems or human error.
LaChance said after voting, she returned to her polling location on Nov. 1. and checked in to vote again.
LaChance said her license was scanned and a sticker printed out; she signed twice and was handed a ballot. LaChance said she then alerted an election worker that she had previously voted. She said she believes she would have been able to cast another vote if she hadn’t said something.
The Secretary of the State's Office has referred the incident to the State Elections Enforcement Commission for review.
“We understand that people want to know that our elections are safe and secure, so do we,” Barahona said at the Tuesday press conference. “But protecting the integrity of our elections is our job.”
Responding to questions about the incident, Matthew Clyburn, assistant director of communications for the office, said in a statement that state systems are designed to prevent double voting.
“When a voter casts a ballot during early voting, election officials record that the voter has voted in the statewide voter registration system,” Clyburn said. “That prevents the voter from voting again during early voting, by absentee ballot, or on election day.”
Alexander Russell, director of the University of Connecticut Center for Voting Technology Research, said each town also has a printed list that it uses to keep track of registered voters.
“There is a physical poll book,” he said. “People are crossed off in the poll book as they vote, and that's supposed to prevent someone from voting twice.”
The incident was one of at least two in Connecticut that raised concern about improper voting activity.
Records released by the Secretary of the State's Office show in October, a woman who local officials said is believed to have short-term memory issues checked in to vote two days after successfully voting early at the same location.
“I don’t believe she understood that she was in line to vote again or even if she remembered voting,” reads a document written by an election official.
The election worker who checked the woman in did not see that the Connecticut Voter Registration System showed she had already been issued a ballot, according to public documents. An early voting label was printed, the woman signed, and another ballot was issued and subsequently put into the tabulator.
At the end of the day, the tabulator counted one more ballot than the amount recorded in the early voting ballot report. Poll workers found that while the woman had signed a label for that day, her name was not on the report. Additionally, her record in the electronic registration system showed she had been issued a ballot two days prior.
Unable to adjust the tabulator count, the early voting moderator asked state officials for help.
State officials also referred the case to the State Elections Enforcement Commission, which is meeting next on Nov. 18. A SEEC representative said it cannot comment on any matter unless the commission opens an investigation.
