On today's edition of "As the State Turns", we address yet another scandal in Connecticut politics. This one has to do with elections, the first selectwoman of the Town of Fairfield, and that town's Registrars of Voters.
Recently, information has come to light questioning First Selectwoman Brenda Kupchick's role in the control of equipment used to tabulate votes at elections. The Democrats claim that following a state-wide primary, Kupchick abused her authority by illegally "(seizing) control of the storage facility where...election tabulators, memory cards, and ballots are stored" (1).
In her defense, the first selectwoman has argued that her actions were allowed by law, and needed to protect the vote. On the Fairfield Patch website, she explained that as part of election operations, the Democratic registrar took several actions that threatened vote security;
"It was reported on July 23 that the Democratic Registrar was, on his own, against state statute and over a weekend, going to the portables where the tabulators were stored, where he unilaterally set up 12 tabulators with only Democratic ballots in advance of the August 9th primary"
- First Selectwoman Kupchick (2)
Kupchick also claimed that the Democrat deleted a large number of files regarding the election from the town's official website;
"A postcard was created to send to voters to ensure they knew where to vote. The post cards had a QR code on the postcard to make it easier for residents to pull up the website to find their polling location.
After first attempting to halt production of the postcard with the vendor, Democratic Registrar (Matt) Waggner deleted a large number of records, files and pages on the Town’s ROV website, including the QR linked page, 'Where Do I Vote?'. Waggner’s actions were in clear violation of state statute and the Town’s technology policy".
To this, Mr. Waggner has remarked that the allegations made against him are "entirely false". Let's examine his version of events, and do a bit of "fact checking" (3).
Statement I –
"It is not a violation of statutes for the tabulators (voting machines) to be set up over a weekend, nor for each party to set up tabulators separately for each primary".
- Registrar Waggner
Truth Rating: True. General Statutes on this matter (Title 9, Chapter 147, Section 9-247) say only that tabulators shall be prepared and tested "before the day of the election", and operable "not later than one hour prior to the opening of the polling place". They do not address the specific time frame in which such devices must be set up (4).
Statement II –
"I proposed the polling place notice postcard in our FY23 budget, designed and provided it to my fellow Registrar for his approval on July 11th, and finalized the production details with the printer on July 15th. The reason it had not arrived by August 1st was that the First Selectwoman personally intervened to stop production because she did not want it to be sent to every address in Fairfield, and to modify the postcard, violating her own office’s policy requiring mailings be approved by both Registrars".
Truth Rating: Unclear. There isn't enough information to prove whether the statement that "the First Selectwoman personally intervened to stop production" of the postcard is truthful or not.
Statement III –
"When I called the printer to see if changes had been made, they confirmed it had, and that it had already been printed and was on the way to be delivered. I did not ask for production or delivery to be stopped, nor was it".
Truth Rating: Unclear. Again, more information/proof as to the truth of this statement is needed.
Statement IV –
"When I consulted with the town webmaster, I was advised that the Chief of Staff had directed her to remove the list I had published of the polling places that had been approved by the RTM (incidentally, on the 'Where Do I Vote' page they accuse me of deleting)"
"The 'Where Do I Vote' page was not removed by me or anyone else at any time".
Truth Rating: Mostly False. In his statement, Mr. Waggner admits that the page in question was indeed removed (albeit not by himself, but the town webmaster).
According to the first selectwoman, the webmaster "confirmed in the system that (registrar Waggner) did in fact delete these pages and files"
If this is so, then it brings up another set of questions. What kind of access to the voting system did Mr. Waggner possess? Why did the registrar delete the associated files? And what authority, if any, did he have to make these deletions? Can the Democrats explain what is happening here?
Statement V –
"I can provide the documents where the state tells us Registrars are separately responsible for setting up tabulators for their party’s primary, where I was the person who ordered the print job that Kupchick says I tried to stop, and showing that the webpages Kupchick says I deleted were not deleted".
As to this claim, I cannot give it a truth rating, or conclusively determine the accuracy of the statement. I can only say that if Mr. Waggner is in possession of documents that prove his innocence in this matter, he should produce them immediately.
To quote Cuba Gooding Jr. in "Jerry Maguire", "show me the money". Either put up or shut up; the voters of Fairfield deserve no less (5).
So what's going on in this latest "he said-she said" involving Connecticut politics? Is the Democratic Party attempting yet another instance of "distract, deflect, and deny"? And what impact will this latest scandal have on statewide polls? The only way to know is to "be with us for the next episode of 'As the State Turns'!"
