Borough Vote Raises Legal Questions

By John Voket

The action of one local citizen seeking political office in the Borough of Newtown has opened a can of worms that has one Newtown Registrar of Voters demanding borough officials seek at least two charter changes, and inspiring debate among the entire legal staff at the Connecticut Secretary of the State’s Legislation and Election Enforcement Administration Division.

The issue stems from centuries-old language in the Borough Charter that states eligible voters must continuously reside in the borough for a period of six months preceding an election or any borough meetings, including, apparently, the annual budget. Another section of the same charter stipulates that elections for office holders in the borough must be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May.

According to Democrat Registrar of Voters LeReine Frampton, she believes the former charter requirement violates an April 1972 Supreme Court ruling that states minimum residency requirements as a condition of voter eligibility are unconstitutional. The latter charter mandate, Ms Frampton said, violates state election law that states elections must be held on the first Monday in May, not the following Tuesday.

Ms Frampton is concerned that her office’s continuing partnership with the borough, as administrators of borough elections, might set the Town of Newtown up for an elections enforcement investigation if the borough fails to act to revise those charter stipulations in a timely manner.

The legal staff at the secretary of the state’s office is looking into whether the Newtown registrars can recuse themselves from involvement in borough elections activities if the charter is not brought in line with state and federal laws.

Attorney Bernard Liu of the secretary of the state’s office said Thursday that the subjects have inspired a “lengthy legal debate,” among the attorneys in his office. But he said that he was not inclined, pending verification of some details, to compel the Newtown registrars, “to do something that is illegal.”

All of these gyrations were inadvertently initiated on Election Day, May 2, because the borough warden, the ranking municipal leader, faced a challenge candidate for the first time since the Supreme Court decision was handed down. Warden Joan Crick, who has served as warden for 16 years, was challenged by borough resident Victor Krochta.

On Election Day, Ms Frampton sought the opinion of secretary of the state’s legal experts via a fax, which was obtained by The Bee late Wednesday. In that memo, Ms Frampton writes, “I am still anxiously awaiting the decision of the six month requirement on our Borough’s Charter. It has come to my attention (yesterday) that the charter reads ‘…shall hereafter have continuously resided within the limits of the borough for the period of six months…,’ [which] raises some questions:

“The attorney for the borough wants me to use a challenge ballot. He claims a bona fide residence in the borough is one that has been occupied for six months. I say that a residence is a place not a person, so I cannot legally use a challenge ballot,” she wrote.

Ms Frampton further questioned whether a person living elsewhere during the winter season can be allowed to vote in the election under the six-month rule, since they would not meet the continuously resided section.

“If we are going to enforce the six-month rule, shouldn’t we have to enforce the continuously section as well?” she asked.

In a memo to Ms Frampton from borough attorney Donald A. Mitchell, he states that her issue can be resolved for this election by reference to Section 5 of the borough charter, which is detailed above. A second note from Mr Mitchell states, “We’ll address the substantive issues after the election when there is some time for reflection.”

Ms Frampton said that the issue may be resolved through a charter revision. She would also like to see such a revision address the conflict between its Election Day stipulation of Tuesday, and the state election law, which stipulates elections be held on a Monday.

Further compounding the confusion was a single paragraph decision from Mr Liu’s office stating: “As you are probably aware, interpretations of town charters are mostly left to the borough attorney. Our office seldom interferes with this interpretation.”

Mr Liu also provided an interpretation of a “bona fide” residence issued by the secretary of the state’s office some years ago. “Your town attorney may choose to ignore this at his peril, or may choose to ignore the town charter at his peril. The decision is ultimately his.”

Contacted at his office Wednesday, Mr Mitchell stated that it was his responsibility to advise the borough, and that the question has not been resolved at this point.

Mr Mitchell did clarify that, in his opinion, the charter is a special act of the Connecticut legislature, and as such it cannot be changed by a local charter revision.

“It would require legislative action to change the borough charter,” he said.

Contacted at her home Thursday morning, Borough Warden Crick said she did not have too much to say about the issue.

“That charter is very old,” Ms Crick said. “I’m sure there are other areas that need to be looked at as well.”

Ms Crick said she was not aware before the Election Day that elections were being held in violation of the borough’s own charter. Asked whether the concerns would prompt her to recommend seating a charter revision panel, she said she would have to think about it.

Reached at his home, Mr Krochta said that he had grown increasingly concerned in the days following the election after hearing a number of people were refused the right to vote. But he was unsure about whether concerns about residency were behind the refusal.

“I always have pushed the concept of everyone registering and exercising their right to vote,” Mr Krochta said. “[These issues] provide further reasons why the borough should bring its government into the 21st Century.”

Mr Krochta said these latest developments may motivate him to circulate petitions forcing a special referendum among borough residents over possibly dissolving the borough government. He speculated about whether or not the registrars potential recusal from borough election activities pending a charter revision would delay residents’ opportunity to endorse and conduct a special referendum.

“This is probably another reason why maybe we should give this one square mile area in the middle of our town back to the entire town,” Mr Krochta said.