Legislature 2020

Special Session Election Bill – Safe and Reasonable

Last week the General Assembly passed and the Governor signed a bill to help deal with a flood of mail-in ballots with a special kicker for Bridgeport.

Our summary, its good, it could have been better, or a lot lot worse.

Testimony on three bills

Last Friday, provided testimony on three bills. As I said in my prepared remarks:

I oppose  S.B.365. As I testified last Friday, we humans have difficulty balancing risks and rewards. This is a case where the added risks outweigh the added convenience.

This bill, while well intended, would remove the valuable fraud detection mechanism of hand-signed absentee ballot applications.

I support  H.B.5414. The bill would have the Judiciary rather than the House or Senate rule on remedies to contested elections

The overall result of systems to adjudicate close elections, as our current system for Senator and Representative, is less trust in the system by the public and candidates.

I would support H.B.5404, IF it were Broadened and Corrected.

My written testimony contains a laundry list of issues such a Task Force should address.

I am concerned that this Task Force needs more time, a significant staff budget to handle all the issues, and also to reimburse experts to provide information, analysis, and suggestions to the committee, in order for there to be a thorough evaluation.

Four pieces of testimony on five bills

Last Friday, provided five pieces of testimony on six bills. As I said in my prepared remarks:

The context for my testimony on four bills is that humans are not good at accessing risks. We can focus excessively on minor, all but non-existent, risks. We often minimize rare catastrophic risks and ignore frequent familiar risks.

We also do a poor job of balancing risks and rewards.

This Friday I will be submitting three pieces of testimony on three more bills. The theme also applies to one of them.