Let us consider doing for Elections what we have done for Probate

CTMirror: A turnaround for the fiscally troubled probate courts <read>

We particularly note from the article:

On the heels of a major consolidation, Connecticut’s probate court system will end a year in the black for the first time in six fiscal years later this month, reducing its reliance on the General Fund and returning more than $5 million to the state’s coffers…

One of the oldest probate courts systems in the nation with roots dating back over 300 years, the Connecticut courts underwent a dramatic restructuring in January to reverse growing financial woes…

“The first point of the whole reorganization was to stem the hemorrhaging once we abandoned the idea that the courts could pay entirely for themselves,” said Rep. Robert Godfrey, D-Danbury, who spearheaded the reform effort that took two years to move through the legislature. “The fact that it happened was a miracle.”

As we said in 2nd comment on the CTNewsJunkie article:

The legislature should be considering doing for our elections what we have done for probate. We have 169 towns, each with at least two elected registrars of voters. Consolidation, if done appropriately, could yield decreased costs, increased professionalism, increased convenience, increased integrity, and confidence.

I am not the 1st to suggest this, lets hope that our legislature is not the last to consider it.

There are several ways this could be accomplished. Regionalization of dual elected registrars is one. Another way, which I would favor, would be regional professional, civil service, directors responsible for voting, perhaps with local registrars elected and paid a small stipend to watch out for the integrity interests of municipalities, voters, and parties. No matter how it is strutured it can be done well or poorly.  The current system is inefficient and has proven problematic both in small towns and in large cities.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.