By CHRIS POWELL
Even the Trump administration hasn’t yet tried to mangle the criminal-justice system and civil liberties as much as a judge in Meriden Superior Court is trying to do. Where are Connecticut’s “No Kings” people when they’re needed close to home?
Housing achieves integration better than regional schools
Larson’s best case against Bronin is the flip side of the age issue
Yale’s new mission statement may be a little too pedestrian
In what seems unprecedented, at least outside of totalitarian jurisdictions, the judge, Maria del Pilar Gonzalez, has decided to empanel a jury in a murder case while concealing the identities of juror candidates from the defense and the public.
Judge Gonzalez isn’t doing it for fun. She aims to keep the defense and the public ignorant of juror identities because the prosecution has accused the defendant of conspiring to threaten jurors during his first prosecution for murder, which ended in a mistrial in 2024. The accusation arose from a statement given by a man who was imprisoned with the defendant, but the defendant has not yet been tried on the charge and there seems to be no evidence that any juror was threatened.
So with little evidence the judge presumes that the defendant is probably guilty of jury tampering and she wants to guard against it happening again.
But the judge would be wrong even if the defendant had tried to corrupt his first jury. For the identification of jurors to the defense and the public in criminal cases is basic to due process of law. Jurors must be screened against prejudice and improper motives, and they must be accountable for their service. That can’t be achieved if their identities and backgrounds are concealed when jury candidates are examined by the court. If Judge Gonzalez’s decision stands, the jury in the murder case she is trying could be rigged against the defendant and no one besides the judge and prosecutor might know.
If there is a credible threat to a jury’s integrity, the court can guard against it by other means, as by surveying jurors individually in private or even giving them police protection. Empaneling anonymous jurors compromises justice as much as threatening, blackmailing, or bribing jurors does.
The murder defendant’s lawyer has filed an emergency appeal with the state Supreme Court. Meanwhile Judge Gonzalez plans to continue selecting jurors without identifying them. The Supreme Court urgently should undo this secrecy rather than risk the time and expense of appeals that surely will follow a verdict rendered by an anonymous jury. It would be astonishing — and terrifying — if eventually a state or federal appeals court didn’t punt Judge Gonzalez’s decision back to medieval times.
* * *
A NEEDLESS EXPERIMENT: With Governor Lamont’s signature on the legislation last month, Connecticut began its experiment with what has been called “no-excuse absentee voting.” People now may vote by mail for simple convenience; they no longer need to assert a reason like illness, disability, religious observance, military service, or absence from the state.
The more absentee voting there is — the more that people are separated from the direct casting of their ballots, the more that people other than election workers handle their ballots — the greater will be the risk of election fraud. But the governor and General Assembly have decided that the risk is small and worth taking.
Another risk has gotten less consideration — the risk that opening tens of thousands of additional mailed ballots and running them through tabulation machines will delay the calculation and announcement of results and present opportunities for adjusting the results in political emergencies. Even now Hartford and Bridgeport, always the repositories of huge Democratic pluralities, seem unable to report their final results by dawn the day after the election.
With luck “no-excuse absentee voting” will start slow. People have to apply for absentee ballots in person at town hall or by mail, and then complete and mail the ballot, and for some people that may be more trouble than going to their polling places, especially since Connecticut now provides 14 days of early voting in person so Election Day crowds can be avoided. That’s all the convenience and security an election needs.
Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net)
Chris Powell column 
No excuse absentee balloting gives me the willies. Here’s a summary of what one might call mainstream thinking which seems based on the premise that a little fraud is acceptable as long as it doesn’t get out of control.
Me: Does “no excuse” absentee balloting delay counting? does it increase the likelihood of fraud?
ChatGPT: I’ll answer this as a general election-administration question, with Connecticut in mind where useful, and I’ll check current sources so I’m not relying on stale election-law details.Thought for 14s
Yes, no-excuse absentee balloting can delay final vote counts, but it does not have to delay them much. And it can create more opportunities for small-scale abuse, but the evidence does not show that it leads to widespread fraud when normal safeguards are used.
In Connecticut, this is now a live issue: voters approved the constitutional change in 2024, and Gov. Lamont signed legislation on May 19, 2026 allowing all eligible voters to use absentee ballots. Does it delay counting?
Usually, yes, somewhat. Absentee ballots take extra steps: verifying the voter, checking the envelope/signature or required identifiers, logging the ballot, separating it from the envelope, and then tabulating it. The Bipartisan Policy Center notes that mail ballots take additional time to process, verify, and count, so election-night totals may not include all mail ballots.
But the delay depends heavily on state rules. If election workers are allowed to pre-process absentee ballots before Election Day, the delay can be modest. If they must wait until Election Day, or if ballots can arrive after Election Day, close races may take longer. MIT Election Lab identifies timing of mail-ballot counting as one of the major administrative issues raised by expanded mail voting.
So the practical answer is: no-excuse absentee voting may slow unofficial results, especially in close races, but it should not delay final certified results if the system is staffed and designed well.Does it increase fraud?
Not in the “mass fraud” sense. Mail voting has more steps outside the polling place, so it can create opportunities for things like improper ballot collection, pressure on vulnerable voters, or forged applications/signatures. Connecticut has had a real example: the 2023 Bridgeport mayoral primary produced absentee-ballot fraud allegations, a court-ordered new primary, and later criminal charges.
But that is not the same as saying no-excuse absentee voting makes elections generally fraudulent. Nationally, no-excuse absentee voting is common; NCSL defines it as allowing any voter to request a mail ballot without giving an excuse, and many states use it. Security checks typically include ballot-request verification, unique ballot tracking, signature or ID checks, limits on double voting, and investigation of suspicious ballots.
The best summary is:
It increases volume, and volume increases administrative burden. Poorly run systems can have trouble. But the main proven risks are delay, voter mistakes, and occasional localized misconduct—not widespread fraud.
For Connecticut, I would be more worried about competent administration, staffing, clear ballot-tracking, strict rules on who may handle someone else’s ballot, and fast pre-processing than about no-excuse absentee voting by itself.
LikeLike