In the lead up to most elections in Hartford, various entities — libraries, churches, etc. — provide opportunities for citizens to learn more about the candidates and the issues. This year was marked by an initial absence of forums based on the assumption that four candidates running for four spaces means that there is no contest, and possibly, no reason to learn about the candidates. Real Hartford has gotten reports of voters being told they had to vote for four Board of Education candidates when the truth is that a person could vote for anywhere from zero to four candidates.
When it came time to understanding the ballot questions, even less effort went into translating the legalese into standard American English. The one public forum we heard of which was designed to explain these complicated questions was poorly promoted; the event was not listed on the venue’s website. We received reports yesterday that a person working at City Hall was allegedly part of the problem of misinformation. Few knew that ‘yes’ votes on two of the ballot questions would change nothing unless the State changed policy or essentially granted permission for the city to move forward on those items.
So, with the relative absence of information combined with voters who admitted to not doing their homework, there’s no surprise that voter turnout was astoundingly low, or that there was no consensus across districts on the ballot questions, according to the unofficial election results:
Unofficial Election Results in Hartford 2013
The unofficial numbers show some districts being on the fence. The unofficial totals are far from any kind of mandate: 928 voting to adopt the revisions to the charter is not significantly less than the 1092 who do not want.
The third ballot question — changing how the Registrars of Voters are placed in power (move from elected to appointed) and also requiring better training of what could be only one Registrar of Voter — also showed voters to be divided. The need for more professional training has not been widely disputed, but it has also not been the focus of community conversations and media pieces about this question.
Instead, this very real need has been lumped in with a more controversial and confusing question: if the State changes its policy about partisan representation, could Hartford do the same, making it possible to have one, rather than three, Registrars of Voters. Some voters have favored this, thinking it is a way to push out the Working Families Party, which has been earning more votes than the Republican Party in Hartford’s local elections in recent years. It is appealing to pay only one person instead of three. Others have seen this as an empty gesture, convinced that we would still be “stuck” with a Democratic Registrar of Voters. It’s not the number or party affiliation of the Registrars of Voters that’s the problem, others have said; it’s the incompetence of all of them.
There was a bit less division when it came to whether or not the City Council should have to apply to the SEEC to create a local public campaign financing program.
From the numbers, it’s clear that hundreds were voting for candidates but skipped the ballot questions entirely.
