Little support for inmate voting complaints that go before SEEC today

May 5—An organization called Fight Voter Fraud Inc. put out a news release last month saying its research indicated that 56 incarcerated felons had voted illegally in the 2020 election in Connecticut.

The organization filed a separate complaint with the State Elections Enforcement Commission about each inmate, and a number of those complaints are on the agenda of the commission's meeting today.

Through a freedom-of-information request to the SEEC, the Journal Inquirer obtained seven of the complaints, with all the supporting material submitted by Fight Voter Fraud.

The JI's examination of the complaints shows that only two present a serious possibility of violations of Connecticut's laws on voting by inmates.

INMATE VOTING

ILLEGAL: When serving prison time for a felony.

LEGAL: When serving time for a misdemeanor or when incarcerated due to failure to post bond in any criminal case.

RESTORATION: A felon can register and vote again after being released from prison, completing any period of parole, and paying any fines stemming from the felony conviction. If the felony was election-related, the person also must have completed any period of probation.

RESIDENCE: Secretary of the state's office says inmates can't use the prison as a voting address. They have to register in the town they plan to live in after release, even if they lack an address there.

Those two cases involve inmates who used the prisons they are being held in as their voting address — James Rodney Ireland, 56, who voted in November from the MacDougall Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield and Michael R. Hollerbach, 49, who voted at the Bridgeport Correctional Center.

Under state law, no one loses residence in a town because he is in a state institution somewhere else.

The secretary of the state's office, which oversees elections in Connecticut, maintains that inmates can't use a prison as a voting address, even if they have no other address.

"In order to reside somewhere a voter must have the intent to remain where he is or to return to where he isn't — in either case, because he is being held against his will, the intent is lacking," explained Gabe Rosenberg, the office's general counsel, referring to inmates.

Rosenberg also explained in an email to the Journal Inquirer that an inmate without a permanent address can register to vote in his last town of residence, like any other homeless person.

All could vote

Despite the town-of-residence issues, the documents examined by the JI don't indicate that any of the seven inmates shouldn't have voted at all last November. Several of the cases demonstrate, however, that it is possible to vote legally in Connecticut despite having been in a great deal of legal trouble.

Under Connecticut law, a person loses the right to vote when he is imprisoned here or in any other jurisdiction in the United States after conviction of a felony, a crime carrying a maximum sentence of more than a year. After being released from prison, the person can regain the right to vote when he has completed any period of parole and, if the conviction is federal or from another state, paid all fines.

Inmates who can vote legally include those who are in prison because they can't post bond in a pending case or because they are serving prison sentences for misdemeanors, crimes carrying up to a year in prison. The inmate must have no parole obligations outstanding from a previous felony conviction, however.

Legal voters also include people who are free on bond while a criminal case is pending and people who are on probation, which is different from parole, unless their conviction was for an election-related felony.

Linda Szynkowicz of Middletown, the founder and CEO of Fight Voter Fraud, said last week that she didn't know whether some of the group's complaints may be incorrect because of issues such as the difference between parole and probation and whether the inmate has been convicted of a felony.

"What we filed is what we stand behind at this time," she said.

In the seven cases examined by the JI, only one inmate — Alan James Stencel, 53, of Plainfield — is serving a felony sentence. His prison term is three years for his third driving-while-intoxicated conviction within 10 years and for driving while his license was suspended for a previous, similar DWI.

Convictions after election

Online court records show, however, that Stencel's convictions occurred Dec. 4, about a month after the election. Records indicate that Stencel was in prison at the time of the election, but he would have been held in lieu of bond, which wouldn't interfere with his right to vote.

Stencel has three previous felony convictions in the last 10 years, but none of them would have qualified him for parole, which requires a prison sentence of more than two years.

The bottom line: Stencel's past convictions didn't interfere with his right to vote last November.

Another inmate who has been in and out of prison in recent years — but appears to have voted legally in November's election — is Branden D. Huertas, 39, of Bridgeport.

Huertas is being held at the Bridgeport Correctional Center on more than $500,000 bond while facing five state cases, four involving felony charges that range from drug and gun offenses to misdemeanor assaults and violating court orders.

He has only one state conviction in the last 10 years, which ended in an "unconditional discharge," meaning no punishment. But he pleaded guilty last month to federal drug and gun offenses and has served federal prison sentences in two felony cases in recent years, for possessing a gun after being convicted of a felony and escaping from a Waterbury halfway house.

Neither of Huertas' past federal prison terms would have been running at the time of last November's election. There is no parole in the federal system, and court records don't indicate that he was fined in either past federal case, meaning that there was nothing to keep him from voting legally last November.

Simpler cases

The other cases examined by the JI are more straightforward:

—Lindon W. Shaw, 52, is being held in lieu of $150,000 bond in two cases filed by Stamford police, both including felony charges, according to online judicial records. But those same records show that his only two Connecticut convictions in the last 10 years were for misdemeanors, meaning there was nothing to keep him from voting legally.

—Tynisha Leona Hall, 39, of Bridgeport, is being held in lieu of $250,000 bond while facing charges that include murder. But online judicial records show no convictions for her in the last decade, leaving her free to vote.

—Anthony David Falzone, 28, of Norwich, is being held in lieu of $290,500 bond in six cases, one of which includes a second-degree manslaughter charge. But the online records show his only two convictions in the last 10 years were for misdemeanors, meaning that there is nothing to prevent him from voting legally.

—Although there is a question about the legality of Hollerbach's vote as a resident of the Bridgeport Correctional Center, online judicial records show no convictions for him in the last decade, meaning there is no apparent reason he couldn't have voted legally in November. He is being held in lieu of $145,050 bond in seven cases filed by Norwalk police, most involving drug charges but two involving burglary charges.

—Despite the questions about the legality of Ireland's use of MacDougall Walker as his voting address, the online records show no convictions for him in the last decade, leaving him free to vote. He is being held in lieu of less than $1,500 bond in three cases filed by Waterbury police, all involving felony drug charges and one involving felony gun charges as well.

Correction: An earlier version of this story said incorrectly that, to have voting rights restored, a person must have paid all fines stemming from a past felony conviction. As the story above reports, that requirement applies only to federal and out-of-state felony convictions, not to Connecticut convictions.

For updates on Glastonbury, and recent crime and courts coverage in North-Central Connecticut, follow Alex Wood on Twitter: @AlexWoodJI1, Facebook: Alex Wood, and Instagram: @AlexWoodJI.