Last Updated on August 19, 2026 by Matthew Hallock
New law bans law enforcement from polling sites // Told to provide security from 250’ away or face jail time // Police Commission: “Unbelievable risk to public safety.”
This Law Compromises Public Safety was the clear message from police officers and citizens concerning CT’s new Election-Related Crimes, PA 26-42 and -76, at the Fairfield Police Department (FPD) Commissioner’s recent meeting, staged to hear all voices and gauge the legislation’s real-world impact. Held in a compact, windowless room packed with decades of law enforcement experience and palpable with emotion, the new laws dictate police must remain 250 feet from polling locations. They generated condemnation from all quarters, as they have in other towns across CT. In Fairfield, vested parties tried to unpack and process the real-world ramifications, especially with Election Day in approx. 10 weeks on Tuesday, November 3. There was genuine anger that Democratic politicians in Hartford potentially impacted public safety by limiting the proximity of police on Election Day. Worse, by doing so, publicly implied that local cops were the cause of CT’s election integrity problems – and they alone could stop them from doing harm by restricting police at the voting premises. A deeper dive reveals the opposite to be true.
VOICES
FPD Chief Michael Paris emphasized that public safety is their top priority and this legislation inhibits their ability to serve the community. He shared parts of an “administrative guidance” memo from CT Secretary of State Stefanie Jones.
Police Commissioner Jamie Millington: “This is an unbelievable risk to public safety; it was rushed through on a party-line vote.“
State Rep. Sarah Keitt: “ICE is operating in CT. We want to stop them from the polling place.” (Speaking in the law’s defence)
Ken Astarita, candidate for State Representative: “Shouldn’t be looking to demonize them (police).”
Bob MacGuffie, author of The Seventh Crisis: “Needs to be repealed.”
The same concerns are echoing across the state, as documented in CT Democrats Restrict Police From Protecting Polling Places and New Connecticut election law creating confusion for local police.
This began as a bill from Democratic house leadership ostensibly to protect voters from the threat of federal agents (i.e., ICE) appearing at polling sites on election day. However, reporting shows that the Secretary of State’s office inserted the phrase “or by any state”, which changed the bills’ intent by expanding it to include the State Police and all local police departments. It now reads:
“No officer or agent of any organization or entity authorized by the federal government or by any state to use force against, search, detain or arrest individuals, and no person authorized by the federal government or by any state to order, bring, keep or have under such person’s authority or control any such officer or agent, shall knowingly be within two hundred fifty feet of any elections site…”
This exposes the Democratic party’s intent, as they dictate to the Secretary of State’s office. It raises troubling questions on how the SoS’ office inserted language regarding security and safety, when in fact the besieged Department of Elections is part of their vast portfolio. SoS would not insert such a major addition on their own. It was Democratic leadership’s technique to quietly insert the clause later, not when first introducing the bill.
It is now a weapon that confuses local law enforcement and explicitly threatens them with jail time. Worse, to professionals whose entire lives revolve protecting the community, it effectively casts them as the enemies of honest elections.
It’s clear that this attempt to eviscerate local authority is part of an ongoing effort to control CT elections. The Voice has published a series of articles detailing electoral misdeeds in multiple Fairfield County towns, with lists to CT Elections of unanswered questions.
This does not even count the videotaped incident of the Fairfield elections registrar initiating physical contact with a police officer who was escorting town attorney Ray Baldwin investigating absentee ballot fraud. Since then, the attorney was fired, the registrar unquestioned, and the suspect ballots uninvestigated. And it all comes in the wake of cops killed defending elections integrity and democracy during the POTUS-led insurrection on 1/6/21.
Picture a 250-foot circle around all polling locations and electoral drop boxes. Police must observe from the perimeter, and if they see a physical confrontation (more than a war of words), run the length of a football field to intercede. There are other strange provisions as well, like having to request access at least 24 hours in advance to the Secretary of State and Attorney General. If the authorities are going to take an enforcement action, for example arrest somebody, they have to alert the SoS or AG a day ahead of time. A local pollster can also revoke access. Violation of these ordinances is a felony with up to a 10-year jail sentence, making officers think about the ramifications vs. doing the right thing when in the field.
As for the ballots themselves, as police are not allowed on site, it raises questions on their chain of custody, especially in Fairfield where there is documentation of ballot malfeasance. What if ICE does show up to harass votes; or if someone – say a citizen with a bullhorn – takes a position at the front door? Anything could happen in any town in Connecticut, yet it has rendered itself defenseless.
As Election Day rapidly approaches, the disconnect between a legislative agenda and on-the-ground reality grows more acute. By compelling law enforcement to the periphery, the state has not only compromised public safety but has also reinforced the ongoing questions regarding its own integrity. It has also eroded trust in elected officials and unfairly shined an incriminating spotlight on local police. They must be able to do the job they have always done and that the public wants them to do.
