The public has spoken.
And it didn’t even take a vote.
This afternoon, Westport’s registrars of voters released this statement:
In response to the press release issued on July 8, and after carefully considering the feedback and concerns expressed by members of the Westport community, the registrars of voters and town clerk have decided to return to the original polling places.
We appreciate the public’s engagement throughout this process. If you have any questions regarding this change, please contact the Registrars of Voters office at 203-341-1115 for additional information or clarification.
To be clear: The original polling places are the schools and Westport Library, used for decades according to Representative Town Meeting (RTM) districts. They’ll be open for the August 11 primary, and November 3 general election. The July 8 press release said that all polling places would be consolidated into one: Bedford Middle School.
Voters will once again return to familiar polling places, like the Westport Library …
… and PTAs will continue to run fundraising bake sales. (Photos/Dan Woog)
Wow! That was fast.
This is good news!
The people have spoken! When I read yesterday’s story about this it seemed more like a red state policy and nothing I’d expect to see in blue Westport.
I’m disappointed. It seems it would save a lot of money, and I trust the decision to consolidate was many with careful consideration of past voting patterns and the fact that nearly all Westporters have a car.
It’s unfortunate that they quickly capitulated in response to a small vocal minority. I had no issue with this change.
It’s unclear to me how driving to Bedford middle school was such a burden. I didn’t realize so many people never go more than a mile away from their homes — what a sheltered life, there’s so much to see in other parts of town! Please, venture across town and support the many business we have in town, beyond your precinct!
The town made a valid point about fewer people going to the polls now with early and mail-in voting, and this would have been a more cost-effective solution — which as a tax-payer, I greatly appreciated their fiscal responsibility. I hope they keep track of the additional costs & volunteer hours that this will now require so that we can re-visit this in the future with real data to combat the emotions behind this decision.
What exactly is going on? What’s behind all the press releases? Who’s making decisions like this? Is this how ALL failing democracies work now?
Times have changed, with the available of no excuse absentee voting and mail in voting, and early voting fewer people will be voting in person. The decision to cut back on the number of polling places was a commendable cost cutting decision.
unfortunate capitulation!
Why do you want to make it more difficult for people to vote?
I would have thought a more moderate outcome would be prudent. Fewer locations (4 for arguments sake) that allow closer to one’s home voting, a distribution of voters during peak hours, and still lower cost and volunteer need than the current setup. Seems like a all-or-nothing decision and one that swung back pretty quickly. Doesn’t instill high confidence in those who are making such decisions.
Not that I’m personally affected by it, but I’m glad they reversed their decision. Since leaving Westport in 1978 I’ve lived in eight other places from CT to CA and back. Every one of them used the same method of “vote at your closest elementary school and if that’s not convenient then you can always vote at the town hall.” My guess is that they were concerned that not enough people would be available to serve as election “proctors” and reducing the number of voting locations to one would ensure sufficient staffing.
The registrars work all year to ensure election integrity. They keep up with new laws and procedures from the Sec’y of the State’s office, such as early voting, and no excuse absentee ballots. Staffing for early voting has increased the cost to the town. There are cost efficiencies of doing it in one location, including staffing and election setup. Single location voting where voted ballots and results in one place makes sense. Voter questions may be answered quicker and there are enough poll workers at the single location to help voting run smoothly. The registrars made a good point that there is lower turnout at each polling place. I’m sure they’ve thoroughly examined the two systems from all angles. Aside from missing the tradition of yummy bake sales, I am in favor of the single polling place.
YES,YES ,& thank you for protecting universal suffrage.
Wow. Way to stand behind the analysis that led to your decision.
Hmmm … this is very interesting.
I thought the decision to have one polling place was well made — given that over 50% of voters either vote early (at the drop box at Town Hall) or by mail-in ballot. It was a cost saving and manpower reducing plan.
I’m sorry to see that they capitulated so quickly. It’s fairly common to have a vocal minority of complaints while the majority – who are ok with change – don’t see a need to say anything.
Thank you to the Registrar of Voters for listening to the voters.
I am sure that there are efficiencies to be made in the voting system but this decision, in light of all the other voter suppression actions taking place throughout the country just smacked of one more way to make voting just that little more difficult and was tone deaf for the times we live in.
I am sure that after the midterms and with plenty of time to discuss and debate ahead of 2028 some improvements can and will be made.
Maybe I haven’t had enough coffee yet today so just pondering, but had anyone considered where voters, en masse, would be able to park at that school’s comparatively small parking area? Is our town having difficulty paying election day poll workers even though elections occur infrequently, and if so, does that mean our town’s budget is strained and that would be an underlying reason to concentrate to one polling location?
I think if you ask most people who live close to their current polling place, you would find that it is anything but a “small vocal minority” who were concerned about this change that was dropped on voters, out of the blue.
I /am/ curious as to the cost of holding elections to our Town. I would think that having five open polling places is peanuts, in the context of our annual budget.
Beyond the simple challenges for some to get to the polling place, there is always a civic pleasure in seeing people gathering at our public schools to vote, parents using the community engagement to raise money for the PTA, and kids watching and gaining an appreciation for the election process.
I get that supporters of one party (which uses voter suppression as a strategy) are upset, but I don’t understand why this happened on the new First Selectman’s watch. More than anything else, it seems like a solution in search of a problem.