Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Ballot Errors topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clerical mapping error put 56 Bennington voters on wrong House ballot; committee hears revote options
Summary
A mapping error after 2022 reapportionment led 56 voters in parts of Pownall and neighboring towns to receive Bennington-5 ballots instead of Bennington-1; the Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee heard options including a full district revote, a partial revote, or affirming certified results.
The Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee on Jan. 14 heard from the Secretary of State’s elections office and the attorney general about an error that caused 56 voters in the Bennington-1 area to be assigned to the neighboring Bennington-5 ballot in both the 2022 and 2024 elections.
Committee chair opened the meeting by directing testimony and saying the panel would focus on the Bennington-1 election issue. Kevin Hartn Habert, Deputy Secretary of State, said the error arose after the 2022 redistricting under Act 89 of 2022 when a center line on a boundary road was used as the dividing line between Bennington-1 and Bennington-5 and was entered incorrectly into the state’s election management system. "We tried to guess what you folks might be thinking about, what questions you may have," Habert said, describing how town clerks use the statewide system and street maps to assign voters to districts.
Sean Sheehan, Director of Elections, explained how the misassignment affected ballots. He said the affected voters received ballots that matched the town-panel voter checklist in the system—meaning they got Bennington-5 ballots when the legislative maps placed them in Bennington-1—and that error persisted through the 2022 and 2024 elections. "That meant those impacted voters... received the other district's ballots for both the primary election and the general election in both 2022 and in 2024," Sheehan said. He told the committee the issue surfaced after the November 2024 election and that the local Board of Civil Authority (BCA) subsequently met and corrected the checklists.
Attorney General Charity Clark and Leslie Welch, assistant attorney general, summarized the AG office’s investigative report and the legal posture. Clark said the office received formal requests related to the contest: a revote petition filed by candidate Bruce Busa on Nov. 23, 2024; a petition from affected panel voters on Nov. 28, 2024; and requests from the Stamford and Deedsboro BCAs on Nov. 21 and Dec. 5, 2024. Clark told the committee the constitution gives the House authority to judge elections and decide remedies. "The constitution provides broad authority to you all to call a new election or accept the certified results," she said.
The factual numbers presented to the panel: certified results show Jonathan Cooper with 1,265 votes and Bruce Busa with 1,242 votes after a recount (a margin of 23 votes). The local BCA determined 56 voters had been placed on the wrong checklist; that number exceeds the 23-vote margin, which is why the error is consequential for the Bennington-1 seat. The AG’s report and attachments note some write-in activity on Bennington-5 ballots that appears to be for Bennington-1 candidates.
Officials described three principal remedies the House could consider: 1) a district-wide revote for Bennington-1 (a full mail ballot operation consistent with the 45-day universal mail window required by statute and with at least two weeks for ballot printing), 2) a partial revote targeted at the affected voters or affected town panels, or 3) affirming the certified winner. Secretary of State staff warned that a full district revote would likely delay final representation until late March and risk much lower turnout than a presidential-year general election. Sheehan noted logistical constraints tied to universal vote-by-mail rules, including UOCAVA military voter timelines.
Committee members asked for additional data the offices could provide, including how many of the 56 affected voters actually returned ballots (and whether any returned blank ballots), a breakdown of blank and write-in votes by district, and precinct-level details. AG staff and Secretary of State staff said they could provide those numbers but noted limits on matching ballots to named voters for ballot secrecy reasons.
The committee did not take a formal vote or issue a directive at the Jan. 14 session. Chair said the panel will hold further hearings and requested deeper follow-up from both the Secretary of State’s office and the attorney general. The committee plans additional one- to two-hour sessions over the next two weeks to gather more testimony and data before the House takes any formal action.
