Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram

Linda Szynkowicz walked into the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) on Tuesday with a 3-inch binder, a 33-page notarized affidavit, and a thumb drive she says holds thousands of pages of voter-roll evidence.

Two people came downstairs to meet her — one of them an attorney. She told them she was filing a complaint and would wait until the complaint was stamped received before leaving. About 15 minutes later an attorney and an investigator whom she met with a month ago appeared. They has been very helpful in answering questions concerning CT Statutes related to college students registering and voting in the upcoming elections, along with college governances of political paraphernalia on college campuses to help ensure legal compliances. That meeting was intended to help reduce the number of complaints SEEC might receive in November by proactively having accurate information. Szynkowicz was handed the date and time stamped document acknowledging her complaint as received.

That is how Connecticut’s latest election-integrity fight arrived at 55 Farmington Avenue — not as a press conference, but as a stack of paper naming the Registrars of Voters in every one of the state’s 169 towns.

Fight Voter Fraud, Inc., the Middletown-based 501(c)(4) Szynkowicz founded, announced the next day that it had filed an Affidavit of Complaint with SEEC alleging “systemic failures” by municipal registrars to keep voter lists current under state law and the federal floor set by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The group has sent the same package to the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and to Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon. The complaint was sworn September 22 before notary Steven Powers and stamped received by SEEC that morning.

“Connecticut voters deserve accurate rolls and registrars who follow the law. We have raised these exact problems with state officials since 2023, and in some cases, they have acknowledged the problems directly to us — yet most of the errors remain uncorrected. That is why we are asking SEEC to investigate,” Szynkowicz said in the group’s release.

How it got filed

Szynkowicz told the Connecticut Centinal the filing was not her idea. She said she had already told SEEC staff — she named Atty. Josh Foley — that registrars were violating HAVA and the NVRA. His response, as she recounted it: if they were violating the law, she should file a complaint. She said he also told her that if the conduct she alleged were true, it would be dereliction of duty. She did indicate that she would and it would have to name all 169 towns, two registrars each, 338 offices—Atty. Foley appeared surprised, probably thinking it was only a few of the elected officials not doing their sworn duty.

She took that as an invitation. She emailed him after she filed the complaint to say she had done what they discussed, and that she filed with SEEC and DOJ at the same time because, in her words, he encouraged her to.

The complaint is not a carbon copy of last year’s case. SEEC docketed her prior filing as File No. 2025-037, acknowledged it June 25, 2025, and closed it July 2, 2025, with a letter saying the Commission “made a determination that it was not necessary to investigate.” A side note is that the DOJ was also given a copy of the same evidence for complaint No. 2025-037 and when they were shown the letter from the SEEC saying it was unnecessary to investigate, the comment was “With all that evidence?!” according to Szynkowicz.

This new affidavit is aimed at the registrars themselves, not the Secretary of the State’s reporting duties. It uses a July 1, 2026 extract from the Statewide Centralized Voter Registration System (CVRS) — data that did not exist when 2025-037 was shut. And it adds a data-integrity claim that was not in the earlier file: placeholder dates of birth and registration still sitting on the official rolls.

What the press release says

FVF’s announcement is blunt. Years of notice to registrars and to Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas, it says, have not produced routine list maintenance. The group alleges that pattern is “willful and material neglect of duty” under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-190c — the statute that lets SEEC investigate a registrar for misconduct, willful neglect, or incompetence and, if warranted, refer the matter to the Attorney General for removal in Superior Court.

That is the remedy Szynkowicz is asking for. In the interview she put it more plainly: if the neglect is willful, the statute says they lose their jobs. She's not asking for all of the registrars in the state to lose their jobs. She wants the data to be corrected.

What's in the affidavit

The complaint runs five counts.

• Count I alleges towns failed to complete the annual canvass required between January 1 and May 1 under § 9-32, and failed to move electors who have not voted in two consecutive federal elections onto the inactive list under § 9-35(e).

• Count II alleges names that have already sat on the inactive list for four years were not removed, as the same statute requires.

• Count III is the placeholder problem. § 9-23(b) requires registrars to enter each elector’s real date of birth and date of admission. FVF says the July 1, 2026 CVRS extract still shows records with date of birth entered as January 1, 1900 and date of registration entered as January 1, 1800. Those are not birthdays. They are dummy values. The group’s August 2, 2024 letter to Thomas — attached as Exhibit E — put the 1800 registration-date count at 1,205 at that time, down from 1,414 after earlier notices. “Fixing 209 issues does not resolve the systemic problem,” that letter said.

• Count IV is duplicates. § 9-35(b)(3) and HAVA both require elimination of duplicate names. FVF notified the Secretary in 2024 of an analysis alleging about 4,897 people with more than one active registration, some of whom it alleged voted more than once. Thomas’s June 24, 2024 reply, attached as Exhibit D, did not concede double voting. It said her office lacks authority to investigate those allegations, that jurisdiction sits with SEEC, that she had referred the packet to the Commission, and that each town’s registrars — not her office — are “exclusively responsible for the data in the system.” FVF’s complaint treats that referral-and-hand-off as proof the defect was known and left sitting.

• Count V alleges registrars have not completed mandatory certification and annual training under § 9-192a, and have not filed the canvass certificates required by § 9-32. FVF’s October 31, 2024 letter to every mayor, first selectman, and town manager — Exhibit F — followed FOIA requests for appointment dates, certification, education hours, and the ED-362 canvass form. The group’s own 2024 review, later written up as “Registrars of Voters: Ignoring Laws and Ghosting FOIA Requests,” claimed 110 registrars were not certified, 49 of them outside the two-year grace period; 63 towns ignored education-hour requests; and only 29 towns were fully compliant on the statutes and the FOIA response.

The complaint also attaches year-over-year roll comparisons labeled Exhibit B. On those spreadsheets FVF marks large blocks of “active” records with no voting date, default registration dates, and “should be off / should be inactive” totals in the tens and hundreds of thousands. Those figures are the group’s analysis of Secretary of the State voter-file extracts, not a SEEC finding. The affidavit says the raw voter-file itself is not reprinted in the body of the complaint but will be produced on request. The detailed information has been provided in the evidence on the thumb drive provided.

The paper trail they say officials already saw

The chronology in the affidavit is the part that matters for the “willful” element of § 9-190c. FVF lists NCOA challenge letters to registrars in March 2024 — Exhibit C is a Greenwich sample claiming roughly 11,000 Connecticut names flagged as having moved. Then Thomas’s June 24, 2024 letter. Then the August 2, 2024 statutory-violation letter. Then the October 31, 2024 blast to all 169 chief executives. Then the November 22, 2024 coverage of the FOIA fight. Then SEEC’s 2025 close-out. Then an early-December 2025 hand-delivery to Thomas of a 15-point memo titled “Observations and Solutions for Election Integrity and Accurate Voter Rolls.” Szynkowicz writes that the Secretary agreed with about 90 percent of it and that, as of this filing, the agreed items had not been implemented.

That is the argument in one sentence: not that nobody ever heard of dirty rolls, but that they were told, in writing, for years, and the placeholders and stale actives are still there.

What this is — and what it is not

SEEC has authority under § 9-7b to investigate sworn complaints alleging Title 9 violations. It also has a history with this complainant. After 2020, the Commission publicly rebuked earlier FVF filings as poorly researched and a drain on staff time. File 2025-037 was closed without investigation. Thomas has said allegations are not evidence and that her office already maintains the statewide system while towns maintain their own lists. None of that is a ruling on the July 1, 2026 extract. It is the record this new filing has to beat.

Szynkowicz is not waiting for Hartford.

She is used to having media and other combatants, without speaking to her, use other people to dispel the work that FVF, Inc. has done. ”We are transparent with our data and complaints,” Szynkowicz said. She does acknowledge she made a mistake six years ago when filing a complaint against 56 felons when she mixed up parole and probation – only being correct on 21. “Since then, we make sure to double check and triple check our findings,” she assured the Centinal. She copied DOJ Civil Rights and said the same complaint is going to Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon. And she is using SEEC’s own July 2, 2025 “investigation not necessary” letter as an exhibit—the state’s last refusal, attached to the next demand.

Whether 338 registrar offices are in willful neglect is now SEEC’s problem, or DOJ’s, or both. The rolls either have January 1, 1800 registration dates and four-year inactive names still hanging on the active list, or they do not. That is a data question. The statute already says what happens if the answer is yes and nobody fixed it after notice.

Read the full Complaint PDF / FVF release: https://www.fightvoterfraud.org/s/Scan138888.pdf

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!'