But she did say language in Trump's EO "sounded similar" to "informants who passed along tips to the Gestapo with no evidence"...

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

Connecticut Secretary of State Stephanie Thomas was forced to address her recent inflammatory comments made at the Registrar of Voters Association of Connecticut (ROVAC) semi-annual conference last week.

Thomas issued one of those "I'm sorry if you were upset by what I said" kind of non-apologies, and then proceeded to explain and even defend her actions.

"You have my apologies if you felt personally attacked," wrote Thomas in the letter. "I can see how some Republicans thought my comments aimed at them, but they were not. They were aimed at policies."

She said her decision to speak up about the SAVE Act and Trump Executive Order was "a life choice, not a political one" and argued that the SAVE Act amounts to "bad policy."

She denied likening anyone to the "SS" but then agreed she shouldn't have said it.

She then bizarrely goes on to explain how she feels that the language in Trump's EO on election integrity reminded her of the language she had seen while traveling in Germany in "WWII and Stasi museums, concentration camps, Berlin Wall, etc." about "informal informants who passed along tips to the Gestapo with no evidence."

She also published an Op Ed on the SAVE Act on April 11th in the CT Examiner in which she argued, among other things, that registrars are not trained on how to verify documents that would prove a potential voter's citizenship.

You can read her full email to the Registrars below.

From: Browning, Lindsay
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 9:42 AM
Subject: ROVAC Follow-Up

Dear Registrars,

I have heard from many of you since the ROVAC conference!  Although most of the notes I've received have been positive - from both sides of the aisle - I have heard from three people who found my remarks "disappointing," "unprofessional," and "partisan."  If three people reached out, that means others are thinking it. I do not like to let things fester and would rather address them head-on.  So here goes:

I understand if my comments made you feel something that was not my intent.  Because it wasn't my intent, you have my apologies if you felt personally attacked.  That could not be further from my goal.  I do not look at this group as Republican and Democrat, I look at the group as election administrators.  I can see how some Republicans thought my comments aimed at them, but they were not. They were aimed at policies.

So what was my goal?  Two very simple things: 

1. If I think something is wrong, I speak up.  That is a life choice, not a political one.  You’ve seen this many times and never called it political before - when I said I would rather have no early voting than have it unfunded, when I fought for a shorter early voting period,  when I got the bonding released for new tabulators after being told we needed to wait, when I asked you all to sign on to a document about your integrity last cycle when there were many doubting it.  I think the SAVE Act and the EO are bad policy so I am educating people about both in case they haven't read the bill or order in detail.

2. Since the SAVE Act is still in the legislative process and the EO is facing so many legal challenges and far from settled, I wanted to talk about how it would impact Connecticut so you could do what you want about it.  Write the White House and say you love or hate it.  Write Congress and say it should pass or shouldn't or provide ideas to make it better policy.  I don't tell people what to think (I tell them what I think and ask them to make their own conclusions) or what to do, but I really, really hope that they WILL think and they WILL engage in civic engagement regardless of what side of the aisle. 

Those were my only goals.  Below, I would like to address some of the common themes of concern from the three writers because they are likely shared by others:

• My statements were characterized as "...a calculated, political act."  The most political thing for me to do would be to keep my mouth shut.  Why on earth would I purposely try to alienate half the room? Especially a closed room with only registrars?  That does me the very opposite of political good.  

• It was stated that ROVAC is an "Inappropriate place for a campaign style speech."  I'm not actually sure what that means.  Passionate?  I'm always passionate about #1 above, but perhaps this group just hasn't been on the receiving end before.  If you thought that was passionate, you should have been on the other side of the table during the conversation about town referenda being subject to early voting!  Or with those who said we had to have 14 days of early voting.

• It was questioned, "How do we work side by side with people who sat idly by while we were likened to the SS?"  Let me be very, very clear here. I was NOT likening any person to members of the SS and agree that I should have not said that.  It was hyperbolic.  I was not working from notes and the first thing that popped into my mind was something I've carried with me since taking a road trip through Germany several years ago.  I visited many WWII and Stasi museums, concentration camps, Berlin Wall, etc.  I was always struck by something I read there - about the large percentage of the population that were informal informants who passed along tips to the Gestapo with no evidence.  The language in the EO which requires the passing along of "suspects" to the DOJ sounded similar to me.  

• It was suggested that I have ruined years of registrars being able to work together on a bi-partisan basis.  I don't think I have that much power and hope that isn't true.  As I mentioned above, my remarks were about election administrators vs. sloppy policy writers and not Republicans vs. Democrats. 

• Someone who wasn't present told me they heard that I was, "naming names."  I'm not sure what that means, but I named no names.

• It was suggested, "The only appropriate comments on the laws should have been you giving us the resources to follow them as they are written. Your opinions on the laws were not relevant. Just like with EV, it didn't matter how we felt about the process, once it becomes law/statute/policy etc. our job is to preform our duties in compliance with that law/statute/policy."  This couldn't be further from what I see as my role or yours.  If that were true, I wouldn't still be trying to get money for the towns for early voting or reducing the days or switching to tabulators instead of envelopes.  And I hope you are doing the same.  What I've said again and again is that it would do nothing to tell ME of your complaints once the law passed.  I all but begged every one of you to testify before the law passed and to work with your own delegations since it passed to try to get the law changed.   Laws are not fixed for all time, but constantly being amended or tweaked.

My question at the conference was an honest one: if we have to enact this executive order by the end of the month, and the other provisions set for 90 and 120 days, I'm not sure how the towns would do it.  So far, our office has been cut $750,000 at the state level and last week the feds reduced HAVA funding so we've been cut another $738,000.  I will continue to push back on additional election reforms at this time due to the bandwidth issues of our office and your workload, whether it is Ranked Choice Voting or the SAVE Act.

Apologies for such a long email and I am sorry if some of you saw my comments as a personal attack.  I aim to be non-partisan in my work, but obviously failed in that last week.  I am human and will continue onward, doing my best.

Best,

Stephanie Thomas

Connecticut Secretary of the State

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