The responses to last November’s elections among election observers nationally and in Connecticut were generally celebratory because voter participation was higher than comparable elections in the past. But from a democracy point of view, this applause should be far more muted.

Here are some of the national actual turnout figures in the races that were most closely followed. In Virginia, 53.3%. In New Jersey, 54%. In New York, 39.9%. And in the California Proposition 50 election, the turnout was 47.1%. We would argue that these are far lower than a truly inclusive democracy should have.

And how about Connecticut? According to the Secretary of the State’s results for the municipal elections, the statewide participation rate was 36.4%. Should we be satisfied with those results? We absolutely think not.

Let’s dig deeper into several participating municipalities. New Britain – 30.6%, New London – 21.9%, East Hartford – 18.5%, Meriden – 26.2%. In Hartford, where there were no mayoral or council elections, but “only” school board races, the citywide turnout was 6.6%. These figures should offer us scant encouragement about the state of voter participation in Connecticut.

We believe we can do better, and that we have an obligation to explore ways to do so. Are there policies or practices in other states, or in other countries, that can dramatically improve participation? We believe there are, and we were close to having a way to explore them in last year’s legislative session.

A measure that would have created a task force to examine how Connecticut could reach close to 100% participation gathered strong support. Twenty-nine legislators co-sponsored the bill, and 15 organizations from around the state testified in support of the bill at the Government Administration and Elections Committee hearing. The bill passed the House but died on the Senate Calendar on the last day of the session. It deserves to be reconsidered and passed this coming year.

One of the features of the task force’s charge was to study jurisdictions where voting is a required civic duty. It turns out that there are 26 democratic countries around the world that use ‘universal voting.” Thirteen of them are our Latin American neighbors, from Mexico to Chile to Uruguay. Belgium was the first country to adopt universal voting, in 1893. A remarkable example is Australia, which adopted universal voting in 1924 and has had 90% turnout in every election since then. In its election last year, turnout among registered voters was 90.7%.

Australia’s 100 years of experience shows that when people are required to vote, the whole political culture benefits.

Participation increases dramatically, especially among lower-voting communities, and the voting electorate is far more representative of the population as a whole.
People pay more attention to elections, and everyone receives information. Institutions adapt to make the system work. A school superintendent is much more likely to emphasize civic education if every graduating senior is required to vote.
Polarization decreases when everyone votes.

Voter suppression efforts are far less effective since voting is mandatory, and because candidates and parties must appeal to everyone, the election process is more inclusive and representative of the majority. At least in Australia, election day is a celebratory holiday. Polling places are gathering places, complete with “democracy sausage” booths at every polling place.

Universal voting is beginning to be discussed more seriously in the United States as well. U.S. Rep. John Larson introduced a universal voting bill in Congress in 2023. At the state level, in addition to this bill, legislation to advance the idea of universal voting has been introduced in Washington State, Utah, New York, Massachusetts and Illinois. Notably, in Illinois, there are two bills currently being discussed in the legislature, sponsored by the Election Committee chairs in the House and the Senate. The legislation would simply declare that voting is a required civic duty for every citizen in the state. A broad coalition of community-based organizations has rallied to support the initiative.

There are certainly pros and cons to any policy that proposes changes to voting procedures, whether they come from other states or other countries. They also need to be studied and debated before adoption. That is exactly why task forces are created.

Connecticut will have another chance to advance this issue in the 2026 legislative session. We can be a leader in moving far closer to full participation. We urge the legislature to raise, debate, and pass this bill in the upcoming session.

State Rep. Hilda E. Santiago of Meriden represents District 84 and serves as Deputy Speaker Pro-Tempore in the House of Representatives. Miles Rapoport is the Executive Director of 100% Democracy. He served in the legislature and as Secretary of the State of Connecticut.