The numbers just weren’t there.
That’s the final verdict on the special referendum vote to amend the town of Orange’s charter.
{{more}}
According to the most recent voter rolls, the town has 10,640 registered voters. Connecticut General Statute 7-191(f) stipulates that charter revisions voted on in a special election or referendum must have participation by at least 15 percent of the town’s registered voters.
For the charter revisions to pass, 1,596 people needed to vote. The referendum questions, between those who voted yes, no or checked-in but didn’t cast a vote for the question, had a turnout of 1,349.
Numbers for the budget vote, held as question one on the same ballot, show 1,350 people voted yes, no or checked in but did not cast a vote. Town Clerk Pat O’Sullivan said he couldn’t speculate on why that one question had one more count of voter participation than everything else on the ballot.
Regardless, the referendum question failed to pass due to a lack of nearly 250 voters at the polls.
Efforts to get residents out to vote included campaigns by several departments and running notices and copies of the proposed changes in area newspapers, including The Orange Times who printed it as a special section insert for Orange residents.
Even the registrars tried to make sure the numbers were as favorable as possible.
“They were working to condense and consolidate the voter registration list by making sure to take off people who had died or moved away,” said O’Sullivan.
Individually, everything on the ballot passed in terms of voter approval. The closest to a general “no” vote was on question four, which dealt with changing the definition of a quorum for the purposes of town meetings from 100 taxpayers to “those present.” It received 874 yes votes to 460 no votes, with 15 people not casting a vote on that question.
By comparison, question two proposed setting the elected terms of the First Selectman, Board of Selectmen, Tax Collector, Town Clerk, Registrar of Voters and Constables from two year terms to four year terms. Voters approved the change 1,013 to 329 with 7 abstentions.
However, without hitting the 1,596 mark none of it matters with the exception of the budget vote. As that was not part of the charter revision it was not governed by the state statute. Part of the reason for having it on the same ballot with the charter questions was a hope by town officials that the budget would draw more people to the polls.
Even typographical, grammatical and linguistic changes to the charter can’t be made due to the lack of turnout, despite being approved 1,234 votes to 105 with 10 abstentions.
Orange voters approved the budget starting on July 1, 2017 for the fiscal year by a vote of 1,133 to 206, with 11 abstentions.
All final numbers included the 50 absentee ballots O’Sullivan’s office received.
There remains an ounce of hope for the revisions though. As the state statute’s 15 percent rule does not seem to apply to a general November vote and election, the questions could return at that time and pass or fail simply on the virtue of the votes cast despite turnout.
However, by waiting until November, aspects of the revision could pass but be delayed in implementation. Primarily that would affect changes to elected terms as proposed in the revisions, as they could be approved but unable to implement until the next election cycle.
At the time of writing, it is unclear if the town will attempt the November option in 2017.