Madison voter Terri Lachance referred for review after attempted second vote

The Madison Voter Who Tried to Beat the System

When Terri LaChance walked back into her Madison polling place on November 1, she wasn’t looking to cast a second vote. Instead, the 65-year-old registered Democrat wanted to see if the state’s election security protocols were as airtight as officials claimed. After scanning her license, signing the books, and receiving a ballot, she stopped. She alerted an election worker to the fact that she had already voted, effectively ending her experiment before she could mark a second choice.

What LaChance described as a test of the system, state officials are labeling a criminal offense. Connecticut law is clear on this: casting or attempting to cast more than one ballot in a single election is a form of voter fraud. It is a crime that carries a potential sentence of one to two years in prison, fines between $300 and $500, and the forfeiture of voting rights. As reported by Connecticut Public, the incident has since been referred to the State Elections Enforcement Commission for review.

The Mechanics of Election Security

The state’s defense of its system rests on layers of redundancy. According to Matthew Clyburn, assistant director of communications for the Secretary of the State’s Office, the electronic voter registration system is designed to trigger an immediate alert if a voter attempts to check in twice. Once a ballot is issued during early voting, that record is locked into the statewide system, preventing further participation via absentee, early, or Election Day channels.

Beyond the digital safeguards, there is the physical layer. Alexander Russell, director of the University of Connecticut Center for Voting Technology Research, notes that town-level poll books serve as a vital manual backup. In theory, once a voter is crossed off the physical list, the system should prevent them from being checked in a second time. Yet, the Madison incident—and a separate, unrelated case involving a voter with potential memory issues—has brought fresh scrutiny to how these checks hold up under pressure.

A Pattern of Independent Testing

Deputy Secretary of the State Jennifer Barahona addressed the incident during a press conference on Election Day, warning that attempts to “test” the system are neither harmless nor legal. Officials suggest that much of the anxiety driving these actions stems from misinformation circulating on social media regarding voting machines and ballot integrity. While experts consistently attribute reported voting machine hiccups to calibration errors or human oversight, the persistence of these claims has led some voters to take matters into their own hands.

The second case reported in October highlights the risks of human error in the process. In that instance, a voter who had already cast an early ballot was allowed to check in again because the poll worker failed to notice the existing record in the electronic system. The error was only caught at the end of the day when the tabulator count didn’t match the reported number of ballots issued. This discrepancy forced local moderators to seek state intervention.

The Path to the Commission

These incidents underscore the tension between public skepticism and the administrative reality of running a state election. While LaChance maintains her actions were a test of security, the state is treating the violation of the voting process with gravity. The State Elections Enforcement Commission is scheduled to meet on November 18 to discuss the referrals.

Whether these cases result in formal charges or are treated as cautionary tales remains to be seen. For now, the question of how much “testing” the system can tolerate—and what the legal consequences will be for those who try—hangs over the post-election period. The commission has not yet opened a formal investigation, and until they do, the specifics of how they will handle these breaches of the poll book remain an open question for voters and election officials alike.