Stephanie Thomas learns Nazi references can rile Registrars of Voters. Did not intend to offend.

When will they learn? If you are not Mel Brooks, nix the Nazi allusions. Even in this coarse, ugly age, most politicians must still be careful about comparing adversaries to Herr Schicklgruber and his jackbooted Nazis. Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas compared President Donald Trump to the brutal Germans who slaughtered millions and subdued Europe from 1933 until he killed himself 80 years ago this month, defeated at last.

Thomas was addressing the semiannual meeting of the association of the state’s registrars of voters, ROVAC. On Monday, Thomas sent a long email to the registrars assuring them that her Nazi reference was not intended to offend nor was it aimed at anyone in the audience. Thomas in her hundreds of words does not include what she said, so it must have been bad. But she is sorry. House Republicans posted a brief clip including her offending comments on their YouTube channel.

The message is a bit of a ramble through the Norwalk Democrat’s philosophy of life, a host of election-related issues, and a diversion into a trip to Germany that made an impression on her. It is not an easy missive to summarize. One wag pointed out, if Thomas had read it aloud it would sounded like a hostage tape.

Decide for yourself:

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 abouthow 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

Published April 15, 2025.