According to Connecticut’s State Elections Enforcement Commission, Alexandra Penfold can vote in North Haven.

In a ruling released Aug. 18, and signed by SEEC chairperson Stephen Cashman, allegations of voter fraud against Penfold, daughter of former Republican Registrar of Voters Pamela Parrella and former Board of Education Chairman John Lambert, were dismissed.

Referring to Penfold, the SEEC decision states, “The Respondent has not committed any violations of election law in connection with the allegations set forth in the Complaint.”

The SEEC received a complaint naming Penfold, 28, earlier this year. Signed officially by resident Gary Amato, and by former Town Treasurer Bill Gambardella as a notary, the complaint claimed that Penfold voted unlawfully in North Haven numerous times since 2005, because she was a legal town resident.

For proof, Amato and Gambardella provided the SEEC with eight documents. An August 2004 New York Times wedding announcement indicated that Penfold worked at New York’s Simon & Schuster, was a New York University graduate, and was about to marry an assistant district attorney in Manhattan.

Also inluded were: digital real estate records detailing Penfold’s June 2008 purchase of shares in a Brooklyn residential unit; Penfold’s husband’s Linkedln profile, describing him as an assistant district attorney in New York County since August 2004; Penfold’s 1999 and 2005 voter registration cards, on which she named 25 Trumbull Place, North Haven as her address; North Haven’s official voter list, with Penfold’s residence listed as 25 Trumbull Place; Penfold’s North Haven voting records since 2005; Penfold’s UCC financing statement identifying a Brooklyn residence as her mailing address; and a NYC Department of Finance Office of the City Register report recognizing Penfold as a buyer of a property interest in Brooklyn.

At a May 2010 Board of Selectmen meeting, where the matter was first discussed publicly, Gambardella said Democratic Registrar of Voters Patty Jackson-Marshall approached him in October 2009 for advice on three voters she suspected did not live in town. Two turned out to be owners of local warehouses (property owners can vote in referendum) – the third was Penfold.
The Connecticut Secretary of the State’s Office lists violating absentee ballot laws as a class D felony, punishable by “imprisonment for a term of not less than one year nor more than five years, or a fine not exceeding $5,000 or both.”

In response, Penfold said she considered her official residence to be 25 Trumbull Place, North Haven, where her parents dwell. Penfold is registered to vote only in North Haven and has never voted anywhere else. Accordingly, she believed, as long as she was legally considered a North Haven resident, she could continue voting in town.

The SEEC agreed. “We note that, at first glance, it could appear that the Respondent does not actually reside at 25 Trumbull Place, and her assertion that she does may be a sham,” the decision states. “The Respondent asserts, however, that she resided at both 25 Trumbull Place, North Haven and in Brooklyn, New York…The Commission finds that there is significant evidence in support of the Respondent’s claim.”

Citing several Connecticut superior court decisions, the decision defined “resident” as not necessarilly an individual settled within a particular town’s borders. To be considered a resident, one must simply succesfully apply for elector status, while providing a living unit located within geographic boundaries.

Even if a resident leaves the living unit, they can continue to vote back home. For example,  displaced college students may still vote back in their native towns, the decision states, so too can nonstudents who also satisfy residency requirements.

“An individual does not . . . have to intend to remain at a residence for an indefinite period for that residence to qualify as that individual’s bona fide residence,” the decision states. “Rather, the individual only has to possess a present intention to remain at that residence.”

“As such, where an individual truly maintains two residences to which the individual has legitimate, significant, and continuing attachments, that individual can choose either one of those residences to be their bona fide residence for the purposes of election law so long as they possess the requisite intent,” the decision adds.

Enough affirmation exists, according to the decision, to consider Penfold as holding legitimate intent for continuing her ties to 25 Trumbull Place. “Five witnesses (including a police officer and neighbor) and the Respondent have stated that she has been present at 25 Trumbull Place several weekends a month since she left for college in 2000 through the present,” the decision states.

Additional evidence suggests, the decision states, that Penfold maintains a 25 Trumbull Place bedroom, keeps ample personal belongings there, reguarly has packages mailed there instead of New York, does yardwork there and utilizes the entire house.

The SEEC also found several examples of “the importance of the house at 25 Trumbull Place to the Respondent, her love for that house, and its strong connection to her family’s history,” specifically that it was “built by her grandfather, housed his medical practice and her father’s law practice, and has been owned and occupied by her family for over 60 years.”

Connection to North Haven, too, was found by the SEEC in Penfold’s actions, including her “long-term membership and attendance at a local church, local pool and library membership, pending membership in a local patriotic society, her frequent and regular attendance and participation in local fairs and events…her strong interest in community issues, her continued relationships with other North Haven residents and doctors.”

“The Commission . . . finds that the Respondent maintained legitimate, significant and continuing attachments to 25 Trumbull Place and/or the Town of North Haven when she voted there,” the decision adds. “The Commission has not discovered or been offered any evidence that contradicts the Respondent’s claim that she truly resides at 25 Trumbull Place as well as in Brooklyn, New York. The Commission therefore finds that Respondent truly resided at 25 Trumbull Place when she voted there.”

Concern arose last May over whether Penfold’s rights had been violated when personal information — specifically her social security number, as printed on her voter’s registration card — was allegedly shared improperly by Jackson-Marshal with Gambardella, then-town treasurer. First Selectman Michael Freda had suggested an additional SEEC investigation into the matter.

On Wednesday, Freda was unsure whether the SEEC would take the case. “If they choose to pursue, then that’s up to them,” he said. “That’s their jurisdiction.”