Candidates Challenge Recount Process

In a letter to James Mullen, head moderator of last week’s Democratic Town Committee primaries, several candidates are challenging the timing of today’s ongoing recount, with an assist from retired Superior Court Judge Carmen Lopez who’s serving as an observer. Maria Pereira of the 138th District, Mary Bruce in the 131st and Donna Curran in the 130th are among the candidates who issued a letter with Lopez. See letter below:

The undersigned hereby challenge the Recanvass scheduled for today, March 12, 2018.

The Primary Election for the Democratic Town Committee in Bridgeport was held on Tuesday, March 6, 2018. Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Sections 9-440 and 9-314 (b), as Head Moderator of this Primary, you transmitted the results of the votes for each of the offices contested in the Primary to the Office of the Secretary of State. The results were transmitted on Secretary of State Election Division Form ED-606a, consisting of six (6) pages. The form is on file in the Office of the Bridgeport Town Clerk.

On Friday, March 9, 2018, three calendar days later, several candidates on the various slates were provided with a document entitled a “Notice of Recanvass of Close Vote (9-311a)”. This document states that “Notice is hereby given to you pursuant to Section 9-311 a/9-311b of the Connecticut General Statutes, that on Monday, the 12th day of March, 2018 at 10:00AM, a recanvass of the returns of the voting machines, absentee ballots and write-in ballots used in the 130th, 131st, 138th voting districts in the Election for the office of Democratic Town Committee in the City of Bridgeport at the Margaret Morton Government Center, 999 Broad Street.”

Connecticut General Statutes Section 9-445, entitled Recanvass on Close Vote states in relevant part that “after a primary for nomination to a municipal office or election of members of the town committee … when the plurality of an elected or nominated candidate over the vote for a defeated candidate receiving the next highest number of votes was … (2) less than twenty votes, there shall be a recanvass of the returns of the voting tabulators used in such primary for such office or position …”

This provision of the statute is commonly referred to as an automatic recanvass of the votes cast in the primary. This statute also sets forth the requirements regarding notice to candidates subject to the automatic recount.

The reasons for this challenge are as follows:
1. Notice to two (2) individuals in District 131 was given by a telephone message, not “in writing” as required by Section 9-445 of the General Statutes.

2. A recanvass of all votes cast for the Democratic Town Committee in Districts 130, 131 and 138 is mandated by Section 9-445 of the General Statutes. Therefore, all candidates are subject to the recanvass, not only those who qualify for the automatic recount. In light of this fact, all candidates in those districts must be notified in writing.

3. The election was held on Tuesday, March 6, 2018 and, pursuant to 9-311 of the General Statutes a recanvass must be held no later than the 5th business day following the election.  Since Wednesday, March 7, was a snow emergency date, and City Hall was closed, it does not qualify as a “business day.” Therefore, even if the one-half day City Hall was opened on March 8, 2018 is counted, five business days would expire on Wednesday, March 14, 2018. Therefore, there is time to reschedule a recanvass for March 14, 2018, with proper notice to all affected candidates.

4. By scheduling the recanvass for Monday, March 12, you have effectively prevented affected individuals from exercising their right to inspect the moderator’s returns and checklists, as provided for on page 7 of the Recanvass Procedural Manual of the Secretary of State. This right of inspection is meaningless, when notification is given late on a Friday afternoon and no business day intervenes before the recanvass.

5. No notification was provided concerning the right to observe the recanvass as specified on page 12 of the Manual. That provision states that “Each candidate (or slate of candidates in a town committee primary) subject to the recanvass is permitted to have two representatives present.

We all know that the City of Bridgeport has been unable to properly conduct a primary election for the City Council seats in the 133rd district, on two separate occasions. As Bridgeport residents we should all be embarrassed by the spectacle. We have witnessed a Chief of Police who felt free to order an on-duty police officer to serve as an errand boy for the Democratic Town Chairman in the collection of absentee ballots. It should not have taken the Connecticut Supreme Court to tell us that this disgraceful conduct is wrong.

It is with this backdrop in mind, that we must guarantee that this recanvass is conducted in accordance with the rule of law.



  1. “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.” “The most important political office is that of the private citizen.” Justice Louis Brandeis

  2. Once again thank you retired Superior Court Judge Carmen Lopez for your time, effort, hard work and your love of Bridgeport. Maybe some of these problems would go away if you were elected the next chairperson of the Democratic Town Committee.

  3. To quote the late, baseball great Yogi Berra: “It’s deja vu all over again.”
    or Bridgeport’s Elections officials are “The gang that couldn’t shoot straight”

    If Joe Ganim’s administration is so incompetent, what makes him think anyone would let him run the state?

  4. Marshall is it possible that he thinks that the stories he shares ab out Bridgeport’s future go down as easily for a Second Chance candidate outside of Bridgeport? Does no one ask about taxes being raised after an election where he campaigned against that? Does he say anything about his Pension Plan A concept 18 years ago wherein taxpayers got into a deal where they borrowed $350 Million to invest with a return that would cover pension liabilities? Plan A will cost over $900 Million in bond repayments for principal and interest over the 30 years untill 2029. Recently losses have caused underfunding and actuaries demand larger outlays, currently over $18 Million annually in addition to the principal and Interest. The state has pension and bonding issues. So does the City. Ganim does not have answers for the long run. And mischaracterized the $90 Million Pension bond used to wipe away $200 Million of MERS overtime funding. He cannot face the truth delivered wholly at one time, and layed at his doorstep. Time will tell.

  5. Fine…the above processes can continue. However,strayegically,it’s time to prepare and work toward 2019(BPT mayoral election) and 2020(next DTC election). It’s the long game that we need to focus on.

    1. DTC delegates determine who gets 15% and automatically qualifies for a primary. That’s much cheaper and easier than getting petition signatures.
      I will likely be a delegate to the state convention as I have been in the past… a Bpt taxpayer family, I’m not impressed by Joe G2

          1. @Kid………….
            Yes he’s changed. He’s now an Ex-Con who’s been disbarred (two ways, lost his law license, and let out of his cell).
            I don’t prisons are ‘correctional institutions,’ but are just places of incarceration. BUT, that’s a topic for a different discussion.

          2. It’s a safe bet ol’ Joe was incarcerated with a few mafiosi. He probably comiserated with them about FBI wiretaps. He probably doesn’t speak openly on the phone, leaves the office for important conversations with subordinates, just like a veteran hood.

  6. For some years running, the politically active in the City, especially those with City jobs that provide incentive and likely time to work for a ticket and who participate in districts other than those in which they live, have caused complaints and consequences regarding absentee ballots.

    This is a wonderful time to examine what happened in certain districts and compare them to other districts. I have a distinct impression that there are folks out there who are asked to sign absentee ballots but they are not eligible in any one of the several classes who are eligible. How does that happen? When we look at the process and the people so involved, we will be in much better position to shine a light on discrepancies as revealed (or not). And that is saying the same as…..time will tell.


Leave a Reply