Of all the state charges leveled against five political operatives accused of absentee ballot fraud during the 2023 mayoral race, those applied to former City Councilwoman Jazmarie Melendez seem dubiously thin.
While the others – City Council members Maria Pereira and Alfredo Castillo, Democratic Party Vice Chair Wanda Geter-Pataky and Margaret Joyce of Stratford – were pinched on multiple counts including possession of ballots Melendez was charged with six counts of “Misrepresenting Eligibility Requirements for Voting by Absentee Ballot, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 9-135(b).
Just about anyone could be charged with that. Not listing eligibility on an application is common.
In addition, last November Connecticut voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing residents to vote by mail without claiming an approved excuse such as illness or being out of town. Connecticut had been one of a few states to require excuse-only absentee voting.
Charging someone with misrepresenting eligibility requirements seems excessive. It could have been handled civilly, if true.
Melendez attorney Alex Taubes also issued this statement correcting the record of media reports claiming his client was engaged in plea discussions.
Speedy fact check::
“Just about anyone could be charged with that. Not listing eligibility on an application is common.”
FALSE: If or when no eligibility is selected, the AB application is rejected and ballot is not sent.
So you charge someone criminally just because eligibility was not selected? If that’s the case, Speedy, hundreds would be charged.
I don’t think the reason or argument should or would be as simple as “no eligibility was selected.”
The question I’d ask is: Did anyone eventually missed the opportunity to cast a ballot due to the failure or error of the person assisting in filling the application. I’m not sure if Melendez did or did not assist in filling the AB application (in whole or in part).
If there were no selection of eligibility, the Town Clerk had to reject the application and notify the voter. Here’s a Loophole: If I assisted in filling and AB application for you and I screw it up (keeping in mind that I noted on the application that I assisted in filling it), who should the Town Clerk Notify of the error ? Why wasn’t I notified and given the opportunity to rectify my error? The law requires the Town Clerk notifies the voter/ applicant of reason for AB application rejection. Lennie this is a major loophole and I’m 100% positive that this has flown over Melendez’s attorney’s head.
Did any voter lose their right or opportunity to cast their ballot?
Has this Attorney done any basic probe which may clear Malendez?
In my opinion, NO. What would I gave done?
1) First, conduct a voters history check of each person who’s AB application is in question (total of 5 or 6).
2) See how a many times have each one of them voted by AB.
3) Research each of those prior AB applications.
I’d bet or keep my eyes open for evidence of Maria Pereira ties or connections to each of the 5 or 6 people who have potentially made allegations against Malendez. According to her Attorney, they intend to fight this all the way. I highly suggest her Attorney looks into the ABSENTEE Ballot voting history records ASAP.
Let me be more specific here. If Lennie fills an AB application for himself and he fails to mark his eligibility for voting by AB, Lennie could/should be charged civilly or criminally, If Maria Pereira finds out and files a SEEC complaint.
It’s a mystery what should, could or would happen if I assisted Lennie in filling the application and failed to check an eligibility box. In Melendez’s case we see what happens. I get the feeling someone pushed hard to incriminate Melendez. This is clear example of over-reach by state authorities. As I stated yesterday, Attorney ALEX TAUBES has the legal responsibility to look a little deeper. Melendez’s charges are mist likely based on statements from at least 5 voters. Who are they and what’s their voting history. Did they succeed in filling AB Applications in the past? Did they ever receive AB application filling assistance from others in the past? If so, WHO?
Month’s ago, I called and texted Jasmine Melendez in an attempt to bring this to her attention.
Speedy fact check:
“In addition, last November Connecticut voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing residents to vote by mail without claiming an approved excuse such as illness or being out of town. Connecticut had been one of a few states to require excuse-only absentee voting.”
FALSE: While it’s true that voters approved a constitutional amendment as stated above, the amendment did not call for retroactive application of the amendment. If a violation is alleged to have occurred prior to voter approval of amendment, the law applies before we say ‘good bye!’
Speedy fact check:
“Charging someone with misrepresenting eligibility requirements seems excessive. It could have been handled civilly, if true.”
FALSE: The law is clear and so are the investigative power and authority of the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC). The complaint and Investigation started civilly with SEEC. SEEC has the power to referr matters for criminal prosecution and that’s exactly what needed to be done. In Bridgeport, we don’t play softball–we play handgrenade. There’s no crying in handgrenade.
In my opinion from following AB’s over the years the problem is systemic. These operatives have a goal, to win , It is not only about getting ballots to folks who otherwise would not or could not vote, its about getting more votes for your slate. If the State really wanted to fix this they would have polling stations at the senior facilities set up like early voting stations, Let the seniors come down to the community rooms like they do when they have an event or a lunch brought in, have secure poling locations set up so you can cast ballot in privacy, like the rest of us do, I realize many seniors still live in homes, but at least if you have the polling stations at the senior facilities it may minimize the abuse. Also anyone convicted of AB misconduct should be banned from being anywhere near the ballots.
also MS Melendez deserves due process. From my previous comment I do not pretend to know what the actual process or interactions look like when someone collects ballots. I do believe that the Local town committee and these folks who work collecting ballot have done a really great job throughout the year of building relationships with the seniors, Picnics, Pizza, Lunches, Visits all year round lift the spirits of the seniors who otherwise may not have any other visits from anyone at all sadly. So you vote for who you trust. People trust their friends
“I do believe that the Local town committee and these folks who work collecting ballot have done a really great job throughout the year…”
As the years went by, they got very sloppy or too cocky with their ballot collection. Ganim doesn’t believe in stopping while ahead, especially when others handle the dirty and risky parts. They weren’t that good if they got caught.
“Let the seniors come down to the community rooms like they do when they have an event or a lunch brought in, have secure poling locations set up so you can cast ballot in privacy,…”
Whenever a certain number (20) AB Applications are circulated in one address/building. Supervised balloting is sometimes carried out by the Town Clerks office. Even with this rule, there are loopholes to circumvent the process. If I have a building with over 20 AB to harvest, I would do them five (5) at a time as to not get the attention of officials. LOOPHOLES are the biggest problems for regulatory authorities. Those who create the election laws with loopholes are beneficiaries. Why you think they just recently changed the law to early, no excuse voting?