This is gonna be a riot. Hey, you want to volunteer to count ballots? Maybe the city will bring along a couple of Thanksgiving turkey wishbones hoping nothing screwy happens that would necessitate a recount of the recount.
Mayor Bill Finch formed an informal committee that’s looking into what went wrong on Election Day. The simple answer is the Registrar of Voters Office didn’t print enough freaking ballots (and now it’s all of this)! But if you’re going to take the step to form a committee, why not throw open the process to count the ballots one more time, especially if the Connecticut Post is breathing down your neck with reelection on the horizon. Ya think the mayor would’ve have offered a recount without the paper’s insistence?
And what gives with City Attorney Mark Anastasi being so accommodating about the public’s right to know given his historic stick in the eye to the public’s right to know? Let me guess, the mayor told Mark what’s the point of fighting the paper on this, let them count the ballots!
From the CT Post:
City officials have agreed to unseal ballots cast in the governor’s race and make them available for a recount beginning Monday by the Connecticut Post and three nonpartisan citizen groups.
The recount comes in the wake of a series of Election Day mishaps, caused chiefly by a shortage of ballots, that created widespread confusion at Bridgeport’s 25 polling places. Delays in tallying the city’s votes left the outcome of the governor’s race in limbo for almost two days. The overwhelming support by city voters vaulted Democrat Dannel Malloy past Republican Tom Foley into the governor’s office by a scant 5,600 votes out of more than 1.1 million cast statewide.
A recount “will answer the questions that a lot of people are asking,” said Luther Weeks, executive director of CTVotersCount.org and the CT Citizen Election Audit Coalition. “It will resolve those questions.”
Representatives from Hearst Connecticut Media, which owns the Connecticut Post, Weeks and Cheryl Dunson from the League of Women Voters of Connecticut will meet with city officials Tuesday to work out the logistics of the ballot recount.
“The Connecticut Post provides a thoughtful and reasonable vehicle to conduct this review, and we believe the public has the right to observe the process and see the outcome,” said City Attorney Mark Anastasi.
The newspaper had sought access to the ballots under the provisions of the state’s Freedom of Information law.
It will be the first review of the city’s disputed voting totals. Last week, city attorneys refused to allow the secretary of the state’s office to recount the ballots itself.
Anastasi said the registrar of voters’ office objected to the order, which later became a request, from the state that the city conduct, at its expense, a selective audit or recount.
Thomas Baden, Connecticut Post editor, said the paper is looking to see if the recount process could be streamed live online and is also making arrangements for some measure of public access to the recount.
“We’re pleased with the city’s decision and we’re delighted that these good government groups have partnered with us to bring some clarity and resolution to the city’s vote in the governor’s race,” Baden said.
Baden said the recount will tally all ballots cast–absentee, machine-counted and photocopied ballots that had to be counted by hand.
Anastasi said the ballots will remain sealed until the newspaper and its partners are ready to conduct the recount Monday.
Weeks said the coalition usually uses volunteers from outside of the municipality where an audit or recount is being done. “I think it would probably eliminate a source of political criticism,” he said. It would head off criticisms that volunteers were being “too easy” on election officials because they know them, or conversely that a criticism is sparked only by some political ax to grind, Weeks said.
The methodology used to conduct the recount will also be worked out ahead of time, Weeks said.
It’s an FOI issue that the city smartly agreed to do. After so much bad press that this has generated, Marky Mark and his too-dead legal crew caved. It won’t change anything but makes Master Baden and his paper look good. Where were they in 2007???
Up On Bridgeport // Nov 22, 2010 at 7:23 pm
responding to UP ON BRIDGEPORT …
No the City wasn’t smart … just a realization that FOI law is just that … a State law that carries more weight than the SOS.
Don’t worry about the bad press, that will continue for this administration … they can’t help themselves …
Was the CT Post even owned by Hearst Media and Mr. Baden in 2007? I think not … This makes Baden look even better …
CC–FOI didn’t mean much when the Post tried under FOI to get Joe Ganim’s cell-phone records.
Hearst bought the paper in the fall of 2008. BTW–weren’t you and the rest of the Finch Kool-Aid Club up Santa’s legal clauses?
Up On Bridgeport // Nov 23, 2010 at 9:53 am
responding to your post
Joe went to jail … is that not sufficient to say that FOI and FBI got Joe in the end …?
And no, I never was invited to share the Kool-Aid; you know how the boy’s locker room can be up there at 999 Broad Street. They didn’t want some smart, creepy feminist part of their circle … were you ever?
CC–Nice Gobble ad in Post by John Gomes wishing everybody a Happy Thanksgiving.
CT Post *** uses for the Post *** substitute for toilet paper when you run out *** hmmm, can’t think of any more uses.
I just hope the Post will compare the number of ballots counted to the number of voters checked off on the voter lists in addition to the number of votes for the candidates.
*** Unbelievable, the city can thumb its nose @ the Sec. of State’s audit but decide to give in to a newspaper that does not serve the city of Bpt the way it used to; only to save face for future political reasons! The totals will not change the present outcome so count away then write your big Sunday editorial on how the Post came to the voters’ rescue, no? *** FOI & Free Tea for volunteers. ***
New use for CT Post *** BIRDman cage liner *** forgetaboutit *** 1 & Done.
If you have nothing to hide then there should be no worries doing a recount.
Is it me? I can’t understand how the issue is there were too few ballots ordered. Somebody help me with this. Not many more people voted (including absentees) than the number of ballots ordered. Why did we use so many of the photocopied ballots and why couldn’t we just have someone pick up extras from the polling places that had EXTRAS? Also, why the need for the extra hours? There was an extreme breakdown and someone needs to be held accountable … yet it’s gotta be deeper than “there weren’t enough ballots ordered.”
Hector, the ballots were not interchangeable from precinct to precinct, because of all the State Senate and State Rep races. In fact, there were 11 different ballots in use in Bridgeport on Election Day.
That the final number of votes cast didn’t differ that much from the 21,000 ballots originally ordered is one heck of a red herring. In more than half of Bridgeport’s 25 voting precincts they actually ran out of ballots. Imagine if you were one of those voters who went to vote on your way to your afternoon shift? How many people had to go to work without casting their ballot?
In the JFK precinct alone, over 350 people had to vote by extraordinary means (via xeroxed ballots).
Hard to imagine that Sandi Ayala only ordered 21,000 ballots, when 42,000 B-porters had voted in 2008.
The 2008 turnout is the real red herring–especially since the official word out today is that 2010 turnout was, in fact, 3% below what it was in 2006.
In hindsight, they made a mistake, sure … But there comes a point where you have to ask what the motivations are of those continuing to crucify this one under-funded and bipartisan office for their screwup, while letting so many others off the hook.
Hector not all the polling places have the same candidates running for state office. In my area we have 2 state rep races and 2 state senator races, thus different ballots.
A newspaper review of the November ballot count is a good thing.
A recount may show how an election can be organized in the future to make improvements. This should work hand in glove with the commission to investigate the election. It is only surprising it was not done when the commission was set up.
What is known to have happened is bad enough. Not enough ballots were ordered. The answers are unsatisfactory. One hopes the Legislature looks at this.
It is not enough for the political establishment to say “the Democrats won.” People have a right, a RIGHT, to know that the result was legitimate, that all ballots were counted fairly and accurately.
The best you can say is the city was sloppy this last time but it didn’t matter. What happens the next time when it might matter? No, document the problems now and get them on the public record.
The problems matter. The problems are a disgrace.
There should be no problem with having the newspaper do this, all snarky comments about the Connecticut Post aside.
Politicians know it is tougher to discover voter fraud the farther from Election Day one gets. If the Republicans were hoping to prove fraud they should have gone to court immediately. A recount three weeks later? Why should the Democrats care? They won. The result was certified.
If anyone is hoping for conclusive evidence of vote-rigging they will probably be disappointed. Vote-rigging must be planned. One presumes that at this late date such an enterprise would have been exposed. The two chief ways in Bridgeport of doing this were by rigging absentees or running repeaters. There are no accusations of this.
However, there are other ways. A recount might bring to light indications of such indiscretions. If any elves were loose in the political process they might not have had time or opportunity to adjust records that have been sealed since the city’s results were announced.
All of these records have been sealed and secured, right?
Jim Callahan // Nov 23, 2010 at 12:07 pm
responding to your posting …
Jim,
My theory is based on the mechanics of voter suppression being called into play. Malloy represented too much of a reform candidate for the Democratic Machine in Bridgeport.
Malloy’s knowledge of City government operations would prevent the “wool from being pulled over his eyes” as it would have been with a Lamont win in the original primary. My theory is once the ship went down with Lamont, it was time to turn to Foley. He may have been a bit smarter than Lamont, but the wool was absolutely ready to pull over his eyes as well. The City is ripe with the rumors of what Foley and the local Machine worked out … My guess is that some of those rumors are not rumors at all.
So when the Registrar of Voters made her order of 21,000 ballots, she had that number given to her.
Who knew the people who went to see Obama would take him seriously and mess up the plan by going to vote as he exhorted them to do.
Also who knew the Malloy margin of victory was secured in the State-wide vote and Bridgeport’s bounty was topping on the cake … not the tool of defeat it was intended to be …
Just my theory … after a long observation of Bridgeport politics that started for me in 1981.
Jim, a few too many people have keys to the building to insure that the records have been sealed …
carolanne curry // Nov 23, 2010 at 12:49 pm
This is my theory as well. However, I believe their plan was based heavily on voter apathy. They did not anticipate President Obama’s October 30 GOTV visit. I don’t believe the ROV was instructed to order too few ballots, though. That blooper was pure incompetence.
Very interesting theory. The same thoughts had crossed my mind on more than one occasion. Suppressing the vote in Bridgeport would not help Malloy. It would hurt him in a close election. This is the first time I have heard anyone say what I was thinking.
Quick! Call Oliver Stone!!!
Most of the people have expressed no opinion of harm from carefully recounting all ballots. Good can come out of it if the state adjusts its rules for elections as a result. The safekeeping–or lack thereof–of ballots and all election materials should be documented.
That’s the serious part of my comments. I am sanguine about the result.
That stated, the folks I used to cover many years ago as a reporter have left me permanently conspiratorial as to possible reasons for things Bridgeport. When I am temporarily rational, I usually find using Occam’s Razor is best when dealing with Bridgeport political screwups. The explanation: This was just dumb, a ballot bungle.
Like a moth to flame, however …
My own conspiracy theory is that ballots were kept low to suppress a feared Republican turnout. It is no more valid or invalid than other theories expressed. I ridicule none. My theory is exploded by at least three things: 1) Voters were not as angry at Democrats as feared; 2) the Obama visit; 3) The uncommon unity of Democratic factions meant that a vote repression hurt Democrats more than Republicans.
For entertainment purposes, if for no other, perhaps a contest could be run to come up with the best conspiracy theories, and a counter-contest to destroy said theories. Then they could all be boxed up neatly to send to an election reform commission in Hartford to see if any are worthy to stick in a state law forbidding such practices.
Oh, back to being serious for a moment, can anyone explain how a city of 135,000 can have around 70,000 voters in 2010 versus around 66,000 in 1986 when 7,000 more people lived here?
Obama in 2008 doesn’t explain it. In 1985-86 the city was coming off a Seven Year War for control of the city. Who gives a damn about a president when a mayoralty is at stake?
Jim, remember when the city GOP registration was over 10,000? Now it’s under 5000. When Joe Ganim was elected mayor in 1991 the D to R ratio was much closer to 3 to 1. Now it’s 9 to 1. I dare say Charlie Tisdale was responsible for registering many new voters 1979 to 1985. When I was managing Joe’s races and Mario Testa was town chair during his first tenure, the city’s Dem registration was hard-pressed to reach 30,000. Today it’s 43,000. Mario does not believe in voter registration. “Why should I register voters I cannot control,” he’d tell me. So whatever new registration that has occurred since Mario became town chair again in early 2008, following a four- or five-year absence, had nothing to do with him. It was Obama.
Don’t forget the U’s!
Jim I don’t know the answer but when I ran a primary for the council and went door to door in my district more people were registered to vote than I ever imagined. The senior centers in my district were 90% registered. This work was done by the Obama forces and the Democrats. I think if you check the demographics you will find that Blacks and Hispanics registered in record numbers.
town committee, I think you’re right on. Jim, if you look at registered voters before Obama ran for President, your numbers might be right. Obama election saw a record number of blacks and Hispanics placed on the rolls as first-time voters. On this ballot issue if you have 70,000 voters, order 70,000 ballots.
EN, I follow your logic relative to having one ballot for every registered voter. However there is an expense for that ballot that others on OIB have indicated at $.40-$.50 each. Therefore if those registered failed to vote, for instance about 70% of them failed, then nearly $25,000 would have been wasted.
Any ideas out there to change those dynamics?
I believe that a poll tax, a tax imposed on the right to cast a ballot, is illegal. But what about a tax, a penalty tax or fine, for being registered and not casting a vote? This would be a new source of revenue for the City. Coming out to vote frequently might have some people begin to learn about issues and how they are affected by those who get elected.
In my gut I see our military positioned around the world engaged in shooting wars now and in the past to defend our way of life, which features the freedom to vote, to elect our leaders and make choices on questions posted come election day. When 30% come out, that means a lot of people have their eye off the ball. Perhaps a fine equal to a cup of coffee from Dunkin or a Happy Meal might be appropriate. With the economy the way it is, I see many picking up bottles for $.05 return so a $1-5.00 assessment might be of interest. For those who think that’s crazy, isn’t it crazier to think of yourself as a freedom-loving American and routinely fail to go to the polls? And if minorities are the majority in the City and also reflect the surge in registrants in recent years, are they forgetting the lessons of one or two past generations, when voting was dangerous, impossible or at least discouraged??? Sad? But true?
“Taxation without representation” has caused problems in the past. In order to get a majority of minorities to the polls you would have to have them represented (on boards etc.) fairly. Again the fact that they aren’t. SAD? But true?
Ernie, I firmly believe in the right to vote. But I also believe in not being wasteful.
If we know historically a certain polling place has a certain turnout, then I support getting pre-printed ballots in numbers matching the projected turnout, plus an appropriate number more to cover spoiled ballots and “just in case.”
But there absolutely has to be a well-known, well-run procedure in place to ensure if people in excess of that number show up, they will be able to vote with no delay and no drama whatsoever.
Would it be so bad if that procedure were to be handing them a copy of a ballot, to be put in the hand-counted pile? Would it be such a stretch to monitor how fast the pre-printed ballots were being used up and if it looked like copies would be needed, to get them before they actually ran out?
Come on, people. This isn’t brain surgery!
C’mon! The Dems have been pumping up their rolls for years.
Register, Register, Register. Like a cash register, Ford and company keep their franchise going for a yearly payday.
Look at the results from the amount of monetary action. Pretty poor voter returns but good return on investment for the 139th moneychangers.
Beacon, you can’t charge people a fee to vote and you can’t charge people a fine for not voting. The key word here is FREEDOM. Under your theory who collects the fine for not voting? Do we boot the offender’s car for not paying the fine? Do we put a lien on their property? Do we arrest them for not paying the failure to vote fine?
The whole problem was a simple one of incompetence by the ROV.
When I mention the voting problem we had in Bridgeport, many in the city say, oh yeah, I heard the CT Post is going to do an audit. Can we really count on Hearst Corporation to bring transparency and accountability? I know there are a couple of other groups also, but is now time for a citizens’ audit group to form, to get involved.
Do you have any opinions on this issue? Call tonight on “Bridgeport Now” at 8pm on ch88. By the way, the quality of the broadcast should be improved, after requests have been made.
A voting militia of sorts, no?
Why don’t we use some of the campaign money we give to candidate running for office? All the money spent on mailing, use some for buying ballots.
All:
I understand Obama’s influence on voter registration was extraordinary. I understand the efforts of all party Democrats (and Republicans) to limit party registration when they can.
My bottom line is TOTAL registration.
The machine Democrats of the 1970s and 1980s were choking on their linguine over the Democratic registration rising from the teens to 44,000 during the party wars. No effort was spared to find new registrants, machine ethic be damned, in the battle to win.
I understand the fall of Republican registration and a balanced increase of Democratic and unaffiliated registration from that.
My intuition says the total registration is too high, Obama or no Obama. The city was picked clean in the 1980s leading up to the final Tisdale-Bucci confrontation in 1985. The current total numbers are 5,000 to 10,000 beyond that.
Everyone agrees that voter turnout (ignore percentage turnout for this argument) is lousier today. Why are the registration numbers so much higher?
Jim, Now that you mention it, it would be interesting to see a comparison of voters who voted in this election with registered voters and with voting-age populations for their census tracts and block groups. The 2010 Census info should be released early next year. Maybe some registered voter counts will look suspiciously high.
TC, in Australia you’re fined if you don’t vote there. Voting turnout is over 95%. Please don’t tell me to move there that would be so you. Voting is a privilege not to be taken lightly like you say you wish there was none of the above on ballot why don’t you write ypur own name in since you think so much of yourself.
As I’ve said many, many times before, all one would have to do is show up at their polling place and check in, have their name crossed off and put their card in without checking off any candidate’s name. The result would be that they exercised their right to vote but chose none of the candidates. If enough people did this … imagine the candidates that would be looking for those votes in the next election.