Advocacy Group Urges Special Election To Fill City Council Seat

Following a legal opinion from the Office of the City Attorney declaring the City Council has the authority to fill the vacant seat in the 132nd District due to the death of Evette Brantley, leaders of The Greater Bridgeport Ed Gomes Black Democratic Club share this statement.

There’s a right and a wrong way to do things. Why, Bridgeport, when presented with an opportunity to make the right decision in the best interest of our community, do we sit back and allow career politicians and beholden City employees to dictate the process and control the narrative? Such ongoing complicity contributes to the demise of our City and does NOT support the greater good of ALL residents.

When Mary Evette Brantley passed away recently, the City of Bridgeport lost a long-serving, dedicated public servant. Since entering politics in 1991, Brantley beat the pavement, knocking on doors, shaking hands and talking to the residents in her district. She EARNED her seat on the Council after every election. She had just won reelection not long before her death but perished before she was to be sworn in on December 1.

Now, the City Attorney has issued a legal opinion that her seat can be filled by a simple vote of the City Council, with the Mayor casting a tie vote, if necessary. In other words, the Council gets to handpick her successor rather than letting the voters decide in a special election. This is NOT a process that elected officials and City employees should be involved in. The voters in the district should be the decision makers. They have the right to be included in the process, which is supposed to be a representative democracy NOT a dictatorship. This is not right.

The Greater Bridgeport Ed Gomes Black Democratic Club is calling on Bridgeport to hold a special election to allow ALL the voters in the 132nd District decide who fills the seat.

The job of a City Council member is to enact laws that have long-term impact on the city and to have a say in the annual budget. Those are massive responsibilities. The person entrusted with them should be voted in by the people to represent ALL the people. Anything shy of that, is just not right.

In the spirit of our namesake, the late Sen. Ed Gomes, we call on the city to hold a special election and let the voters in the 132nd decide. That is the right thing to do.



      1. Reply
        Jimfox says:
        December 6, 2021 at 6:58 pm
        Voting Rights Act of 1965
        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        Jump to navigation Jump to search
        Voting Rights Act of 1965
        Great Seal of the United States
        Long title An Act to enforce the fifteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes.
        Acronyms (colloquial) VRA
        Nicknames Voting Rights Act
        Enacted by the 89th United States Congress
        Effective August 6, 1965
        Public law 89-110
        Statutes at Large 79 Stat. 437
        Titles amended Title 52—Voting and Elections
        U.S.C. sections created
        52 U.S.C. § 10101
        52 U.S.C. §§ 10301–10314
        52 U.S.C. §§ 10501–10508
        52 U.S.C. §§ 10701–10702
        Legislative history
        Introduced in the Senate as S. 1564 by Mike Mansfield (D‑MT) and Everett Dirksen (R‑IL) on March 17, 1965
        Committee consideration by Judiciary
        Passed the Senate on May 26, 1965 (77-19)
        Passed the House with amendment on July 9, 1965 (333–85)
        Reported by the joint conference committee on July 29, 1965; agreed to by the House on August 3, 1965 (328–74) and by the Senate on August 4, 1965 (79–18)
        Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on August 6, 1965
        Major amendments
        Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970[1]
        Voting Rights Act of 1965, Amendments of 1975[2]
        Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982[3]
        Voting Rights Language Assistance Act of 1992[4]
        Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, César E. Chávez, Barbara C. Jordan, William C. Velásquez, and Dr. Hector P. Garcia Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006[5][6]
        United States Supreme Court cases
        South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966)
        Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966)
        Allen v. State Board of Elections (1969)
        Oregon v. Mitchell (1970)
        Beer v. United States (1976)
        City of Rome v. United States (1980)
        City of Mobile v. Bolden (1980)
        Thornburg v. Gingles (1986)
        Growe v. Emison (1993)
        Voinovich v. Quilter (1993)
        Shaw v. Reno (1993)
        Holder v. Hall (1994)
        Johnson v. De Grandy (1994)
        Miller v. Johnson (1995)
        Bush v. Vera (1996)
        Lopez v. Monterey County (1999)
        Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board (2000)
        Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003)
        League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006)
        Bartlett v. Strickland (2009)
        Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder (2009)
        Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
        Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021)
        Civil Rights Movement in Washington D.C.
        The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting.[7][8] It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the civil rights movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections.[7] Designed to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act sought to secure the right to vote for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of federal civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country.[9] It is also “one of the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history.”[10]

        The act contains numerous provisions that regulate elections. The act’s “general provisions” provide nationwide protections for voting rights. Section 2 is a general provision that prohibits every state and local government from imposing any voting law that results in discrimination against racial or language minorities. Other general provisions specifically outlaw literacy tests and similar devices that were historically used to disenfranchise racial minorities. The act also contains “special provisions” that apply to only certain jurisdictions. A core special provision is the Section 5 preclearance requirement, which prohibits certain jurisdictions from implementing any change affecting voting without receiving preapproval from the U.S. attorney general or the U.S. District Court for D.C. that the change does not discriminate against protected minorities.[11] Another special provision requires jurisdictions containing significant language minority populations to provide bilingual ballots and other election materials.


  1. Just curious. Who signed the letter? of the ED Gomes Black Democratic Club? Who the hell cam up with that name? Was Ed Gomes only an elected official for Black people? Let me Guess Bob Walsh and Marilyn Moore? just curious. I would imagine Marcus Brown would choose his running mate and most likely that individual will win the election. I could be wrong but I don’t think so. I would have thought the individual with the next highest votes would be the choice but that was a Republican. How much would that cost the taxpayer? I’d imagine the 132 district has done their due diligence. They have looked at individuals , interviewed them and will give their info to the council. I could be wrong .But I am certain I am not- The Ed Gomes Black Democrats are looking for an opposition candidate– what a waste !! I think in the end- The choice will be a candidate that Mary Evette Brantley woud have chosen herself. …. Ron Mackey save your breath , I am not at all interested in anything you’d have to say. A run off election isn’t the worst idea- It is just that Marcus Brown is very popular in his district and his choice will definitely win the election. Enough said– que sera sera.

    Again Lenny, who signed the letter and is this club limited to Black only Democrats who remember Ed Gomes?

    1. Little Stevie A said, “A run off election isn’t the worst idea- It is just that Marcus Brown is very popular in his district and his choice will definitely win the election. Enough said– que sera sera.” Who the hell is Marcus Brown to be able select the open seat in the 132nd district, where in America does a lone council member does the selection of anybody? Stevie, Marcus Brown is just another one of Mario’s puppets just like you. I see that you are still under orders from Mario to not post anything on workdays and especially during work hours.

      1. Ron Mackey- you have been calling me a puppet for Mario for approx. 3 years – do you believe your own crap. You are a puppet for Marilyn Moore- You don’t hear me saying that everytime I comment. Marcus Brown is doing well- If he is a puppet than he is doing an amazing job, His constituents love him. Both of us do not live in his district. I do hope he has a partner he can work with. They are here to serve not act as an obstacle to progress. Just once I’d like to see one of the few that respond on this blog show up and support anything this city has to offer. Just once. Whatever will be will be in the 132nd. One thing for sure- what ever candidate is chosen it will be a guarantee you will not be part event and will complain regardless. That is a given. It is nice to know that some things will never change. Though I am a firm believer that change is a good thing. I look forward to all of the great changes happening in this city and do hope whomever they pick or elect in the 132nd they will be worthy of filling Mary Evette Brantley’s shoes. I believe with perfect faith that they will. Needless to say, I am friendly with and respect those that serve in the 132nd. Current and past. I am hopeful the chosen individual will be a positive force and contribute to the district and the City for good.

        1. Steven Auerbach, tell me why did former Mayor Bill Finch and current mayor Joe Ganim allowed David Dunn to hold the position of”ACTING” Personnel Director for 12 years which is a violation of the city charter? Steve you are a proud supporter of Bridgeport and that’s good but the city had its “ACTING” Personnel Director, David Dunn and its Police Chief, AJ Perez get arrested by the FBI and they were found guilty and serve time in federal prision for cheating, with the “ACTING” Personnel Director corrupting the testing company to give the answers to that exam to AJ Perez? Steve, why did David Dunn give the answers on the police exam to Perez, did ganim tell him or did Mario tell Dunn or did they or friends of them suggest him to help cheat? Steve one last thing, where has been the voice of Marcus Brown on this scandal that travel nationwide?

  2. It’s the run off that counts, any Judge worth his or her salt will let the voters from 132nd speak, Not Joe Ganim, Not Mario Testa, Not the City Council, Not Ernie Newton, and above all Not Marcus Brown!
    This was not new term of office or the (Unexpired Term) she was not sworn in, so this makes it a Vacancy!

  3. Everyone just has to have a little patience, I’m sure by this point, Mario has chosen who he wants to fill the position,the council will vote in that person soon.

  4. I’ve been trying to recall the procedure followed during replacement of city council persons during the time I served (1995-2001) on the council. Alberto Negron, my council partner at the time resigned around 1998. Pryor to this, the council had replaced other council spots following DTC recommendation. When Negron was replaced, the City changed the rules, standards and procedures. The 131 DTC had picked Michelle Retamar to replace Negron. Behind the scene, Hector Diaz pulled all the stops to prevent Retamar from getting the appointment. Anderson Ayala was appointed by the Council. The City Attorney’s Office has a history interpretin/ changing the law/ Charter in ways it sees fit to someone’s or others agenda. Brantley’s case is different in that she passed away before being sworn in for her new term. As she wasn’t sworn in for her new term, the council has no right to select the replacement of Brantley. I believe that Ed Gomes himself participated and or voted during council members replacement procedure and I don’t recall him ever doing a thing as far as introducing legislation to clarify the many laws in need of at least an amendment.

  5. Joel, So Mrs. Brantley term never started The correct form is “could have sworn.” This is because “sworn” is the past participle of “swear,” and the perfect tense-aspect requires the past participle after the auxiliary “have.” .and little Stevie A. is full of shit up to his bottom lip?

  6. The the City Attorney has issued a legal opinion that her seat can be filled by a simple vote of the City Council, with the Mayor casting a tie vote should surprise No one! This office has always operated under the confines of political expediency.
    The Greater Bridgeport Ed Gomes Black Democratic Club is like Black Twitter, if it was meant for you, you would know what it’s about!

  7. As I’ve been saying for a while that Steven Auerbach is nothing but a coward because he can’t post on OIB during work hours and this weekend is an example. He kissed ass to get his city’s job so he has become paid cheerleader for Mario Testa. What a loser, come back Little Stevie A.


Leave a Reply