Mayor Joe Ganim’s campaign announced on Thursday that it has raised roughly $100,000 since winning the September 10 Democratic primary that is being challenged in Superior Court.
Ganim’s campaign has hosted two events since the end of the latest quarter fundraising period ending September 30, last week at the Stress Factory comedy club Downtown and Thursday night at Testo’s Restaurant, owned by Democratic Town Chair Mario Testa.
“It’s so exciting to see the positive response to our message,” said Ganim in a statement. “The voters of Bridgeport know that if they want lower taxes, improved safety in our neighborhoods, and to secure more money for education, voting for the Democrat is the way to ensure that.”
On September 10 State Senator Marilyn Moore waged a strong insurgent challenge, winning on the machines but losing via absentee ballots, something that Bridgeport Generation Now Votes, whose leadership supports Moore, is contesting before Superior Court Judge Barry Stevens who’s expected to issue a decision late next week after final arguments and submission of briefs.
The drawn-out legal process is disquieting for both the Ganim and Moore camps.
The court complaint is asking for a new Democratic primary. Meanwhile Ganim, as the certified primary winner, and Moore, who is waging a write-in candidacy because she lacks a ballot line, are pressing on to the scheduled November 5 general election with the specter of the court case hanging.
How will Judge Stevens rule? No one knows except the judge.
If he rules for the plaintiffs it will set off an appeal that would likely go straight to the Connecticut Supreme Court on an expedited basis with a potential delay in the general election for a whole bunch of candidates not party to the lawsuit.
If he dismisses the case it’s on to November 5.
By the way, electors have already voted by absentee ballot for the November election.
Yes, this is a long, strange trip.
Judge Barry Stevens noted that some votes were cast by people who did not meet the strict requirements for absentee ballots: illness, military service and being out of town on the date of the primary, among others.
“The criteria does not include not wanting to go physically and voting in the voting booth,” Stevens said. “In this regard, their absentee ballots …should not have been submitted.”
Wow!!
I believe if Judge Barry Stevens was to order a new election the Supreme Court would quickly take up the matter and overrule him.
The matter is proving an elections official made a mistake in the count. There is nothing in the statute that states elections officials must determine if an absentee ballot application is validly submitted or that a signature on an outer envelope matches the voter registration card.
What if I registered 10 years ago but now I have severe arthritis, lost fingers due to diabetes, have Parkinsons, MS or ALS which all cause tremors and weakness in the hands?
Can you imagine if every AB submitted required the signature be compared to a voter registration card which cannot be done until noon on election day? What special training woukd with those counting ABs receive to conduct a valid signature analysis?
This is simply absurd on its face.
How many of us sign a credit card receipt differently than our license? How do we know an authorized family member didn’t sign the outer envelope?
My signature is often very different based on the importance of what I am signing.
This is over the top.
The voter signs the application.
The voter fills out the absentee ballot but a family (?) member signs the ballot????
You are insulting the good judge’s intelligence with that one.
A little worried it sounds like.
Bob, a family member, medical professional and police officer are allowed to assist a voter fill out an actual AB ballot. Why would they be allowed to assist with bubbling in the ballot but not signing the outer envelope. Remember a voter can sign an outer envelope by simply making an X on the outer envelope.
Did some say they lost a finger?
The bottom line is this: the plaintiffs sued on the claim that the votes were counted improperly. If the absentee ballots were completed improperly and illegally they should not have been counted. It’s not a hair split.
The vote will be overturned.
Sounds like Maria’s a little worried here.
Hmmm…….
Sounds like it to me to Bob but why would she be is the question. Hmm
Donj,
It is “hmmm…” not “Hmm”. It’s not an option.
Neither Samia and my primary nor Castillo & Zambrano’s primary should be overturned.
We won on the machines and on ABs.
Samia and I, and our three volunteers worked our butt off for our victory and did it with $3,900.
I heard Mario and crew were roasting the departure of Judge Bellis on Election Night.
Maybe the celebration was a bit premature.
Hmmm…….
The first November 5th AB report was distributed today.
Almost 700 ABs were mailed out on October 8th.
“It’s so exciting to see the positive response to our message,” said Ganim in a statement. “The voters of Bridgeport know that if they want lower taxes, improved safety in our neighborhoods, and to secure more money for education, voting for the Democrat is the way to ensure that.”
Where is the positive response to this joker? ^^^
Praying for this judge to realize what happened here and hopefully order a redo of the primary. If not, we’ll fight it out in the gen.
There’s is compelling evidence showing tha Marilyn Moore, Sauda Baracka and others committed fraud during the democratic primary petition process. If Judge Stevens orders a redo of the primary, shouldn’t he also order a redo of the petitioning process. What would an examination of petition signatures reveal?
There’s a greater amount of compelling evidence that Joe Ganim’s campaign committed absentee ballot fraud, Joel. Casting aspersions at Marilyn Moore will not change that fact. Judge Stevens will rule in favor of the plaintiffs.
There is a lot of history of compelling evidence that Joe Ganim’s campaign has committed absentee ballot fraud for years. What is the history of compelling evidence that Marilyn Moore campaign has committed absentee ballot fraud?
So if Joe Ganim committed a murder every four years and got away within it until year 12, and Marilyn Moore committed a murder within her first four years and got caught Ganim is more guilty of committing a murder than Moore?
Aren’t they both guilty of murder?
BOTH have worrisome discrepancies. If one gets overturned the other should equally be held to “proper accordance“. This would require a complete restart to the election process. Will they restart the process beginning with signatures? Fraud is fraud one is not less or more. Both are irregularities.
Here’s what’s worrisome with irregularities, Joe Ganim and Mario Testa have record of past irregularities for over 25 years that is on record but Marilyn Moore has no such record, in fact this is the first time. People working for Testa and Ganim have been arrested and fined for their illegal action over the years, there is no comparison.
I’m not comparing I’m just stating facts. Moore committed fraud. She with knowledge went ahead and created election fraud. Ganim has had more years at it but this hardly is a good trade. This woman is incompetent because she didn’t even try to hide it. My opinion is not that Ganim is better than Moore but it certainly Moore is a CLEARLY not a better choice. The city requires a seasoned efficient manager. She has shown no agility managing, not even being able to manage her own small group of campaign team. Hell, the WFP has washed their collective hands of her.
Jeff Kohut if the election levees a result to go back to square 1, would be pleased for you to run.
What people working for Ganim have been “arrested?”
Sybll Allen, Lydia Martinez,, Sonia Belardo and more have been fined by the SEEC. They were never “arrested.”
The only two paid operatives who were arrested and plead guilty to voter fraud were Betty Chappell and her significant other Troy Stevenenson who were both on Marilyn Moore’s payroll.
Coward and a fake just like everything you post is fake.
Of course you’re not comparing because you are blind and a coward who’s scare to use your God given that your mother and father gave you, that’s a disgrace that you are a embarrassment to your parents.
Don’t cry out loud Ron.
The Judge has no choice , but to vacate the results of the primary and order a new primary for all the candidates.
Lennie, can we get a count on what the campaigns have in funding as of today? I know there’s a website or a link on the S.O. S’s website where this info can be found , but I can’t find it…
Hector, reports for the filing period ending September 30 were due in the Town Clerk’s office yesterday. Ganim reports $100k raised for general election as of Thursday night which won’t be reflected on the latest report because most of it was raised in the past week. I’m checking on the others.
Marilyn Moore or any other candidate who runs as the endorsed DTC candidate for mayor can’t come anywhere near Joe Ganim’s but even with much money, countless missteps in her campaign including a terrible ABs operation that came nowhere near Joe Ganim but still Marilyn Moore beat Joe Ganim at the voting polls but lost by only 270 absentee votes all goes to show that the voters are tired of Joe Ganim’s lies and poor management of the City and Ganim fail attempt to run for governor after only being in office as mayor for just one and half years.
it looks like we are in for a do over!!!
CT Post “even as Stevens predicted that the issues could be headed to the state Supreme Court.”
Not to me. (CT Post) “BRIDGEPORT — Lawyers defending the way last month’s controversial Democratic primary was run won several procedural victories on Friday when Superior Court Judge Barry Stevens rejected 13 of 19 additional claims in the attempt by local activists to overturn Mayor Joe Ganim’s victory.
It’s all a matter of reading. While 13 ADDITIONAL claims were rejected, 6 ADDITIONAL claims were allowed. I define additional as being added to. So the way I read this is the judge allowed six ADDITIONAL claims to the claims already allowed. Addition adds to the claims not subtracts from the original claims.
It will be intriguing what comes out of this. My money is on the total outcome not effecting the election in November.
https://www.ctinsider.com/local/ctpost/article/Bridgeport-Sacred-Heart-at-odds-over-student-14514613.php?src=posthpcp&_ga=2.123342850.861117008.1570576953-250144130.1569292846
Senator Moore has studiously avoided this topic — being well-connected to the SHU BOD and Trumbull-Bridgeport-border developers that are now building hundreds of SHU apartments on Lindeman Drive (adjacent to/upstream from the already flood-prone area of Lake Forest) that will use Bridgeport services and pay Trumbull taxes, per the politically-sanctioned policy of suburb-pirating of Bridgeport services even as they profit by the taxes (and in this case, as they fulfill, state, “affordable housing” quotas per housing that is essentially in Bridgeport…).
The Ganim and Finch Administrations have actively cooperated (actually facilitated) the SHU expansion and takeover of the North End (Ganim I rolled-over and acquiesced to the first dorms, and later, Ganim II sold Bridgeport parkland to SHU for expansion; the Finch Administration rolled over to more dorm construction and gave SHU carte blanche to our schools and use of our parkland…
But, on another level, as a state senator for the 22nd, Senator Moore has remained silent on SHU actions in the North End and has avoided acknowledging the many environmental and public-safety/public health issues (of state-level concern) related to the SHU-rentals in the North End (22nd District), as well as SHU-related (and non-related) Trumbull (also 22nd District) development issues that negatively impact her Bridgeport constituents…
Read the article and realize the lack of concern of the aforementioned candidates for the welfare of their constituents — and the likelihood that they will do nothing, if elected/re-elected, to salvage the quality of life for residents in the huge North End of Bridgeport…
Mayor Ganim’s concerns, voiced in the Post article, will last only until 8 PM, November 5… Senator Moore apparently doesn’t have such concerns — even for the election season… (No comment from the R/Rodriguez camp, either…)
Maria Pereira, no one was arrested and that’s why it’s no big deal in Bridgeport for absentee voting fraud. The list below goes back to 1993 and Joe Ganim benefited from those votes but just read what each person and look at their punishment. Again, just look at the record of Lydia Martinez the current elected City Clerk. Now what is the history of Marilyn Moore with voter fraud for 26 years or for 10 years or 5 years?
City Councilwoman Lydia Martinez admitted to illegally assisting in the filling out of absentee ballots, as well as encouraging those not eligible to vote absentee to do so. Martinez targeted residents of an assisted living home, Harborview Towers. She was ordered by the Connecticut Elections Enforcement Commission to pay a $500 fine. This was not the first time she was fined by the Commission: In 2008, she was found liable to pay $664 to the Citizens Election Fund for the excess expenditures her campaign committee made for her failed run for the State House.
Sybil Allen, while serving as a Democrat on the Bridgeport Town Committee, engaged in a range of absentee ballot-related fraud. Allen completed ballot applications in the name of residents, forged signatures, and on at least one occasion got a voter to forge a ballot registration form for a family member who no longer lived in the community. Allen also told one voter that a candidate was not on the ballot and watched voters fill out their ballots before taking possession of them. Allen eventually agreed to pay a civil fine of $5,000 and was barred from running for re-election for two years.
Warren Blunt, a city councilman in Bridgeport, pleaded guilty to being present while people cast their absentee ballots and subsequently taking those ballots while running for re-election in the town’s Democratic primary. The State of Connecticut Elections Enforcement Commission fined Blunt $2,500 and required him to resign from the town committee. He was also barred from running for elected office again for two years.
As part of a “get out the vote” campaign leading up to the 2000 election, Ronald Caveness admitted to distributing absentee ballots, being present while people filled them out, and then collecting them. After an investigation by the Connecticut Elections Enforcement Commission, he agreed to resign from the Democratic Town Committee, not seeking re-election for two years, and pay a fine of $4,000, which was eventually reduced to $1,000.
Paulette Park, while working for a candidate for Bridgeport’s 2000 Democratic Town Committee primary election, illegally persuaded voters to list false reasons for requesting absentee ballots, assisted them in applying for absentee ballots, and took possession of the absentee ballots after watching voters fill them out. The State of Connecticut Elections Enforcement Commission fined her $5,000 and banned her from working on future campaigns.
Jacqueline Rogers was a campaign worker for James Holloway, a candidate for City Council. In the 1993 primary, she was paid $150 to dress up in a nurse’s uniform with a certified nurse nametag and solicit “emergency” absentee ballots from patients. She instructed at least one voter to cast her ballot for Holloway. The primary was ultimately decided in Holloway’s favor by just nine votes. The Connecticut Elections Enforcement Commission barred her from participating in political campaigns for five years.
Curtis Mouning, a campaign volunteer for State Representative Mario Testa during the 1990 election, admitted to signing the names of five of his friends and family members to request absentee ballots to vote in the primary. He was ordered to pay a civil penalty to the Connecticut Elections Enforcement Commission in the amount of $500.
Former state representative Christina Ayala pleaded guilty to two counts of providing a false statement and was sentenced to a suspended one-year prison term followed by two years of conditional discharge. Ayala had voted in a series of elections, including the 2012 presidential election, in districts in which she did not live. When confronted about residency discrepancies by state investigators, Ayala fabricated evidence to corroborate her false residency claims. Before agreeing to a plea deal, she faced eight counts of fraudulent voting, 10 counts of primary or enrollment violations, and one count of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. As a condition of her plea deal, she is barred from seeking elected office for two years.