The Connecticut Post is “exploring the possibility and legalities of recounting the ballots” from Election Day. An editorial urges Mayor Bill Finch to snap to attention. What legal authority could force such an action? Check out the editorial:
On the one hand, no one’s saying the results from the Nov. 2 election in Bridgeport are incorrect.
Even Tom Foley, the vanquished Republican candidate for governor, has accepted them.
And according to both Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz and Bridgeport City Attorney Mark Anastasi, there is no law that requires recounting ballots cast in the confusion of Nov. 2, when the city of Bridgeport, to national attention–and chuckles–ran out of ballots.
But the Fraud-aroma Meter is still registering high readings.
Both inside and outside Bridgeport, the suspicion, scoffing, eye-rolling and knowing winks continue. What do you expect, after all, from a city whose reputation for election fraud is not totally undeserved?
The 2010 fiasco, though, should more rightly be filed under “I,” for ineptitude. Nevertheless, to the larger audience, it’s the same old same old.
And given the city’s rich heritage of stolen votes, a hundred questions in a hundred minds is perfectly understandable.
There may be no legal requirement to recount the photocopies cast in place of real ballots, but they should be counted, and Mayor Bill Finch should back the exercise to the hilt.
The Connecticut Post itself is exploring the possibility and legalities of recounting the ballots.
Mayor Bill Finch should back the exercise to the hilt.
The city had only 21,000 scannable ballots on hand for Election Day. With turnout pumped up by an Obama visit three days before the election, polls around the city were running out of ballots by mid-afternoon and harried officials substituted photocopied ballots. A judge ordered 12 precincts to stay open until 10 p.m., two hours past closing time.
Recounting the ballots from those 12 precincts is not going to create a new dawn in Bridgeport, establish it as the reform capital of Connecticut, but it would send the Fraud-aroma Meter down a couple of notches.
*** The CT Post has strayed away in its news coverage of local current events in Bpt presently. And now since this election debacle became national news, the Post editorial feels committed to give its two cents on the ballet recount, no? Well damage is done, also too little too late on a system that was headed for disaster sooner or later. Recount or no recount the outcome will still be tainted in the minds of many voters! Time to review, learn from the mistakes & make the necessary changes and move on with this Circus sideshow. We don’t need any more political P/R fanfare that will get us nowhere! ***
OK, what legal authority–good question. Apparently they are going to try to FOI the ballots out of seal as was done by newspapers in Florida in 2000.
The story yesterday was that they wanted to count just the late-open districts. Now they are talking full recount. THAT would have merit as a learning opportunity, but if there really is going to be any sort of investigation into this election, then they ought to get first dibs at handling the election materials.
The audits we do in CT in and of themselves could stand a great deal of improvement. I have always felt that their biggest value is in their opportunity for citizens to see how their ROVs work and how well their elections are being run.
If a full examination is done of the ballots plus voter check-ins, absentee ballot applications and so forth, a tremendous amount could be learned about Bridgeport election administration that the average citizen has no way to find out.
Many people may have been disenfranchised by the lack of ballots on election day. Craziness would be to expect it would never happen again if nothing changes.
I’m reserving judgment on this one. If it’s now moved from sideshow to serious undertaking, I’m watching with interest.
Would I rather the state or feds powerfully investigate? Yes. Likely to happen? Call me a cynic, but … no.
Thanks ctwatcher. This is new territory for a lot of us.
No problem, Lennie. Further to your question about under what law … and the reported in the news answer of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), here is a link for the geeks among us who want to see what specifically is excluded from CT’s FOI law. There is also a federal FOI law. Non geeks, don’t bother and I’ll give you the bottom line … on the bottom line below!
www .state.ct.us/foi/2009FOIA/Full%202009%20FOI%20Act.htm
The federal law does not exclude ballots from being FOI-able (requestable under FOI law). I read an opinion from the State of Michigan that said the federal law may be stricter in terms of who may handle the ballots and how, but it will let them be unsealed, copied, and resealed, apparently.
Since this is a federal election, federal laws would apply. However, a browse through the state law does not show any specific statute that excludes ballots or exempts them from the FOI law.
Translated, a means for public examination of the ballots probably has to be provided.
Let’s see what happens …
With 20-20 hindsight, we can all conclude that it would have been a good idea for the registrars to have ordered more ballots. Beyond that, what more is there to usefully say?
Foley concedes the Bridgeport results favor Malloy by a large margin. Beyond ineptitude, what has been demonstrated here? Nothing but political and journalistic posturing.
Yes it’s a gruesome accident, but let’s not rubberneck. We’re holding up traffic.
CT Post
Too Much! Too Little!! Too Late!!! I remember when Caruso cried fowl in 2007 with a Chicken Little message that the Sky was falling with lost ballots. They sneered at him and said they were waiting for the ballots to wash up on the shore at Seaside Park!
The Post is awash in red ink.
Amidst the hot air and the potential profit motive for recount, I’m hanging in here to see what happens.
I think it has potential–let’s watch and see.
The obvious error in the number of ballots ordered is universally acknowledged. That’s all some people seem to be focusing on, as if that alone would solve all problems.
A recount could show other types of problems. If the State wants to fix problems with the present voting system, let’s try to find out ALL the problems that exist.
Based on how tired the poll workers must have been, I think it quite likely that many errors could have been made in the hand count of the ballots in the wee hours. Reconciling the number of ballots (not votes) with the checklists will also show what problems may exist in the present system.
In Trumbull the checkers give each voter who has checked in a token. That token is then given to the ballot clerk in exchange for a ballot. (In the August primary involving Democrats & Republicans, there were different color tokens for each party to be sure no one could get an incorrect ballot.) These tokens are not required by law. They’re a simple extra step to preserve the integrity of every person’s vote.