Election Complaints Accuse City Council Candidate Of Falsifying Address

Complaints filed with a state election watchdog agency charge that a candidate for an East End City Council seat falsified his residency to run for the office.

Former City Councilwoman Eneida Martinez, who is seeking to regain her seat, and Silvia Ramos assert Harry Carrillo fraudulently listed his address as 1845 Central Avenue where Ramos resides instead of 33 Boston Terrace which places him outside the 139th Council District.

In a complaint to the State Elections Enforcement Commission Ramos declares, “Harry Carrillo is using my address at 1845 Central Avenue …Harry does not live at this address.”

Carrillo is part of a slate of candidates running with mayoral hopeful John Gomes. Carrillo recently altered his voting address from an adjacent district  to reflect residency on Central Avenue, across the street from the former Harding High School.

The complaints disclose that Ramos is a Section 8 recipient who is concerned that Carrillo using her address could jeopardize her “housing status.”

Falsifying an address to run for public office is a violation of state law.

East End political operatives visited the Central Avenue location to inquire about Carrillo’s residency. Ramos confirmed he is using the address fraudulently.

Martinez and incumbent running mate City Councilman Ernie Newton argue the petition signatures Carrillo circulated to qualify for the September 12 Democratic primary should be invalidated.

See News 12 coverage here including a response from Gomes.




  1. Carrillo’s situation might be caused and justified by redistricting. It can be fixed.. Gomes is showing pre-election leadership. A misfired accusation can become a campaign turning point.
    But falsification of a liquor license and election laws are matters of record.
    Maybe Martinez and Newton hear footsteps.

    1. Local Eyes as you are listed, perhaps you should do your research before commenting on what you don’t know or have evidence to speak upon. What I can tell you is that fools look foolish when they speak ignorance. I stand on HARD CONCRETE, not soft mushrooms. Good Night!!!!

    2. LOCAL EYE
      Well, I haven’t. been on OIB in a while. Local eye this isn’t. about the B.S you wrote. This is about someone who lives in the 138th district USING An ADDRESS HE DON’ST LIVE AT. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH SOMEONE RUNNING FOR OFFICE AND WE WELCOME THE CHALLENCE. LET”S SEE WHAT THE SECY OF the STATE and the SEEC. feels about. Your theory! Maybe you should be his campaign manager. LOL

  2. I offer a section of Bridgeport City Charter language to indicate how seriously the issue of residence is to governance, whether elective or appointed. Candidacy is also covered. I wonder how many of those affected by this language posted in recent years, provide this information year in and year out? Time will tell.

    .02.080 – Residency reporting of all municipal elected officials, board and commission members.
    All municipal elected officers, as well as board and commission members (mayoral-appointed or otherwise), are required to provide their current residence street address of record to the town clerk’s office by January 31 st of each year of service. Any change of residence address during service as an elected officer or board member must be reported to the town clerk’s office within thirty (30) days of such residency change.

    Failure to abide by section 2.02.080 by an elected official may result in the filing of a formal complaint by the town clerk to the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission.

    Failure to abide by section 2.02.080 by a board or commission member (mayoral-appointed or otherwise) may result in referral to the mayor and city council for removal pursuant to the Charter of the City of Bridgeport, Section 17. Removal of Certain Officers.

    Exceptions to this section may be made at the discretion of the city attorney’s office when public disclosure of the current residence street address of record of an elected official or a board or commission member (mayoral-appointed or otherwise) poses a proven risk of significant danger to the elected official, board or commission member.

    (Ord. dated 11/6/17 )

  3. Have all incumbents, who seek to return to office, observed this annual registration requirement. If not, perhaps it is something for opposition to note and remind voters. Representatives of the public need to observe and model behavior supportive of the rule of law, or do you diagree? Time will tell.


Leave a Reply