Under criminal investigation for alleged fraudulent voting, a new, explosive state election complaint charges judge of probate candidate Mark Bradley and his campaign with harvesting forged signatures to qualify for a Democratic primary, something validated by more than 30 sworn affidavits “establishing Bridgeport citizens and voters were told they could sign – or did sign – primary petitions for family members, friends, or significant others without those individuals’ knowledge” in violation of state law.
This means hundreds of fraudulent signatures were counted as legitimate by local election officials in Bradley’s quest to make the August 11 primary ballot to challenge incumbent Paul Ganim. Bradley needed validated signatures of five percent of registered Democrats to qualify for the ballot. Had those “tainted” signature sheets not been counted, Bradley would not have qualified for the ballot.
The complaint also asserts Mark’s brother, Dennis Bradley, convicted by a federal jury in March on six counts of election fraud stemming from his 2018 run for state senate, was part of a campaign crew that “acted individually and collectively to mislead Bridgeport voters and campaign workers, causing unauthorized and forged signatures to be placed on primary petition papers in direct violation of Connecticut law.”
The complaint to the State Elections Enforcement Commission was filed by Ganim supporter Kevin Monks, Democratic leader of the Upper East Side 138th District, who issued an election action against City Councilwoman Maria Pereira in 2023 that led to numerous criminal counts of election fraud against her. Pereira, who is harvesting absentee ballots for Mark Bradley’s campaign, denies the allegations.
Last week SEEC referred to Connecticut law enforcement officials allegations that Mark Bradley has voted fraudulently for years in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Voting records provided OIB by election officials in Massachusetts and Connecticut show he’s a registered Republican in Massachusetts and Democrat in Bridgeport. In fact, he’s been a registered Republican in Massachusetts for 22 years.
SEEC is empowered with civil authority to investigate allegations of election fraud and may issue fines associated with convictions. The commission may issue findings of criminal conduct with law enforcement agencies as it did last week.
Three former Connecticut State Police investigators/troopers, now private investigators, obtained 32 sworn affidavits of election fraud, according to the complaint.
Complaint follows:
As a resident and registered voter in the City of Bridgeport, I submit this formal complaint demanding that the State Elections Enforcement Commission (“SEEC”) investigate serious, systematic, and unlawful violations of Connecticut election law by candidate Mark E. Bradley, his campaign committee, Friends of Mark Bradley for Probate, and individuals acting on behalf of the campaign.
This complaint establishes that the Bradley campaign engaged in a coordinated and fraudulent effort to obtain enough signatures to place Mark Bradley on the ballot for Judge of Probate in the August 11, 2026, Bridgeport primary. Mark Bradley, Dennis Bradley, Dennis Bradley Sr., Tony Barr and others acted individually and collectively to mislead Bridgeport voters and campaign workers, causing unauthorized and forged signatures to be placed on primary petition papers in direct violation of Connecticut law.
Mark Bradley’s Signature Campaign Involved Rampant and Coordinated Fraud
Beyond the candidate’s residency issues, three former Connecticut State Police trained investigators / troopers, now private investigators, obtained thirty-two (32) sworn affidavits establishing that Bridgeport citizens and voters were told they could sign—or did sign—primary petitions for family members, friends, or significant others without those individuals’ knowledge, consent, or presence. Thirty-two affidavits are attached. Investigators also identified additional citizens who declined to sign affidavits but confirmed that they either did not sign the petition or signed on behalf of someone else. This organized and unlawful petition drive caused invalid signatures to be counted and improperly enabled Mark Bradley to qualify for the August 11 Democratic primary ballot in Bridgeport.
One Bradley circulator confirmed that campaign representatives never instructed circulators that each Bridgeport voter must personally sign the petition in the circulator’s presence, as
Connecticut law requires. (See Exhibit D affidavit of Ken Beasley with corresponding page 143 and Exhibit C report, page 4.)Campaign workers accepted forged signatures, instructed voters to sign for absent family members, and used out-of-state circulators, all in direct violation of Connecticut election law. This coordinated misconduct tainted hundreds of signatures that should never have been counted. Without those invalid signatures, Mark Bradley would not have qualified for ballot access.
A. Direct Forged Signatures and Identity Discrepancies
Private investigators interviewed hundreds of voters whose names appeared on Bradley petition sheets. Dozens unequivocally stated that they did not sign the petitions, and many executed sworn affidavits confirming that fact. The affidavits were obtained by former state police troopers or police officers, ensuring the credibility and integrity of the investigative process.
Some examples:
● 467 Noble Avenue: Elijah Johnson signed a sworn affidavit stating that he never signed the petition (See Exhibit D affidavit with corresponding page 289 and Exhibit B report.)
● 98 Highland Avenue (Apt. A215): Blondell Brown signed a sworn affidavit stating she never signed the petition and never met anyone from the campaign. She also pointed out that another name on that sheet, Anna Gonzalez, moved away more than a year ago. (See Exhibit D affidavit with corresponding page 187 and Exhibit B report.)
● 730 Palisade Avenue (Unit H-9): Nayda Perez confirmed through a sworn affidavit that the signature next to her name was completely forged (See Exhibit D affidavit with corresponding page 339 and Exhibit B report.)
● 1450 Main Street (Apt. 811): Tyrone Johnson signed an affidavit stating he did not sign the petition (See Exhibit D affidavit with corresponding page 283 and Exhibit A report.)
● 1384 North Avenue: Investigators found that Catalina Estrada and William Estrada moved out of this property over two years ago, meaning their signatures are completely fraudulent. (See Exhibit B report.)
A review of the petition sheets submitted to the Bridgeport Registrar of Voters reveals further evidence of fraud. Several sheets contain sequential signatures that appear to have been written by the same person. Some sheets omit all dates of birth, while other sheets circulated by the same individuals include them. Taken together, these facts strongly suggest that names and addresses were copied from voter rolls and signatures were then falsified.
B. Campaign Workers Instructing People to Sign on Behalf of Others
Bradley campaign workers did not merely permit mistakes; they affirmatively directed voters to sign the names of other individuals without permission and outside their presence, conduct that plainly violates Connecticut’s petition-circulation requirements.
Dennis Bradley at Gala Foods: Campaign worker Dennis Bradley approached Mary Gray and her sister while they were shopping at Gala Foods. After they signed, he asked who else lived with them and explicitly told both women to write and sign their children’s names on the petition pages. Mary Gray provided a sworn affidavit confirming this incident. Dennis Bradley is awaiting sentencing for prior election-fraud conduct and, despite a public apology, appears to have continued similar unlawful conduct. (See Exhibit D affidavit of Mary Gray with corresponding page 289 and Exhibit C, page 2.)● 9 Greenhouse Road: Nancy Hernandez signed an affidavit stating she was approached at Gala Foods by a very aggressive female campaign worker who stated that she was collecting petition signatures on behalf of her son. This worker told Ms. Hernandez to sign the petition on behalf of her partner, Viviano Escalera, which she did because the campaign worker told her it was allowed. (See Exhibit D with corresponding page 227 and Exhibit B report.)
● 62 Dean Place: Jeffrey Wheeler reported that campaign workers Alfredo Castillo and Marcus Lugo heavily pressured him to sign on behalf of his son, who wasn’t even home. (See Exhibit A report.)
● Widespread Proxy Voting: A long list of other residents gave statements or signed affidavits confirming they signed for family members because the campaign workers explicitly told them to do so or watched it happen without stopping it (including properties at 55 Wessels Ave – Exhibit B; 730 Palisade Ave, Unit D-5 – Exhibit B; 47 Magnolia St – Exhibit B; 435 Dogwood Lane – Exhibit B; 29 Pleasant St – Exhibit B; 151 Orchard St – Exhibit B; 605 Pembroke Ave – Exhibit A; and 396 Wells St – Exhibit A).
C. Falsifying Circulator Forms
Connecticut law requires each circulator to sign the petition under penalty of false statement, certifying that the circulator personally witnessed each signature. The Bradley campaign repeatedly submitted petition sheets certified by individuals who did not actually circulate those sheets, creating false certifications in violation of Connecticut election law.
● 39 Sherman Park Lane: Ms. Watson stated that a woman named Mona Murphy took her signature. Yet, the campaign turned in the page with Tony Barr signed as the official circulator (See Exhibit B).
● 555 Trumbull Avenue (Apt. 802): The resident stated that Alfredo Castillo took their signature. The campaign turned in the page under the name of Marcus Lugo (See Exhibit A).
● 1241 Main Street (Apt. 729): Iris Ayala stated that an aggressive woman collected her signature. The campaign turned in the sheet listing Dennis Bradley as the circulator (See Exhibit B).
Additional petition sheets contain fraudulent circulator certifications. Several circulator signatures do not match across sheets purportedly circulated by the same person. Circulator Vargas appears with two different spellings, “Gerardo” and “Geraldo”. In multiple instances, the date of the circulator’s signature does not match the date of the attestation on the back of the petition sheet. Vargas’s June 2026 voter registration card contains a signature matching only
one group of petition sheets and one spelling of his name. In another instance, a sheet rejected by the Bridgeport Democratic Registrar of Voters was attested to despite the absence of any circulator signature. Other petitions show notarizations or attestations made days before or after the circulator allegedly signed. These irregularities demonstrate a broader pattern of false attestation and unlawful petition practices. See attached Exhibit F.
D. Blatant and Knowing Use of Out-of-State Circulators
The campaign’s own financial disclosure form, SEEC Form 20 filed July 10 and signed by Treasurer Cynthia Infante, lists Dennis Bradley Sr., who is Mark Bradley’s father, at 1157 Main Street, Fitchburg, Massachusetts 01420. Despite that Massachusetts address, Dennis Bradley Sr. is registered to vote in Bridgeport and circulated 15 petition sheets that were counted by the Registrar’s Office. In addition, “Gerardo” Vargas registered to vote on June 1, 2026, using 528 Clinton Avenue, Bridgeport, Connecticut, although he resides in Rutland, Massachusetts. That Bridgeport address is also associated with Dennis Bradley Jr., Mark Bradley, and others. These facts establish serious residency violations and confirm that out-of-state circulators were knowingly used in violation of Connecticut election law.
This evidence establishes a willful effort to evade Connecticut election law, mislead election officials, and obtain ballot access through illegal petition practices.
CONCLUSION & REQUEST FOR SEEC ACTION
The evidence set forth above establishes that the Bradley campaign knowingly and repeatedly violated Connecticut election law. The campaign used forged signatures, false circulator certifications, unauthorized proxy signatures, and out-of-state circulators to secure ballot access. This systematic and illegal conduct strikes at the core integrity of the electoral process and must not be permitted to stand.
I request that SEEC immediately conduct a thorough investigation and take all appropriate civil enforcement action against Mr. Bradley, his campaign committee, and every associate who violated the law. SEEC should also refer any criminal conduct it identifies to the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office, as it has done in another matter involving Mr. Bradley.
Immediate investigation and enforcement are necessary to protect Connecticut’s election laws, preserve public confidence in the ballot-access process, and deter future illegal campaign conduct.
Sincerely,
Kevin Monks
