State budget includes funds for Bridgeport elections watchdog

BRIDGEPORT — Wanted: Someone who has the trust of this city’s various political factions and is unafraid to be impartial and intervene in electionrelated controversies.

The just-passed state budget includes $150,000 to hire an elections monitor in Bridgeport for this year and next.

“It’s structured exactly the same way the funding was structured for Hartford in 2015,” Gabe Rosenberg, spokesman for Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, said Tuesday, referring to problems at the polls in the capital city’s 2014 election that prompted the creation of the temporary position. “It will be based on the same principle.”

Democrat-dominated Bridgeport has experienced several high-profile voting controversies, from the 2010 gubernatorial race when Connecticut’s largest city ran short of ballots, to

frequent allegations of absentee ballot abuses, most recently during the 2019 mayoral primary battle between incumbent Joe Ganim and state Sen. Marilyn Moore.

Last year, with an extremely divisive presidential election looming and normal restrictions on who can vote by mail lifted due to the COVID-19 pandemic, state lawmakers approved having a monitor in Bridgeport for 2020. Merrill appointed local attorney and former school board member Max Medina, who was paid at the time with federal coronavirus relief funds.

But in February Gov. Ned Lamont nominated Medina to be a Superior Court judge. Now Merrill in the coming weeks will have to identify another willing and able individual in preparation for the looming City Council and Board of Education primaries.

“We’d like to have someone in place by the end of August,” Rosenberg said. “The budget literally just passed so the (selection) process is not set . ... Judge Medina did an excellent job when he was there and he’s going to be extremely hard to replace. Everyone on every side of every faction on every issue thought he was fair and trustworthy.”

Medina in an interview just before last November’s election explained his role was not to micromanage, but “if I believe a situation has arisen which presents a problem or a potential problem, I have the authority and obligation to report it to the Secretary of the State so they can then take action within the chain of command . ... If there’s an issue, I blow the whistle, whether perpetrated by a Democrat or a Republican. The only thing that matters to me is this election be fair, honest and transparent and as painless as possible.”

Callie Heilmann agreed Medina will be missed. Heilmann helps run Bridgeport Generation Now, a civic group whose Generation Now Votes affiliate Rosenberg credited with lobbying legislators to set aside the $150,000 for the city’s new monitor.

Heilmann said Generation Now Votes was motivated by a 2019 court ruling related to that year’s mayoral primary. Moore had defeated Ganim at the voting machines, but lost the absentee ballots — and, because of that, the contest — to Ganim. Generation Now Votes supported a failed effort to have the results overturned and a new primary ordered over allegations of abuses and illegalities that included campaign workers filling out absentee ballots, handling completed ballots and signing the names of voters to applications for absentee ballots.

The State Elections Enforcement Commission continues to investigate a civil complaint of alleged mail-in ballot abuses in Bridgeport’s 2019 mayoral primary.

Ganim allies and other critics of the lawsuit and the SEEC complaint had accused Moore and her supporters of undermining democracy by unfairly attacking mail-in ballots, which are even more popular and widely accepted following their use nationwide during the height of last year’s health crisis.

Heilmann on Tuesday said there is a very specific absentee ballot problem in Bridgeport requiring a monitor, noting there are past incidents of abuse.

“The result is voter suppression and defrauding people of their right to vote,” Heilmann said. “And so it is our responsibility as Bridgeport residents and voters to restore our local democracy.”

Medina last year focused on ensuring mail-in voting went smoothly, but also kept an eye on voter registration and on ensuring polling places were prepared for in-person voting. Medina on Election Day in November reported the “usual hiccups” but nothing out of the ordinary or alarming.

State Reps. Chris Rosario and Steve Stafstrom, both D-Bridgeport, cited last year as one reason the city’s legislative delegation fought for the $150,000.

“Certainly over the last several years there have been questions and concerns raised and litigation brought surrounding elections in Bridgeport. Some of those ... have born themselves out, others have not,” Stafstrom said. “In the last election cycle we had a monitor and the election went off without a hitch. It’s not about singling out Bridgeport, necessarily, as much as it’s about providing a level of public trust and confidence in our elections.”

“I thought it was a success — the last election — (and) didn’t know anybody who thought it was a terrible idea,” Rosario said. “We don’t have Max, but I’m confident whoever that person may be will do the right thing. And if it gives voters peace of mind the election’s going to be free and fair and even for everyone, so be it.”