Experts call voter-fraud case an aberration
A judge’s order for a new primary in Connecticut’s largest city because of what he called mishandling of absentee ballots is fueling skepticism about the security of U.S. elections, as well as conspiracy theories involving the 2020 presidential election.
But election experts contend what happened in Bridgeport — people captured on surveillance video dropping stacks of ballots into outdoor collection boxes — is unique to Bridgeport, a working class city of more than 144,000 that has a long history of voting irregularities. At the very least, they said, it is pretty rare and should not be seen as evidence of widespread problems.
“In Connecticut, this is a problem here and here alone,” longtime election law attorney Bill Bloss, who is representing the Democratic candidate who successfully challenged the outcome of the city’s mayoral primary, said Thursday when asked about the case fueling misinformation about former President Donald Trump’s 2020 defeat.
An Associated Press review of every potential case of voter fraud in the six battleground states disputed by Trump has found fewer than 475 — a number that would have made no difference in the 2020 presidential election. And legal challenges to the 2020 election were heard and roundly rejected by dozens of courts at both state and federal levels, including by judges whom Trump appointed.
On Wednesday, Connecticut Judge William Clark tossed out the results of the Sept. 12 primary and ordered that a new one be held, citing what he referred to as “shocking” surveillance videos that appeared to show supporters of Mayor Joe Ganim dropping multiple pieces of paper into absentee ballot boxes.
Under Connecticut law, voters using a collection box must drop off their completed ballots themselves or designate certain family members, police, local election officials or a caregiver to do it for them. Clark wrote in his decision that the volume of “mishandled ballots” left the court unable to determine the legitimate result of the primary.
Ganim, a Democrat who has repeatedly been reelected, despite having to take a break from public office while he served seven years in prison for corruption, has denied any knowledge of voting law violations.
So far, the Bridgeport scandal has not involved any allegations that people doctored ballots or created fake votes. Instead, they involve an activity known as “ballot harvesting,” where campaign workers or volunteers visit potential voters, persuade them to fill out absentee ballots and then collect those ballots and put them in drop boxes or send them in via the mail.
That kind of collection effort is banned in Connecticut, but it is allowed in some other states.
Former Connecticut Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, a Democrat, said that in Bridgeport, people — especially older residents — have gotten accustomed to allowing others to deliver their absentee ballots, including before the state began allowing absentee drop boxes during the pandemic.
The Connecticut judge ruled just six days before the general election, creating a perplexing scenario in which Bridgeport voters will decide the outcome of the mayoral election on Nov. 7, then potentially be asked to return to the polls at an undetermined date to vote in a new Democratic primary.
The judge gave lawyers in the case 10 days to confer with election officials on a possible date for the new primary.
The State Election Enforcement Commission is investigating complaints related to the recent mayoral primary. It has also made criminal referrals concerning Ganim’s 2019 primary and absentee ballots to state prosecutors.
State funding was recently finalized to hire an independent election monitor for Bridgeport who would “detect and prevent irregularity and impropriety” in the Nov. 7 municipal election and the 2024 state election.