The Middletown Press (Middletown, CT)
Bridgeport mayoral election to proceed
HARTFORD — The Connecticut Supreme Court on Monday gave the goahead for a Tuesday election in Bridgeport, but offered Mayor Joe Ganim’s challengers some degree of hope.
While their attempt to overturn the September Democratic primary has likely failed, they might have made it easier for future challengers, who may get a wider range of legal options.
After hearing arguments, Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard A. Robinson took an hourlong recess, then brought the sevenmember panel back into the courtroom to announce that they could not make an overall judgment on the appeal a day before the election.
Attorney Prerna Rao said the ruling may at least become a partial victory for her three clients, who were backed by the local activist groups Bridgeport Generation Now Votes and PT Partners.
“We always acknowledged that it was going to be an uphill battle, coming in from the beginning,” Rao told reporters outside the ornate, landmark courtroom. “The fact is that they’re actually going to be considering some of what we said today. And if it means that they might be considering whether we have broader standing, which the trial court determined that we didn’t have standing in certain respects, and if the Supreme Court is willing to look at that and reverse it in some parts, it’s great for electors who want to bring issues like this to light in the future. It becomes actionable, which is great.”
A compromise verdict for the challengers would allow people to contest election results under additional state laws beyond the one that was the focus during the monthlong trial before Superior Court Judge Barry Stevens, who ruled against the challengers because there were not enough irregularities to change the outcome.
Deputy City Attorney John Bohannon Jr., who tried the case for the entire month of October and won last week in state Superior Court, said that while the entire ruling remains to be seen, it’s a shortterm victory, at the least, for the state’s largest city, which on Tuesday will decide whether it wants to reelect Ganim to another fouryear term.
“I’m pleased that the election is proceeding as planned,” said Bohannon, who spoke only briefly during the hourand25minute arguments before the high court.
While she was not a plaintiff, state Sen. Marilyn Moore, who won the machine vote but lost the primary by 270 votes because of Ganim’s lopsided absentee ballot victory, would have benefited.
Now, on Tuesday, Moore, who shockingly failed to get the required 207 signatures to have her name printed on the Tuesday ballot, will hope voter dissatisfaction with Ganim helps her historic Election Day writein campaign.
The court case, while relying in part on a variety of a lesser election lawsuits in recent years, is unprecedented and called by the legal community a “case of first impression.” That issue likely drove the court to huddle behind closed doors to discuss the alternatives, then come back and let the election take place.
Robinson and Associate Justices Richard Palmer and Andrew McDonald led the questioning of the competing attorneys, hammering away at both sides, but they were particularly critical of James Healy, an appellate specialist representing the city. The jurists betrayed their reluctance to grant the challengers their ultimate goal — postponing the general election and holding another primary — when they asked what kind of alternative remedies they had on the day before the election.
“If we agree with the plaintiffs and the election is held tomorrow and Joseph Ganim wins the election, what then?” Robinson asked Healy. “What happens to this matter?”
“Do we have the authority to stay the election?” McDonald said, following up.
“I’m not aware of any case where this court has issued a stay of a general election,” Healy said. “Let’s sort of play out the hypothetical that subsequent to the general election there’s a decision from this court that the primary should be redone. I guess in effect you’re overturning two elections in the process. But we’re all in uncharted territory in terms of the case law.”
“What purpose would allowing a general election to go forward serve if ultimately a new primary would have to be held and a new general election?” McDonald further queried.
“There are other remedies after that,” Healy said.
“Other things within the statutory realm.”
“If the election happens tomorrow, and lets assume Mayor Ganim is reelected in that election,” McDonald interrupted “and let’s assume for purposes of this question that a week later we come out with a decision in favor of the plaintiffs, what purpose would have been accomplished by allowing that general election to go forward and the ensuing chaos that would unravel as a result of that?”
“Your honor, I submit that chaos would be doing the reverse,” Healy replied. “This court has said many times that this is a delicate area, there’s a delicacy of judicial intrusion in the process. Separation of powers requires the court to have a strong sense of caution before undertaking the extreme step. And we’re talking about this in a case where the trial judge, who sat through the evidence, made the findings, said there’s no more than a few isolated instances that we’re talking about. I think the extreme step would be to do something like that.”