Primary Questions

Last month, the official results from the Bridgeport Mayoral Primary showed incumbent Democrat Joe Ganim defeating fellow Democrat John Gomes, albeit (see definitions) by a very small margin (1).     

Now, based on allegations of ballot stuffing and other fraud, Gomes is contesting that result in state Superior Court. He asks that the Court either declare himself to be the victor, or order that a new vote be held (2).  

For the purposes of fostering understanding of both sides of a debate, as well as intelligent conversation, let me attempt to break down the arguments of the defense (town clerk Charles Clemons, et al).  

As in other legal analyses, I preface this by saying that I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have any sort of a degree in law.  This interpretation is simply my personal opinion on the matter.

The first argument put forward by defense lawyers is that the plaintiff has not stated "a claim upon which relief may be granted". In layman's terms, they are saying that even if everything claimed by the plaintiff is true, the Court would not be justified to grant the relief sought (3, 4). 

To this, I suspect that the reasoning given will be something having to do with the "will of the voters". For example; "the people have spoken, and the Court cannot overrule them"

The Clemons-Ganim team is partially correct; the voters have indeed had their say. Nevertheless, the issue now turns on what exactly the people said.  If it is proven that they decided contrary to what the administration says they did, the Court should affirm this; it is their duty and responsibility to do so.

A second contention offered has to do with the doctrine of "unclean hands". To summarize, this argument states that because a plaintiff has acted unethically, that plaintiff is not entitled to the remedy that they seek (5). 

In making this claim, the defense cites video footage that apparently shows Gomes supporters casting votes (by dropbox) for persons other than themselves. 

To be clear, the claim of fraud rests on evidence of the Ganim team doing the same, only in much greater numbers. In either case, these are illegal actions, and according to the defense, demonstrative that the Gomes campaign has acted unethically. 

In response, lawyers for Mr. Gomes seem to be questioning the significancy of that argument. The relevant matter, they say, is not whether supporters strictly adhered (see definitions) to all laws, but if the result of the primary "is seriously in doubt" (6).

On this, Gomes' representation makes a good point; the ethics or claimed lack thereof of his supporters is not the main issue of the day. However, this remains as a secondary issue. There is a "pot calling the kettle black" argument to be made here, one that could be decided in favor of the defense.  

Having taken a look at the legal arguments being discussed, allow me to provide a brief update on proceedings. As of 5:34 PM on October 19, the Connecticut Mirror reports that the defense has rested its case, doing so without calling additional witnesses (7). 

The case now moves to consideration of the Honorable William Clark, who is expected to issue a ruling within the next two to three weeks. His decision, whatever it may be, will likely have far-reaching consequences on the future of elections in the State of Connecticut.  

We will see on which side the Court will stand.  

Definitions - 

Albeit: Conjunction, "even though; although" (8).

Adhered: Adverb, "to (have) bind(ed) oneself to observance" (i.e., to have obeyed) (9).

Sources:

1. Altimari, Dave. “Absentee Ballot Numbers Show Bridgeport Election Fraud, Attorney Says.” CTMirror.org, 18 Oct. 2023, ctmirror.org/2023/10/18/bridgeport-election-absentee-ballot-fraud-joe-ganim. Accessed 19 Oct. 2023.

2. State of Connecticut Judicial Branch. “Complaint, Gomes v. Clemons, Et Al.” 19 Sept. 2023, civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=25900661. Accessed 19 Oct. 2023.

3. State of Connecticut Judicial Branch. “Answer and Special Defense, Gomes v. Clemons, Et Al.” 5 Oct. 2023, civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=26016818. Accessed 19 Oct. 2023.

4. LaMance, Ken. “Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted.” LegalMatch Law Library, 5 Mar. 2021, www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/motion-to-dismiss-for-failure-to-state-a-claim.html. Accessed 19 Oct. 2023.

5. “Clean Hands.” Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_hands. Accessed 19 Oct. 2023.

6. State of Connecticut Judicial Branch. “Motion in Limine, Gomes v. Clemons Et Al." 17 Oct. 2023, civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=26086149. Accessed 19 Oct. 2023.

7. “Bridgeport Election Hearing Ends Without More Witnesses.” CTMirror.org, 19 Oct. 2023, ctmirror.org/2023/10/19/bridgeport-primary-election-hearing-joe-gamin-john-gomes. Accessed 19 Oct. 2023.

8. “Definition of Albeit.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/albeit. Accessed 19 Oct. 2023.

9. "Definition of Adhered." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adhered. Accessed 19 Oct. 2023.