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.  

What Was That Again?

In the history of presidential elections, multiple candidates have had "oops" moments. 2004 saw the "scream of the century" (audio link) doom Howard Dean's campaign; Hillary Clinton's 2016 "basket of deplorables" comment didn't work out much better (1, 2). 

Now, enter stage right Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who recently had this to say about supporters of Donald Trump:

"If all we are is listless vessels (that are) just supposed to follow whatever happens to come down the pike on Truth Social every morning, that's not going to be a durable movement" (3).  

I find this to be an ill-advised remark, and one that I must respond to (4).

According to Merriam-Webster, "listless" means someone or something that is "characterized by lack of interest, energy, or spirit". Thus, Mr. Governor, you imply that Trump backers have no heart. 

As far as this comment applies to me personally, you couldn't be more wrong.  

You see, unlike some others, I have the nerve to stand up for my rights, and what I believe to be right. I've never had any problem telling those in charge what I think (as evidenced by this article). 

And when it comes to political issues, I prefer principles over party positions. 

On another note, I think it should be mentioned that I have worked very hard for Republican candidates in my home state of Connecticut. 

Whether it has been phone banks, writing letters to newspaper editors, or simply the general discussion of state-wide politics, I have "been there and done that" (see note). And even through a long string of losses, I have kept the faith, in what is now a deep blue state.  

Mr. Governor, I'm someone who doesn't back down or easily give up, even when the odds are against him.  I guess you could say I have a "fighting spirit" of sorts, which flies in the face of your derogatory (see definition) comments. No, I'm not a "listless vessel"; far from it. 

Now, I can't claim to be an expert on campaign strategy. Yet in closing this article, and with all due respect, I offer you a tip.

The next time you go out on the trail, perhaps it would be wise to give a bit more thought to what you're saying. This way, you'll be less likely to have "Howard Dean moments".

And we all know how that worked out (5).