New Haven Independent

Posted by: Coveguy | November 7, 2007 9:55 AM

This is disgusting! Why not just vote for the guy! Ridiculous that Ina, JD and their crew have to stoop to these low levels to STEAL votes. It reminds me of when Tom Crusie in RainMan was forcing Dustin Hoffman to count cards!! It sickens me to live in this city when I see stuff like this! Something needs to change!

Posted by: on whalley | November 7, 2007 11:26 AM

Seriously, there are no moral, ethical or legal problems with forcibly rounding up those with cognitive and mental disabilities to vote? Like these people aren't susceptible to the immediate pressures and influences of say, the individuals rounding them up?

At the very least a inherent sense of decency should prevent this from happening.

This is no different than recruiting individuals with mental disabilities into prostitution or pornography production or for simple financial cons.

Now rather than focusing on divisive lies to bolster party support the parties will have to make mad dashes for every half-way house, shelter and assisted living home in the city. Why stop with the cognitively disabled? Let's go around and grab up drug addicts too. I hear they are easily persuaded.

This is just sad and shameful.

Posted by: pdh | November 7, 2007 12:13 PM

This is really disgusting. Even with six decades of one party government and 28 out of 30 members of the board of aldermen, De Stefano and his squanderbund have to bully the disabled into voting.

Posted by: pdh | November 7, 2007 12:13 PM

This is really disgusting. Even with six decades of one party government and 28 out of 30 members of the board of aldermen, De Stefano and his squanderbund have to bully the disabled into voting.

Posted by: pdh | November 7, 2007 12:13 PM

This is really disgusting. Even with six decades of one party government and 28 out of 30 members of the board of aldermen, De Stefano and his squanderbund have to bully the disabled into voting.

Posted by: Bruce | November 7, 2007 12:27 PM

Wile this may sound shocking to many people, this is just business as usual for New Haven Dems. Tame, even.

Now is your chance, progressive Dems, to stand up and stop turning a blind eye to these disgusting practices. Write a letter and tell your leaders that this behavior is unacceptable and makes a mockery of our democracy.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | November 7, 2007 12:27 PM

This is what the Democrat Party is reduced to in order to win? Did Brian McGrath raid the homeless shelters too? How about the drunk tanks, psych wards and substance abuse centers? This is a vivid picture of how low city leadership - DeStefano, Silverman, Voight and others - will go in order to win. Does this comport with DeStefano's "good politics" upon which he said he would run or the vision of courage as depicted recently by a DeStefano groupie? This is really courageous, isn't it?

Brian McGrath and others like him preyed on their disability -- people who can't fill out a bubble form or even know that voting doesn't cost anything. Forget about understanding any issues. Vito was in near hysteria. This is Democracy at its finest as practiced by the plantation owners at City Hall. It is beyond shameful and should have been stopped long ago.

Quite frankly - McGrath and those who approve such efforts disgust me and showcase what happens when morals, integrity and ethics rules are reduced to prophylactic status as memorialized by BOA President Carl Goldfield. This behavior is without question, abusive and beyond the pale. In any other circumstance, it would be investigated as such. This is not democracy.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 7, 2007 12:28 PM

Ok... am I the only one that finds this really disturbing???

Posted by: Dawn | November 7, 2007 12:39 PM

No, I too find this very unsettling. This man McGrath is a bully and should be made to stop...

Posted by: FairHavener (yes me) | November 7, 2007 12:47 PM

From the CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

WE DECLARE:

SEC. 1. All men when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community.

I can agree with that. There is no reason why the elderly and people with mental difficulties should get special treatment from JD's friends and supporters. Why do they get personally chauffeured to the voting booths while I have to drive myself? (sarcasm.) I'll bet my bottom dollar the conversation on the drive to Edgewood School went something like this:

Vito, "I don't want to vote."

McGrath, "Just fill the bubble for DeStefano and it will all go away."

Vito, "Yes make it stop. Who?"

McGrath, "DeStefano, DeStefano, DeStefano, DeStefano, DeStefano, DeStefano, DeStefano, DeStefano, DeStefano, DeStefano..." (Repeated for the entire drive.)

Vito, "DeStefano."

McGrath, "Excellent."

Well, maybe they get this special treatment because they are defenseless? I this is the first time that I read an article here at NHI where I almost lost my breakfast reading it. There have been some pretty disturbing articles, but this one takes the cake. I can't believe the so-called "Democratic Machine" goes this far. This is absolutely disturbing. What is next, pulling critical condition patients out of the hospital because they are on the list? Women in labor too? Are they going to pull people out of their graves and have votes from the dead?

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | November 7, 2007 12:56 PM

Absolutely disgusting behavior.

Posted by: Grumble -- Grumble | November 7, 2007 1:26 PM

The disabled should be able to vote -- but it should be their vote.

I am not so troubled by pulling voters. Any such effort will come up with lots of odd stories. A registered voter has a right to vote and a campaign has a right to pull registered voters.

I am however deeply troubled by someone hovering over a voter who has not asked for their help.

I don't know that the Independent does any service to the disabled by telling this story in the way it did. If this individual has mental health issues but is capable of making an informed decision, even if impaired relative to say an Independent reporter, they should be able to do so.

Telling the story from the angle of McGrath acting inappropriately is wrong. Neither McGrath, nor the reporter, have any idea if this individual has the right to exercise their vote. And nothing in the article makes this clear either. Someone with all the traits described in the article would likely have a right to vote.

"Mental incompetence" does not mean being disabled, it goes legally instead to the ability to make an informed decision. So things like being able to hold a job (McGrath's statement) are extremely relevant if someone's right is challenged.

But campaigns absolutely should not try to influence someone's voting decision once they enter the polling place. It is illegal and undermines democracy. In this case, the voter, apparently lucid and determined to make his own decisions, demanded that he be left alone.

As the disabled are increasingly mainstreamed, their ability to speak for themselves is a right they have fought for (including as voters), and one which should not be so easily dismissed. They may not care about the range of issues that wise reporters care about, but if they feel one candidate supports the independent living home they reside in, they could choose to vote for him or her. And in the end, this choice would be much closer to the kinds of decisions most voters make than to some magical concoction of wisdom that this reporter seems to hint at.

I am sure lots of people were confused by a new voting method yesterday. I found the poll workers comments offensive to say the least. And the moderator, apparently aware of the law that this person could vote, was disgusting in referring to a voter with a disability being pulled as "bottom feeding."

The 3 offensive parts of the story:

1. That a reporter basically argues that the disabled should not vote with no idea of the level or nature of this individual's disability. While we may find the physical manifestations of disability disarming, that is not (thankfully) the measure of someone's right to vote. The right is based fundamentally in the ability to make a decision and fortunately we do not decide that based on the impressions of a reporter without relevant training.

2. That poll workers thought it was a burden to help the disabled.

3. That someone not wanted by the voter tried to "help" him.

All of these set back the rights of the disabled.

Posted by: on whalley | November 7, 2007 1:42 PM

""If he could fill out the bubbles," reasoned McGrath, "he could vote.""

So.......put a pen in Terry Shiavo's mouth and you've got a voter?

Hmm....a clinically brain dead voter.....that would explain an awful lot around here.

And we STILL only got 18% turnout.

Posted by: king james v | November 7, 2007 1:53 PM

I too am appaled. What is our next step? is there any legal recouse we can take and where do i send the letters to mcgrath, and ms. silverman? lets make these next two years as uncomfortable as possible for these folks. by the way, did anyone out here in independent land vote for silverman? if so, please defend these actions to me. thank you.

Posted by: Grumble -- Grumble | November 7, 2007 2:30 PM

On Whalley says: "This is no different than recruiting individuals with mental disabilities into prostitution or pornography production or for simple financial cons."

Oh really?? Pushing someone to vote is no different than rape? Come again?

Glad to hear of your long term advocacy for the disabled. Again, the fundamental problem -- other than the 1950s view of disability manifested in this article and by poll workers -- is with someone affiliated with a campaign "helping" with his vote. That's plain WRONG!

Driving him to vote is pretty darn common all over America.

Actually, it is better that he came to the polls, because then he could tell people to leave him alone and get support (as he did), as opposed to an absentee ballot scenario which is much more open to exploitation of the disabled.

Seems like he had the right to vote and he exercised it -- GOOD FOR HIM!!!!

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | November 7, 2007 3:33 PM

King James V::::

I am not sure if these are the right people to contact, but these are the people I contacted. I encourage you to contact them if you are as disgusted with this behavior as I am.

Michelle Duprey, Director of Disability Services mduprey@newhavenct.net

Allan Atherton, President of CT NAMI, namicted@namict.org

Edward Preneta, Director, CT Council on Developmental Disabilities

Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, CHRO.Webmaster@ct.gov

State Election Enforcement Commission, SEEC@ct.gov

Posted by: wvilleNHCTresident | November 7, 2007 3:59 PM

This is OUTRAEGEOUS; a complete travesty of the system

Posted by: robn | November 7, 2007 4:08 PM

If ANYONE expresses that they don't want to vote, but is intimidated into voting by a badgering vote-puller, then an ethical (if not legal) line has been crossed. Brian McGrath can now join San (bilk-widows-and-crippled-children) Brancati, in the New Haven Hall of Shame.

Posted by: Disgruntled Democrat | November 7, 2007 4:30 PM

Grumble-Grumble: Quit trying to distort the issue. If this challenged young man wanted help or asked for a ride, then there would be no complaints. The fact that this low life was lurking in these two buildings, practically dragging persons to the polls who were not interested in voting is the issue.

It would have been a travesty if Malone or Elser had lost by a few points so I'm glad that JD got 70% and Ina got 55% of the vote otherwise all would be left to wonder if this unethical behavior was to blame for two more years of bad and unethical leadership.

I hope everyone who voted for the incumbunts is proud today of their accomplishments. Just keep telling yourselves that neither of them knew of McGrath's "skills" even though there was an NHI article posted on Monday stating that McGrath was going to be in Ward 25 all day Tuesday.

Posted by: eli | November 7, 2007 4:54 PM

Destefano needs to quickly and publically denounce these actions. What are the chances Mcgrath will be picking up Vito this saturday to take him to buy winter clothes, or go see a movie.
Thank you grumble for the information, anyone who doesn't speak out for justice in this situation should be ashamed of themselves.
The poor man was petrified and wanted to be left alone, criminal charges should be filed by the agencies that are supposed to protect this man, and if they have any kind of spine they will.
Mcgrath is a jerk.

Posted by: FairHavener (yes me) | November 7, 2007 4:59 PM

First off let me be clear about my position on mentally disabled people voting. I think they should be able to vote based on whatever guidelines experts seem to agree on. Like here:

http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/51/7/849

While I am certain I would be able to tell when someone is competently voting or not, it is outside my expertise to start setting any guidelines.

With that out of the way, let's examine Grumble - Grumble's finer points or "[t]he 3 offensive parts of the story".

GG's Point #1: "That a reporter basically argues that the disabled should not vote with no idea of the level or nature of this individual's disability... The right is based fundamentally in the ability to make a decision and fortunately we do not decide that based on the impressions of a reporter without relevant training."

Yes, fortunate indeed, which is why I assembled "Layman's Clues" for myself, in case I personally have to make this type of decision. (These are not for public use.)

Layman's Clue #1: When someone asks, "Do I have to pay?" when being forced to vote, it is a pretty good sign they don't fully comprehend voting.

Layman's Clue #2: If all you have do is "just fill out the bubbles" and "Vito tried again. And again. On about the fourth try, he got the bubbles right", then there is obviously a problem. I know I voted, I saw the ballot. It was pretty easy.

Layman's Clue #3: If all you have do is "just fill out the bubbles" and "Ballot after ballot was spit back out. One had vertical votes, for all three mayoral candidates. On another, he appeared to have filled out five of the seven bubbles" it could be a sign that the person does not understand voting.

Layman's Clue #4: If someone is asked right after voting "whom he voted for" and the result is, ""John DeStefano and ... " He couldn't remember the rest", there is a pretty good chance that there is a reason why they only remember one name (see my post above). Not to mention it is a sure sign they probably don't understand voting.

GG's Point #2: "That poll workers thought it was a burden to help the disabled."

I do agree that the poll workers were rather crass, but the impression I got was they were more disturbed that these poor people were being forced in to vote by McGrath & Uncle Stan than they were about helping the disabled. It was subtle, but you may have caught this little snippet:

"Someone [a poll worker] spotted him and complained."

Now, do you think the poll worker was referring to Vito (because he is disabled) or McGrath (because he lacks morals)?

Now, I can understand how statements like this can be upsetting:

""He's just like the other one!" cried a frustrated poll staffer."

But, regardless of what you think the "just like" was probably just a Giant Foot in the Mouth way of saying "Another person who seems incapable of voting". I agree it is rather crass, and could easily be seen as offensive to the disabled. But I would bet it is closer to my first hunch.

GG's Point #3: "That someone not wanted by the voter tried to "help" him.

Yes, truly appalling isn't it, when someone does something to you and you say "No" and they do it anyway? When I don't want someone to do something for (or to) me and I say "No", 99% of the time I usually mean "No". Now, if the argument is that they are disabled and don't really mean something so simple as "No" when they say "No", or realize what "help" is, then how on earth are they competent enough to vote? (GOTCHA.)

In saying "I don't want to vote!" and "I'm not voting" I think Vito understood at least the "No" concept of voting. Let's recap the final chance to escape McGrath and Saxe:

"Did Vito want Uncle Stan's help? "No," came the reply."

Anyway, none of what took place sounded like "help" to me. Maybe I need to get my head checked.

Oh, and BTW GG, I just saw you last comment. Well guess what? Apparently the disabled do NOT have the right NOT to vote. That is what is sick. It is exploitation. GET IT?

Posted by: Coveguy | November 7, 2007 4:59 PM

Yes, driving people to vote i common all over america, but persuading them to get into the car is an outrage....the article quotes McGrath as saying "You;re on the list". Almost inferring that vito didnt have a choice. It was clear he DID NOT WANT TO VOTE, but McGrath was sure to get him in that car! You say he Exercised his right to vote...what about his right NOT TO VOTE! Didnt sound like he had much of a choice to me...this is typical of the Machine in New Haven..not much diffeent than the Daniels era when they just used the name of the disabled persons...this might be worse! grumble, you're pathetic to try to reverse this and cry disablism! Disgusting!

Posted by: westville1983 | November 7, 2007 6:01 PM

I worked with passion for the Tom Malone campaign these past three weeks going door to door to door. Thank you to the great majority who listened to with courtesy and civility.

I was then alledged in Ina's Sunday newsletter ( not sent to me though on her e-mail list) as a Malone representative "using the usual Republican scare tactics on people by stating taxes would quadruple." First I am not Republican, but Democrat.Secondly, this statement is simply not true. I said taxes were on course to increase 8-11% annually for the next four years with a $700 million dollar bond debt to repay. I also tried to listen to people's worrier.

I ask all voters in the 25th Ward now who is the one using scare tactics? I am so sorry for the awful treatment of this poor man to win at all cost instead of discussing issues. He was not the only person either who was pushed to the polls last night.

Here is what I saw. I walked into Edgewood School at almost 8 pm assuming the poll was closed. I wanted to await the returns. At the front door I saw another Democratic Ward Committee member escorting another frail, confused, elderly woman to the polls. She appeared barely able to walk.

Ina Silverman and the 25th Democratic Ward Committee. (One Co -chair is Barbara Seguloff to contact )should be held accountable for their party's behavior.. Brain McGrath is a member of the Dem ward committee as well. Please good citizens of our Ward, report these incidents to the state authorities. Take a stand. Kick this strong arming out of our Ward.

Finally, it is troublesome to think Ina Silverman and the Ward Committee could be so threatned by Tom Malone's run for alderman. Tom Malone's campaign was a skeleton of a David vs a Goliath party machine, a scary one.

Contrast Tom Malone "machine" during this same hour. It was a huddle of 4 people around Tom's parked car across the street. We using our own cell phones to call potential voters to please come out. We stopped at 7:50 because we were irritating people who had already voted. We knew we were coming up short 85 votes to win the election.

Ina is our Alderwoman, at least for two more years. Let's hope this decent man, Tom Malone gives us a second chance.

Posted by: Leeroy | November 7, 2007 6:18 PM

Whats next for the Democratic Ward Committee bringin the dead to vote?

Posted by: Wville78 | November 7, 2007 7:15 PM

There are certainly those who are mentally handicapped, yet high functioning enough to grasp voting. This doesn't sound like one of those situations. It sounds like this man was bullied into going to the polls, which is wrong on many levels.

Do these communities hold any kind of voter education for people with special needs? Perhaps if some time was spent leading up to the election, a constituency within this group could develop?

I'm new to the area and these boards, so I don't know if such programs exist. I only hope that every segment of the population, including those with special needs, gets the attention they need to be active members of the community. Everyone has value.

Posted by: Brian | November 7, 2007 7:34 PM

There would not be negative comments about Vito's voting story if readers didn't assume that they knew the whole story about Vito's day at the polls from such a brief article. Melissa did a good job in the little space they give her and I have no problem with the story at all except its brevity. There was not room for Vito's comments like Cool,cool,cool I finally voted. I always wanted to do it.Thank you,thank you,thank you. I will tell all my friends. Are you coming to give me a ride next time because I do not have a car? Vito is a sharp kid and knows a lot more than many posters on this site. I will surely be giving him a ride to the polls again.He knows he is a Democrat too, and will tell anyone who asks. The most malicious comments seem to be coming from people who do not like the way this young man votes. Cover up your nasty bias all you like, it still shows.You should be complaining about the negative comments made by the Republicans at the polls. I have been giving rides to voters for a long time and I always encounter negative comments from this party about the "inability" of our voters to know who to vote for.They know who to vote for.

Posted by: Harry | November 7, 2007 7:54 PM

I read this story just a few minutes ago. Even after I have read all the above comments I still feel like adding my own to what has been said.

I feel that the use of such despicable tactics should have gone out with the old Tammany Hall ward bosses. Whomever authorized such practices should be severely censured. The story did not delve into this aspect of Brian McGrath's performance.

Ina Silverman, as candidate, is ultimately responsible for how her campaign is run. Her victory is heavily tainted by such tactics. How can Ina Silverman ever pretend to any degree of independence when she was reelected with this type of support from the Mayor? I feel that ALL her votes on any topic she votes on in future will be tainted with the appearance of conflicts of interest -- perhaps it is fair to say she sold her vote at Board meetings for these few votes that were garnered with such callous tactics.

No one can claim this behavior surprises, given the many stories describing similar behavior in past elections by this same Brian McGrath. What motivates Mr. McGrath?

Is there no shame at City Hall? Are such strongarm tactics an aberration or the norm where this Administration is concerned? Would any of us have heard about this had there not been an intrepid Melissa Bailey at the NH Independent to record such behavior?. This callous vote canvassing brings back questions about how the incumbent became the Alderwoman in the first place four years ago.

Alderperson Silverman has not denounced such behavior. Even were she to do so, it would be meaningless. Will she do the honorable thing and resign her position? Is becoming an Alderperson so important to anyone that all voters must tolerate such behavior?? Who will censure such behavior?? Will the Board of Aldermen do their duty??

Will the State Election Commissioner investigate this election and void the results and force a rerun?

And what has become of poor Vito? Does he have family? Will he receive psychiatric evaluation? How much trauma did he suffer?? And how many others suffered the same callousness away from the roving eyes of this one Reporter??

Some of us have accepted the fact that the Mayor has a rock solid majority on the Board and there are no surprises when the time comes to vote on any issue. Where is the check and balance that the Board of Aldermen are supposed to provide?? The "advise" seems to be missing, all we have is "consent".

With deep sorrow and pain, I remain,

Harry I. David

Posted by: Leeroy | November 7, 2007 8:01 PM

Whats next for the Democratic Ward Committee, having the dead vote? I never thought Ina would stoop to this level.

Posted by: Glenn Nelson | November 7, 2007 9:45 PM

Well this certainly does speak well for Ina Silverman, Barbara Seguloff, Mc Grath, John DeStefano.

The law has been broken and a remedy is required--not just one law, but several, and the penalties for such behavior are to fit the crime. And let me be clear, these are criminal actions.

Ina Silverman portrays herself as being a person of character, she needs to step down immediately, This is a disgrace. A totally disgusting and vile display, who do these people think they are--there is a higher law, but unfortunatley, that applies to every one including the little people .

Posted by: New Haven Tea Party | November 7, 2007 10:09 PM

Brian: We don't care how somebody votes. It's the manner in which you brow beat Vito to get him to the polls. Given what this reporter witnessed, I wouldn't accept your version of his comments if it was sworn to by the nearest priest. Have you no decency, no shame, no breeding? The answer is no.

Posted by: Transituser | November 7, 2007 10:10 PM

Who even knows if this is true. I was familiar with Mr. McGrath when he was Traffic Commissioner and experienced him as a laid back, nice enough, not overly ambitious fellow. I cannot imagine him having the energy for such an exhausting undertaking that would bring him no rewards from either King John or Alderwoman Silverwoman. It all doesn't make sense.

Posted by: Dean Moriarty | November 7, 2007 11:48 PM

I agree fully with the overwhelming majority of these comments. This is a travesty. This is obscene. And I'm surprised that only one person has mentioned that it may be illegal, as well. I will also contact the agencies that Jeffrey has so kindly listed. And this should not just slide off of Teflon John's back. As pointed out, he is ultimately responsible for the manner in which his campaign is run. Not even one day post election, and this is what goes on? This exposes his absolute arrogance and belief that he is above the law. It's a direct slap in the face to every voter who got to the polls. And please don't tell me that he wasn't aware of this. McGrath would be a complete fool if he did this WITHOUT the Mayor's knowledge. It would make no sense.

I'm very sad for my City today. Over 80% of our voters and taxpayers stayed home and allowed this nightmare to continue. Shame on you who didn't vote. You have only yourselves to blame.

Posted by: Dean Moriarty | November 8, 2007 12:08 AM

One more comment. These shenanigans occur on Election Day itself. Think how well that bodes for the rest of this two year term. New Haven, be afraid!

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | November 8, 2007 6:10 AM

Forced in a car to go vote against his will? Is this not an act of kidnapping?

Posted by: jms | November 8, 2007 9:02 AM

Dean Moriarty said...

"I'm very sad for my City today. Over 80% of our voters and taxpayers stayed home and allowed this nightmare to continue. Shame on you who didn't vote. You have only yourselves to blame."

This is not to sway anyone's attention away from the topic of this conversation... clearly it needs to be addressed and evaluated. (If I had to guess Brian McGrath would be tossed like a sacrificial lamb if people made enough noise and The Royal Court felt compelled to take some kind of action... but then again there would have to be a whole lot of compelling based on Royal behavior patterns) But like Dean said... the real story here is that voter turn out was pathetic (as usual) and while this kind of questionable voter-dragging practices may be unpleasent this story simply would not be relevent if more people voted. Elections would not be won and lost by handfuls of votes and this kind of thing would probably not happen.

Just something to remember. The low turn out does make me begin to wonder what kind of democracy is being executed here... pun intended.

JMS

Posted by: Lindy Lee Gold | November 8, 2007 11:00 AM

It is very unfortunate that these practices have
been standard operating procedure for many years.
I am certain that Ina did not orchestrate this.
It is equally repugnant to watch the "supervised" absentee voting at senior residential facilities where dimentia and Alzheimer disease are not considered impediments
to voting.

In Westville, there are many graduates of Chapel Haven, who have been mainstreamed into the community with varying degrees of success. Many of those people become volunteers for campaigns and feel empowered by participation in the political process. If they have successfully registered, it is not up to Brian McGrath or a poll monitor to determine their mental acuity.
The problem would seem to be with the registrars
of voters. It should be examined.

Posted by: Edward_H | November 8, 2007 11:16 AM

"There is obviously a problem with a political organization that is doing what I call political bottom-feeding," grumbled Green. "They're obviously playing it right to the end."

"He can kiss my ass," McGrath later retorted. "He's calling our voters what? Our voters are bottom-feeders?"

Did I totally misunderstand what Green said? I got impression he was calling McGrath a bottom feeder, not the voters. Am I wrong or is McGrath so arrogant and unashamed of his actions that he did not realize this jab was aimed at people like him?

Posted by: Mister Jones | November 8, 2007 11:25 AM

What a bunch of patronizing hypocrites! Sounds like all the self-righteous posters think those who are mentally handicapped shouldn't vote, as if the rest of the electorate makes reasoned, informed choices based solely on issues. In America, you don't need to pass an intelligence test to vote! I don't suppose any of the holier-than-thou complainers drove anyone -- handicapped or not -- to the polls along with a crash course in the campaign platform of each candidate and a high level analysis of the issues facing the city... Brian McGrath may be loud and obnoxious, but at least he is reaching out and bringing people to the polls.

Organized campaigns across America drive their people to the polls. Apparently it's OK for Greens to pull votes -- look at the fawning reporting from Cedar Hill: "Turcio was practically the only one pulling votes in East Rock." http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/11/cedar_hills_voi.php

It doesn't really bother me that the Independent is biased. I expect it and it's a good think to counterbalance the conservative mainstream media. But how Orwellian to call yourselves the Independent! The New Haven Progressive would have been more apt.

Posted by: nfjanette | November 8, 2007 11:54 AM

I'm very sad for my City today. Over 80% of our voters and taxpayers stayed home and allowed this nightmare to continue. Shame on you who didn't vote. You have only yourselves to blame.

Exactly what choices were available that had a realistic chance of winning? Aside from "protest voting", it's not like the best and the brightest for the most part have bothered to run against the entrenched powers.

Posted by: westvillecharlie | November 8, 2007 1:03 PM

Hey Brian, i am a democrat, and i'm disgusted at both the way you treated this man, and the fact that there were about 20 paid city employees at edgewood when i went to vote who all mumbled under thier breath when i went to vote and didn't care to stop and talk with them.
Your actions sir inappropriate, and i have to think the "yeah i voted" comments are somewhat embellished. and ms. gold, if ina didn't orchestrate or at least wasn't on board with these actions, then SHE needs to make a statement distancing herself from mcgrath.
One more thing Brian, the angry mob of republicans you spoke of, all two of them - minding their own business and smiling politely - not a word said besides "stay dry, take care".
Finally, i have to admit it was very uncomfortable for me to vote for a man who represents the same party as bush and cheney, i met malone and richter briefly and the two men were gentlemen, and struck me as wagers of peace not war. As a life long democrat who's first vote ever cast was for mike dukakas twenty years ago this was my first time straying out of the party. but it will not be the last as long as i live in new haven.

Posted by: nhresident | November 8, 2007 1:23 PM

i've known ina for many years - she would never condone this behavior under any circumstances

Posted by: robn | November 8, 2007 1:27 PM

The issue here is not about judging mental disability whether someone is competant to vote. The issue is whether Mr.McGrath coerced someone into voting...

from The Civil Rights Act of 1957
"No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce or attempt to intimidate, threaten or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose....
(modified to include local elections by the Voting Rights Act of 1965)

Posted by: Bruce | November 8, 2007 1:43 PM

Lindy and others, I think we're missing the point here. I would say the problem here is not with the registrar, but with the extremely aggressive tactics used to get people out to the polls. When I got into politics a few years ago I was truly shocked to see how aggressive the seasoned veterans were and the lengths they'd go through to drag people (sometimes literally) out to the polls.

For those who are not involved, here is how democracy works in New Haven...

1) Every candidate has a list of voters and ranks each person on that list based on how likely they are to vote for or against the candidate. This is why a candidate will (or should) always ask if you plan on voting for him or her.

2) When you go in to vote on election day, a checker working for the campaign crosses your name of the list so that they know you have voted. The lists go to campaign headquarters every hour or so to tell the campaign team who among their supporters has or has not voted.

3) The campaign team will employ various tactics to get those supporters out to the polls -- phone calls, knocks on the door, offers for a ride, etc.

When voter turnout is small, this aggressive behavior can really tip the scales in favor of candidate. Your candidate might have a 30% approval rating in the ward, but if you can get half of those 30% out to vote and your opponent gets 20% (of the remaining 70%) out -- you have won the race!

In the end, winning a campaign is often not just about issues or even popularity. Basically, you are tilting the odds in your favor, which does not fit my vision of democracy. There's nothing illegal about doing this, but the end result is that often the election result does not match the intent of the population. The politicians are so accustomed to doing this around here that they don't even see why people would find it distasteful.

The only real solution is to get larger voter turnouts, but that is very difficult when you have so little competition and so much disenchantment among voters.

Posted by: Mister Jones | November 8, 2007 1:59 PM

Edward_H take off your blinders! Yes, the Republican registrar called McGrath a bottom-feeder, but he is still insulting the mentally handicapped voters by calling them the "bottom" to be fed on by the bottom-feeder. Don't you see the disrespectful bigotry expressed in that statement? I'll spell it out: bottom-feeders suck the scum from the bottom of lakes and streams.

I never in my life expected to be defending Brian McGrath--who is fully capable of defending himself, as evident from his post. Also evident is that for all his [presumed] faults, he shows a heck of a lot more respect for the mentally disabled than the GOP registrar and the majority of the folks posting here.

Posted by: charlie | November 8, 2007 2:12 PM

What a silly little article and set of responses. Who cares? This is such inconsequential and irresponsible journalism that it isn't even funny. There's nothing unusual or wrong about Mr. McGrath's efforts to get people to the polls. I wish that ordinary people would drag their neighbors out of their homes and shame them into voting. Better yet, how about an ordinance that gives citizens a $75 check if they can prove that they voted, or a fine for citizens who don't, like what some other countries have?

High voter turnout is key to having a working city, anyone who is eligible to vote should be strongly encouraged to - and who does the encouraging really doesn't matter at all.

Posted by: Um Bruce | November 8, 2007 2:32 PM

That's actually how elections are managed in any town beyond about 20,000 people in America. It's what both parties do and it's what pro-issue organizations do. It's part of American democracy. It's such a part of Connecticut that state law allows each candidate to have a checker in the polling place to accomplish just what you describe.

And it's not just candidates. When Planned Parenthood or the Moral Majority go door knocking or engage in a phone poll to identify supporters, they then pull those voters to the polls on election day -- sometimes through national telephone based pulling operations, sometimes through neighborhood based door knocking campaigns.

And its been going on for most of the last century. I don't really see how this is in any way distasteful but relevant to your point, it has very little to do with unique New Haven politics.

Oddly the comments section of the local newspaper almost never has anything to do with the outcome of an election. But do note that frequent commenter CedarHill appears actually to have followed the pattern you found distasteful and hurray for her involvement. And good for her!!!

Posted by: Um Robn | November 8, 2007 4:49 PM

Re-read whatever voting rights law you want. There is no law on the books in America which makes it illegal to "coerce" someone to vote. If by "coerce" you mean pull a voter to the polls.

It is illegal to coerce someone to NOT vote or to coerce someone to vote for a candidate they do not actually want to vote for. And in any case, what McGrath did (pull a voter with no threat of intimidation or promise of benefit) cannot even be called coercion.

I mention this because it is a common practice on this website for commenters to cite a law and completely distort its meaning. The cynical civil rights law of 1957 had almost no impact whatsoever. Lyndon Johnson masterminded it in order to curry favor with northern liberals. A jury trial element of the law made it unenforceable in the real world (southern juries would not enforce against a white registrar or sheriff who refused to allow African-Americans to vote).

However, this and every subsequent voting rights law existed to expand the number of people who had access to that all-American right of voting. It was created at a time when activists like Medgar Evers were being assassinated because they were registering African-Americans to vote.

To turn these laws which are meant to expand voter access on McGrath is absurd. The laws exist to EXPAND the number of disenfranchised people who are able to exercise their right to vote. They have nothing to do with McGrath's actions; other than that courts have read them to ensure that the disabled have a right to vote.

There were two competitive aldermanic elections. In both the candidate with a stronger connection to voters and a thorough election day operation won.

To now go back and pull unrelated laws out of thin air is both sour grapes and undermines people's willingness to participate. In a democracy someone wins and someone loses. Get over it.

Posted by: New Haven Tea Party | November 8, 2007 5:19 PM

This is not a silly article - it's shocking. And those of us who find it shocking are not putting down the voting ability or the righ to vote by those with some level of mental impairment. Many of us were shocked with McGrath's bullying of somebody who clearly didn't want to vote, and made that known.

Having said that, I do like Charlie's idea of paying people to vote. A better version of that would be to offer a $50 property tax credit each time you or an elgible family member living at the same house, votes. The key would be a tax credit and you have to own propety in New Haven. A 40% turnout at the next election would only cost $1.3 million - that's less than the Senior Tax Freeze that was transfered over to working families.

Posted by: Bruce | November 8, 2007 5:34 PM

"UM BRUCE",

I understand what you're saying and I should have been more clear that I don't find the list-checking, reminder calls or rides to the polling locations distasteful. I have been involved with all of the above.

What is disturbing and (hopefully) unique to New Haven is the extreme aggressive behavior, as depicted in the story, employed to drag voters to the polls as well as the aggressive, harassing targeting of absentee ballots. Do you find nothing wrong with the way things went down in this story? This is not what I picture when I think of a democracy.

Posted by: Sarah Trapnell | November 8, 2007 5:54 PM

To anyone who thinks this story is exceptional, I include below a comment I wrote for the New Haven Independent in early 2006. It concerns the practice of bamboozling people of questionable competency into voting for the machine's candidate.

Posted by: Sarah Trapnell | August 8, 2006 1:57 PM

I was Rose Santana's representative, her "eyes and ears" at the Clifton House Nursing Home on the day the absentee balloting took place in Septemeber, 2005. Alderwoman Santana was chased out of the building while Mayor Destafano, his staff, and Aldermanic candidate Alex Rhodeen took full advantage of their time to campaign with residents.

The Office of the Registrar's reps were two really nice but not particularly assertive women. We chatted in a friendly fashion, but it was only after repeated requests by me that they moved into the common room where voting was to take place and asked the mayor's staffers to leave off campaigning and to leave the room.

The balloting then began in a room littered with Rhodeen campaign literature and members of DeStefano's staff still "helping" sometimes demented patients with how to vote for Rhodeen. "Make sure you mark it this way," one female staffer intoned to a slumping patient. As Alderwoman Santana's rep, I objected frequently and persistently until the Registrar's reps persuaded all the mayor's staffers except for one, acting as Rhodeen's rep, to leave the room. One female staffer just ignored all requests and I had to take aside a Registrar rep and insist on her ceasing to campaign and to leave the room. That took at least five minutes.

Then I had to insist that all the campaign literature was removed or at least put out of sight. There was no literature from the Santana campaign present. It was all Rhodeen, all over the place. A Clifton House resident who still had all her faculties and was helping organize the event shot dagger eyes at me. "Who are you? Why are you here?" she demanded. I felt that if looks could kill, I would have been dead on the spot. She loudly praised the remaining Destafano staffer, deputy chief of staff Rob Smuts, for his neat appearance and professionalism. Evidently, being a neighborhood resident in slacks and rain jacket was, in her opinion, no match for Mr. Smuts in suit and tie. (He did look sharp, I have to admit!)

Then Mr. Smuts and I oversaw the absentee balloting in that group room and afterwards the individual voting of the bedridden patients. After Rob Smuts realized that I wasn't going to pull any political dirty tricks, he relaxed, I think. We had a good discussion about the upcoming Governor's race. But during that discussion I did ask how the mayor could justify his numerous staff members engaging in political campaigning for Rhodeen while they were on the city's payroll. Mr. Smuts said that technically they were on vacation time or leaves of absence. To me that seemed pretty specious, but maybe it's legal.

The whole event was a real poltical education for me. The Registrar of Voters' staffers were well-meaning but clearly not conversant with all the regulations of supervised balloting or with how to enforce those regulations when one campaign was determined to influence the vote in every way possible, legal and maybe not so legal. This is the testimony that I gave to the State Elections Enforcement investigator when she called me at home for a report on the incident.

Posted by: robn | November 8, 2007 9:44 PM

Umrobn,

No sour grapes, just facts. Unless the author misquoted, Vito clearly stated that he did not want to vote. Mr.McGrath "commanded" that Vito put his coat on and come with him to vote. Thats coercion which interfered with Vito's voting rights (rights which include the right to vote, the right to vote for whom he chooses or the right to stay home on election day)...There is a difference between campaigning and coercing...its against the law to interfere with someones voting rights.

Posted by: FairHavener (still me) | November 8, 2007 9:55 PM

I would like to respond to some of the latest comments.

Charlie:

"There's nothing unusual or wrong about Mr. McGrath's efforts to get people to the polls."

I sympathize with your compassion to treat all people the same, but we are talking about two grown men getting into a building and forcing mentally disabled people to do something against their will (not by threat, because they don't need to use threats against people who have been looked over and told what to do their entire lives). Just because voting is a virtue doesn't make it OK to force people to do it.

"I wish that ordinary people would drag their neighbors out of their homes and shame them into voting."

Ordinary people do drag out their neighbors and shame them for not voting (although there should be a lot more of this).

"Better yet, how about an ordinance that gives citizens a $75 check if they can prove that they voted, or a fine for citizens who don't, like what some other countries have?"

Now you're talking. A fine for voting isn't really forcing anyone to vote, you can simply choose to vote or pay. It is a great idea indeed.

"High voter turnout is key to having a working city, anyone who is eligible to vote should be strongly encouraged to - and who does the encouraging really doesn't matter at all."

Really? So if the KKK or some Black Power group started sending out people to do some "encouraging" to vote you'd be cool with that? How do you think that "encouraging" would go on the drive to the polls? Keep in mind that "encouraging" for mentally disabled people is surely different then "encouraging" for the non disabled. The first part of what you stated I agree with.

Um robn:

"It is illegal to coerce someone to NOT vote or to coerce someone to vote for a candidate they do not actually want to vote for. And in any case, what McGrath did (pull a voter with no threat of intimidation or promise of benefit) cannot even be called coercion."

First off, I think the question here is whether some of these people know who they are voting for in the first place, let alone what they stand for (or want to vote for, or even what voting is exactly). Second, as I already stated, they don't need to use threats against people who have been looked over and told what to do (or helped a great deal) their entire lives. If someone comes in appearing as an authority, "pressed" them enough, they most likely will follow - or try to run. It is exploitation.

N H tea party
"Having said that, I do like Charlie's idea of paying people to vote. A better version of that would be to offer a $50 property tax credit each time you or an elgible family member living at the same house, votes. The key would be a tax credit and you have to own propety in New Haven."

I absolutely agree, although I don't know what I like better, the tax credit or the fine.

BTW, for any of you who are actually interested in pursuing action on this (and voter turnout in general), as some of us have already done, I have set up a website to see this thing through. If there is enough interest and NHI doesn't mind I will post a link.

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | November 8, 2007 10:28 PM

If you want to do something about this issue, please file a formal complaint with the State Elections Enforcement Commission. To do so, you need to:

1. complete this form
2. Have it notarized (at a bank or the City Clerk's office)
3. mail it here:

   Attorney Joan M. Andrews
   Director of Legal Affairs and Enforcement
   State Elections Enforcement Commission
   20 Trinity Street, Suite 101
   Hartford, CT 06106

You might also consider contacting:

Michelle Duprey, City of New Haven, Director of Disability Services mduprey@newhavenct.net

Allan Atherton, President of CT National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), namicted@namict.org

Edward Preneta, Director, CT Council on Developmental Disabilities ed.preneta@po.state.ct.us

Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, CHRO.Webmaster@ct.gov

State Election Enforcement Commission, SEEC@ct.gov

Posted by: Um Robn | November 8, 2007 11:09 PM

Robn,

I understand your concern. I am just saying that if you re-read the article, I think you will find that McGrath was surprised when Vito did come with him. I think you will also find if you talk to vote pullers that even people who allegedly have all of their faculties often start out by saying "NO" but good campaign workers still try to get them to go vote.

American democracy presumes that at least two parties will fight to get people out to vote, but then is supposed to ensure that once they get into the polls they can vote anonymously.

Now the story does talk about how someone tried to help him once he was in the polling place and in my mind that is simply inappropriate. But that was not McGrath and the Republican moderator did his job and kicked that person out of the polling place. So the system worked.

For all we know, Vito was so upset that he voted for someone else. But we don't know -- which is how it should be.

Finally, according to McGrath, Vito was proud that he voted. A pride many New Haveners cannot share because they stayed home.

Posted by: JPN | November 8, 2007 11:35 PM

This is Ina Silverman's campaign and she is responsible for what happened--end of story. After something like this it is no wonder that a newcomer garnered over 500 votes, only the straight party voters, the comatose and as we have seen the coerced mentally ill voted for her--She needs to step DOWN.
What an absolute sham of our democratic system.

Posted by: Edward_H | November 9, 2007 12:01 AM

Mister Jones

Edward_H take off your blinders! Yes, the Republican registrar called McGrath a bottom-feeder, but he is still insulting the mentally handicapped voters by calling them the "bottom" to be fed on by the bottom-feeder. Don't you see the disrespectful bigotry expressed in that statement? I'll spell it out: bottom-feeders suck the scum from the bottom of lakes and streams.

I will take off my blinders as soon as you step down off your high horse and cease the histrionics. Only by the most wanton stretch of the imagination could any reasonable person think that mentally handicapped voters were the target of Green's ire. Green's comment was most certainly not the most elegant way to express his view but any clear thinking person can understand why he used such terminology when describing McGrath.

Also evident is that for all his [presumed] faults, he shows a heck of a lot more respect for the mentally disabled than the GOP registrar and the majority of the folks posting here.

Brian sure does show a deep respect for the mentally disabled. Like calling Vito a "kid". Vito looks like a grown man to me in the picture. Or is it acceptable to call mentally disabled adults "kids"

Vito is a sharp kid and knows a lot more than many posters on this site.

Mister Jones did you even read the article? Since you cannot understand what most people found offensive let me spell it out for you:

I don't want to vote!" cried Vito, ... "Put your coat on," commanded McGrath.

Most people with at least a tiny bit of ethics at this point would have said: "OK Vito have a good day then. Let me know if you change your mind." Not command him to put his coat on.

"I don't want to vote!" cried Vito, shifting his weight from foot to foot. He scratched his head and looked at the visitors' feet. "Vote vote!"

Again Vito expresses that he does not wish to vote. At best he could be described as ambivalent to voting at this point.

"You're on the list."

If you cannot understand why posters are upset about this statement you have my pity.

"I've never seen him like this before," said Saxe, who lives across the hall.

"That's because you never pressed him," replied McGrath.

McGrath, by his own admission "pressed" Vito. This placed Vito into a state in which his neighbor had never seen him.

I suggest you take some time to reread the previous posts made by the commenter's here. The vast majority of posts deal with what has been perceived as , at best, unethical behavior towards a mentally handicapped person.

Posted by: bonnie | November 9, 2007 12:48 AM

I would think that the right to not vote (as a giant number of our neighbors chose to do) is just as important as the right to vote. Does that make sense to you Brian - if you are still peeking in?
I've seen several requests for the mayor, Ms. Silverman and the powers that be to publicly denounce the bullying tactics used, but have heard nothing. Perhaps Mr. Bass and his crew can corral Destefano and Silverman and push for their comments, i would be very interested in their take.

Posted by: Dean Moriarty | November 9, 2007 1:45 AM

This despicable act is also being reported to the ADA Resource Center. This is the lowest of the low. And believe me, if I were a DeStefano supporter (not in this life) I would still hold him accountable for this.

Do you people even have a clue of what you're teaching our young voters?

And a PS: While I dont always agree with their views, Melissa and Paul deserve kudos for bringing this to light. Where was the local television/newspaper coverage of this disturbing story? Nowhere to be found. It's wonderful that there's an outlet like the Independent to expose decadent behavior like this. Now it's up to their readers to carry this further, and not let this issue fall by the wayside. I sure as hell will do my part, because this just cannot go unanswered.

Posted by: -FairHavener- | November 9, 2007 1:57 PM

jeffreykerekes, thanks for posting the form. Has anyone received any response from the previously posted links? I have not heard a thing.

Here is how I filled out the State Elections Complaint Form, in case anyone needs inspiration:

"On Tuesday, November 6, 2007, Brian McGrath and Stan Saxe entered two housing complexes at 200 and 226 Fountain St., home to elderly and disabled residents, and coerced mentally disabled individuals to vote against their will.

Individuals who may have knowledge of the facts include: Melissa Bailey, Ina Silverman, John DeStefano, Brian Green, various residents at 200 and 226 Fountain St , and various poll staffers at Edgewood School the date of the alleged violation.

Documentation of the alleged violation is located on the New Haven Independent website, more specifically, here: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/11/machine_pulls_e.php"

I have a free notary public at my work, but for those who don't, I know there are many places around town that are free.

Posted by: NPG | November 9, 2007 9:16 PM

According to Law: If an individual is forced or hindered from exercising his/her right to vote then a criminal act has been committed> My legal advisor tells me a witness is necessary to substantiate the allegation/allegations.

It would be so nice once and for all to be able to put an end to such abuse of our privieldge to exercise our right to vote. May I remind all that men and women have given their lives to fight for this right.

And we have such degenerates who would prey on the sick and the frail elderly, who just may not be well enough to get out on election day, nor have the true informed capacity and mental balance of decision making--these parasites have no conscience. They are in need of a nice long rest behind bars, where they will have ample time to reflect on just how henious these acts are.

If there is anyone who would like to do the honorable and just thing and become a witness kindly contact me at steve25@snet.net And as for Ina Silverman, some victory? Your election Ms Silverman was nothing more than a corrupt orchestrated scam. Like the first one. .. Win at ALL costs, is that how it is? If you had a shred of decency you would step down at once--because as mentioned above--you did not win honorably, but by the most despicable means. A very dirty and a very sinful act!

Posted by: Kerri | November 10, 2007 12:53 AM

The mentally impaired have the right to vote, but they also have the right not to vote.

I agree that low voter turnout is a problem and that those who are considered mentally sound do not always use the best judgment while voting; however, badgering a person to vote is disgraceful behavior. If Vito expressed a desire to vote and asked for a ride to the polls, that'd be fine. What is described here is manipulative behavior.

Posted by: Chris Gray | November 10, 2007 2:39 AM

I am sure, as these posting attest, that many readers are not aware that the model for political electioneering has not changed much from a century ago.

So many, many posts in government are political favors that power is maintained through exercising the right of return of that favor. A great many of those posts include people who work with the poor, aged and infirm whom, if they can, they convince that the services they offer are a favor from which they can withdraw; say a senior center director who hints he or she will stop helping a client fill out forms.

This is a fact of life.

Our situation is in dictionary.com:
"Ward heeler: 1) a minor politician who canvasses voters and does other chores for a political machine or party boss. 2) a worker for the ward organization of a political machine."

I remember meeting Anthony Dawson, former 3rd Ward Alderman (the term Alder had yet to be coined), long before he was elected, though he was so introduced. At the time, he was a heeler in that ward. I had the unpleasant duty of telling his host that he was not allowed in WYBC, where we were, since he had just been barred by the station's Executive Board. The guy's response was to lift me and throw me, but Tony got him to calm down and leave, though he later came back and bashed someone else in the head with a brick.

Tony's job as a heeler had got him involved with a pretty tough customer. To do their job, they have to be pretty tough, streetwise people themselves. They are called "heelers" not healers. You heel dogs and the term was probably coined when a 'person of distinction' would call it out to another, regarding their errant pet and we still teach dogs to heel.

What I find weird is, how many cities call their political units wards? Not too many, I'd venture a guess.

Not to ridicule the idea of the State Election Commission but any judgment by them could easily be taken to court and judges, as you may remember, owe their appointments to the machine.

We are not, as the Gonzalez Affair should show us, a country with an independent judiciary, such as Pakistan is, though they used our appearance of having one in Gore V. Bush as a model for their decision to delay their decision on a recent election Musharraff was subject to. Their decision was due shortly after the state of emergency was declared. The Supreme Court is suspended.

I do believe that the model our machine politicians use works, especially for Democrats in poor neighborhoods. Because they have generally filled the ranks of urban government public service jobs, people who literally do have control of serious issues in the lives of poor people and, while few if any would be influenced by a ward heeler's word, the heeler uses that implication, they have power in those communities.

Even United Way is run by influential business people with ties to the machine.

Another tactic is to use the person's religion. This is not just useful to Republicans. Catholics have been well organized by the Italian and Irish. Many other Black Protestant churches have influential ministers beholden to the Democrats. I use to have Father Howard Nash, called the dean of New Haven Clergy at his death, as my pastor and I was pleasantly shocked when he had a change of heart near the end of his life. His previous promotion of intolerance was something I had been arguing with since high school CYO.

As I implied in a different post, I had an early schooling in the mechanics of all this as a close friend to the son of Mayor Lee's erstwhile Executive Assistant George Mulligan, Brian. He was, as Paul's video last week described it, "off the reservation" largely because they had destroyed George as a sacrifice over the Malley's fiasco, an unclaimed pit right next to the Green. He knew that all promises are fluid to the machine.

To beat it, you need more than political activism, more than an agenda, more than a list of talking points. You need to know these people. They are your neighbors and they are in need and just knowing you may help. No one is asking you to give them $5, but I think it isn't too much to ask that you learn their stories.

The machine uses their stories against them. We don't have to use them to help them, but after a while, I can't see how that won't happen.

Posted by: Frank Iezzi | November 10, 2007 9:04 AM

Like most of the posters on this story, I was outraged by the actions of the operatives in question. Using contacts supplied by JEFFREYKEREKES, I wrote a complaint to all agencies named, and would like to share with you the predictable, lawyerly non response I received from the administration's Director of Disability Services, Michelle Duprey:

Dear Mr. Iezzi,

The City of New Haven supports the rights of individuals with disabilities to participate in our electoral process as guaranteed under the Constitution. We make every effort to ensure people with disabilities have access to the polling places and the voting process and hope that all individuals with disabilities feel comfortable participating in the process.

The City will continue, through my office, to take such action as may be necessary to ensure that polling staff are able to properly accommodate individuals with disabilities in their rights to cast a vote and treat them with the respect they deserve. In the future, this will include the distribution of disability sensitivity material to poll staff so they may more effectively serve the needs of individuals with disabilities, similar to materials already provided to other municipal bodies such as emergency services.

As regards the November 7, 2007 article in the New Haven Independent to which you refer, you should be aware that Mr. McGrath is not an employee of the City and was not acting on behalf of the City on Election Day.

The Department of Services for Persons with Disabilities works to include people with disabilities in all aspects of City activities and community life. The Department provides information and referrals to more than 500 individuals with disabilities each year on community resources, job and housing opportunities, and benefits. Other recent projects have included the purchase of new equipment to make our parks more accessible for individuals with physical disabilities, we have worked with organizations that serve individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities to secure employment opportunities, and we have fostered mentoring opportunities of young people with disabilities enrolled in the New Haven school system, just to name a few. New Haven works tirelessly to make the city a welcoming place for individuals with disabilities and will continue to do so in the future.

Individuals with disabilities may contact this office should they have any additional question regarding the City's services or need a disability-related accommodation. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Michelle M. Duprey, Esq.

Director, Disability Services

*************************************************
Michelle M. Duprey, Esq.
Director
Department of Services for Persons with Disabilities
City of New Haven
165 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510
(203)946-7651
Fax: 946-6934
TTY: 946-8582

Posted by: Disgruntled Democrat | November 10, 2007 4:00 PM

Those persons waiting to get a response from the mayor or from Ina will probably still be waiting at the next election. If they remain true to their natures, they will say nothing hoping this goes away.

Anyone who states that what McGrath did was not inappropriate is lying to themselves. If Malone had done this, there would have been three times as many posts and calls for his head. This double standard is disgusting.

And NHResident, if Ina was not involved, why her silence??? The guilty usually don't take the fifth.

Posted by: Paul N | November 10, 2007 7:35 PM

Well this certainly explains why Ina Silveman relies on the russian immigrants who are told to vote for her, on the mentally challenged who are FORCED to vote for her, On the many city employess who live in Ward 25 who are STRONGLY encouraged to vote for her.

It is a game of win and win at all costs--it is as clear as the noonday sun in July.

She refused any and all debates on the issues, she refused other media invitations with her opponent to discuss the issues. WHY! If you are the superior candidate, why refuse a debate?

Ina Silverman is frankly, someone whose ethics are mirrored and enhanced by her association with Brian McGrath--with whome she appeared quite chummy at Edgewood Ave School, on Election Day.

...

Silverman could never represent this or any ward effectively and in an unbiased and honest manner. More than half the ward absolutely has no confidence in her--and many more feel a deep sense of reserve.

Those who voted for her were people unfamiliar with both sides of the issue--some close friends who felt compelled to do so--some who were lied to by her glossing over of important facts--straight party voters who are to be reproved for such error of logic, city employees who feared for their jobs, and the infrim and mentally ill who were preyed upon without mercy! Let us not forget the immigrants who are indoctrinated with her name--SHAMEFUL.

Ina Silverman, this is the Truth, uncomfortable as it may seem--it is the TRUTH.

It is not my intention to destroy you by this post, it is my intention to give you a good opportunity for sincere reflection. Believe me, you will come out far ahead by doing the honorable thing in stepping down.

Yes, win, and win at all cost--ethics? What did you say? OK Brian, go round up some more votes!
Take a good look in the mirror Silverman and there you will see the reflection of ethical bankruptcy.

It would be the decent thing to step down, then after awhile you could rebuild your reputation and run again as you should on a platform of integrity. This is your campaign and YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAPPENED!

One last word, don't even begin to tell us that you didn't know what McGrath was up to, you were nearly arm in arm with him at Edgewood Ave. School. STEP DOWN--for there is no honor in your "tainted" and "corrupt" campaign!!!!!!!

You do NOT represent the 25th Ward.

Posted by: strangerthanfiction | November 10, 2007 8:22 PM

I have a problem with readers reporting an elections complaint based on a newspaper article. If the principals involved wish to report it then they should do so and let it be investigated. We cannot judge based on what is here. People have varying opinions about what is fair electioneering, but the law is the law.

I do believe that individuals generally make a choice not to register to vote or to not go to the polls and that this is part of our democratic system. I am against mandatory voting or fines - those who don't vote are punishing themselves because they become ignored by their government.

Posted by: king james v | November 10, 2007 9:12 PM

I've contacted Citizens Television about this, and suggest anyone with information and suggestions do the same. It's worth a shot.
www.citizenstv.net
btw, still haven'te seen any comments about destefaon or ina distancing themselves from this practice. of course they know the american mindset, and realize in another week we'll be focused on the price of heating oil and butterball turkeys.

Posted by: Frank Iezzi | November 11, 2007 8:54 AM

Fairhavener,

I did get a reply from Michele Duprey and submitted it yesterday for all to see. Do not know why the NHI did not post it. Also, like others who read the story, we called news organizations like WTNH and The Register. The answer I got from them was stunning. According to The Register, if they do not break the story, then they do not report it, or pick up on it. They do not trust info from a competing news organization. Thats why all you get from the local outlets is "happy news". Their reporters are too busy being led around by the mayor to do anything of substance to better this community.

Posted by: Walt Bradley | November 11, 2007 11:51 AM

I've been contacted by a few independent readers, and neighbors (i am a ward 25 resident) about the goings on this election. In response i contacted the state elections board, ms. dupree and melisa bailey.
The response i got from michelle duprey was word for word the same response mr. iezzi got. the elections board woman responded quickly and is scheduled to get back to me monday when she returns to work.
Ms. Bailey has yet to reply to my email.
I'd like to invite any and all readers and concerned new haven residents to contact me at citizens television, and if there are people willing to give an hour or two of their time i will hapily arrainge to get a live call in program on CTV withing the next week, because unlike the register, wtnh or weli, WE (CTV) can and do devote time to local important issues.

my email is waltbradley@citizenstv.net

thank you
walt bradley

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 11, 2007 11:53 AM

I got the same letter from Michelle M. Duprey. But she did help me with some info for the hearing impaired in the alderman chambers (thanx Michelle).

My question...

Is this letter the only response people have gotten?? Can the NHI do a follow up on all of this? I read the story and it upset me. But that is through the eyes of someone that does not know what the laws are? What constitutes not mentally capable? What are the levels of disability's in these complexes that Brian went to?? We as a people with heart feel that this is bad politics.

But as stated, people with disability's do have the right to vote. But were is the line drawn? The age that we are allowed to vote is what, 18..right? Why is it 18? My guess is because you are capable to make an informed choose? So if a persons disability puts them in a mental state that is lower than that of an 18 or 16 year old how are they capable of making an informed decision?

Posted by: Why 18 | November 11, 2007 1:55 PM

Cedarhill,

The age of 18 exists for a simple reason. It became untenable to send 18 year olds to die in war when they could not vote. There is no connection to the issue of disability.

For disability it goes to someone's ability to make an informed decision. There is little question that the gentleman in this story has the right to vote and would continue to have it if someone challenged his right in court.

The folks commenting here largely seem to be wrongly upset by McGrath's actions. He has, as you did, every right to pull an eligible voter to the polls as long as once the person is in the polling place McGrath did not try to influence the voter. It is pretty clear that neither you nor McGrath attempted to do so.

Posted by: Um Paul | November 11, 2007 2:06 PM

Paul N said:

"Well this certainly explains why Ina Silveman relies on the russian immigrants who are told to vote for her, on the mentally challenged who are FORCED to vote for her, On the many city employess who live in Ward 25 who are STRONGLY encouraged to vote for her."

Hey Paul -- why stop there. Why not eliminate people who happen to know Ina, or people who were treated by Ina's husband, or lawyers who want to vote for a fellow lawyer. People vote for all sorts of reasons but let me pass on a little secret about American elections -- YOU VOTE IN SECRET AND NOBODY KNOWS HOW YOU VOTED.

No one can force you to vote for anyone in America because they can't know how you voted. So in the end, everyone voted for who they WANTED TO VOTE FOR!

Seems to me that incumbents get beat in New Haven aldermanic races all the time, and people who support the administration get beat all the time. This cycle something like 25% of contested races went to challengers and 50% of well contested races.

Ina, on the other hand, won pretty decisively against an active opponent who had a lot of support.

You need a conspiracy theory to explain this, but here's a simple explanation -- the people of the ward preferred her. They may have done so for lots of reasons -- their employer's suggestion; their religious beliefs; because her campaign convinced them to vote on election day; they preferred her positions for the future of the ward; you name it. But then that is the case in any election.

People who gripe about elections after the fact because they simply LOST (or their candidate did) are part of the problem. Instead of figuring out why they lost, they pull down everyone involved in the process and discourage even more people from voting.

And that's pretty pathetic.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 11, 2007 6:45 PM

Why 18
Thank you for your answer. But please do not put me and Brian in the same category. As I am sure most here will say I was out knocking on doors only on the Cedar Hill side of my ward. I did not go to the housing complexes over here.
I was out asking people if they voted. I was out trying to get the number of voters up in my area. I did say I was in support of Allan but I also said I just wanted people to use there right to vote period! No rides were given. And I personally would never pressure a community member because I would not want that done to me.
On election day I just tried to get people out to vote.
I did go door to door early in the month with allan, as did several others in the community.
We were told that people in my area did not vote so it was the goal of our community to get more voters out.

Posted by: Been Called Worse | November 12, 2007 10:46 AM

Paul N - Where do you come up with such nonsense that "city employess who live in Ward 25 who are STRONGLY encouraged to vote for her."?

I see so many speculations and accusations about city employees being strong armed in to supporting particular candidates, or being 'forcefully advised' to contribute to campaigns. Let me tell you it is all *nonsense*.

You may be disheartened to known that as both a city employee and resident of ward 25 not once has anyone attempted to pursuede me (strongly or otherwise) to vote for any candidate (at least as it relates to my employment). You also may be shocked to know that with the exception of possibly having a new boss voted in on Nov 7th, elections play VERY LITTLE (if any) role on the day-to-day workings of city departments.

Sorry to break it to you, but your accusations/assumptions are at best just plain wrong. As ridiculous as it may seem, most of us are preoccupied with doing our jobs (once we're done with our daily Physical Jerks exercise and two minute hate sessions which are required of us Outer Party members by The Machine)

Posted by: Why 18 | November 12, 2007 11:40 AM

Cedar Hill,

I think what you did was justified. And if your new alderman does a good job, you may choose to work even harder on his behalf. I am trying to remember if there is a housing development in Cedar Hill -- not as I recall.

If there was, I would hope (and based on your comments over the year assume) that you would work just as hard to ensure that people in a housing development would go vote.

And I am going to assume one other thing. On election day you had a list of previously identified voters to go to -- people who had already expressed an interest in supporting your candidate. There is nothing wrong with this. In fact it would make no sense and be a waste of time to go after people who were either not voters or were not supporters. So saying you just told people to vote but not who to vote for is not really relevant since they were previously identified as votes for your candidate.

All you can really say is that you worked in your neighborhood and McGrath may have worked in a different neighborhood than his own (I don't know where he lived). But that just means he cares about more than his own neighborhood or maybe he loves pulling voters and there was no race in his neighborhood.

Finally, on election day, are you saying that you never suggested who people should vote for?

I say more power to you and to McGrath -- both of you showed that it is important that candidates have supporters who are willing to pound the pavement.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 12, 2007 1:58 PM

I am not going to waste my breath stop putting him and I in the same sentence!! I did What I did was politely remind people to vote...NOT drag people out of there home. Big difference! In my own small part of the ward. To people I knew through block watch and gardening. And yes I went to all doors. And said "did you vote" "Cedar Hill needs your vote".

Posted by: Chris Gray | November 12, 2007 9:19 PM

Been Called Worse, of course no one had to request your vote. You no doubt do an excellent job and have a keen interest in the welfare of the city.

You are confident that the city and, now, with the ascendency of the Democrats, the nation is on the right track. Yet even one of your Presidential candidates says the political system is corrupt. Take a look over at I-84 and the faulty drainage.

How long before New Haven suffers some infrastructure catastrophe due to concentration on campaigning and national test case, party inspired grandstanding with the id cards, rather than the core job?

Look at what has happened under Waterbury in recent years and we know how that Democrat wasted his citizens' time. At least John is much more moral than that.

We know he campaigns well, if not civilly. How about lowering the tax burden on citizens?

My aim is not to criticize city workers for believing in a system that works for them. There is much for which they can be congratulated. A.F.S.M.E. has a noble history.

I aim at the citizens who know in their hearts that it isn't working for them. They know there is a Machine and, if they are a part of it, it is only at election time.

Posted by: Disgruntled Democrat | November 12, 2007 11:52 PM

Been Called Worse: "As ridiculous as it may seem, most of us are preoccupied with doing our jobs" You must work in Parking, because they are the only ones I see on a consistent basis generating any revenue. I am still waiting on call backs from last week from two separate departments.

And I have heard many different stories from department heads as to how they must kowtow to the machine, including contributions that are not *encouraged,* just recorded in JD's little book.

This isn't sour grapes, just some of us with ethics sick of those in office without. Its been a week and still no comment from our elected representative.

BTW, was McGrath working for free that day (because obviously he is a very democratically minded individual) or was he paid? If he was paid, who paid him and how much?

Posted by: -FairHavener- | November 13, 2007 4:06 PM

Other than the email reply from Michelle M. Duprey, Esq. that everyone else received (which doesn't even come close to responding to anything I wrote), I have not heard a single thing.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 14, 2007 6:44 PM

just got this.....

This article has been called to the Commission's attention and a
complaint is anticipated regarding the same.

Thank you for calling it to our attention.

Very truly yours,

William B. Smith, Esq.
Staff Attorney 3
State Elections Enforcement Commission