New Haven Independent

Posted by: robn | November 16, 2007 1:21 PM

Director Andrews is thinking too hard about the issue, which is not complicated at all.

It has nothing to do with the mental competency of the voter. Its all about the actions of the vote puller. Were the actions of the vote puller coercive or not? Did the actions of the vote puller violate law or not? THATS the issue.

Posted by: -FairHavener- | November 16, 2007 1:34 PM

"The Republicans seek to limit the voting rights of the disabled, McGrath argued."

Oh please. The only thing Republican about me is that I don't vote for DeStefano. I don't want to speak for other people, but I think this probably holds true for a lot of people who think McGrath & Co's actions are appalling at best. This has nothing to do with party affiliation, it has to do with human decency.

I wonder if McGrath & Co, (and certain elected officials) are thinking about Vito right now. That is, not thinking about "prepping" him for the SEEC interview, but really thinking about how this may be affecting him. I wonder if McGrath thinks Vito will go vote with him again next election.

Posted by: Transituser | November 16, 2007 2:36 PM

Did this news site cover the late October Hamden community charrettes that developed Smart Growth pedestrian/transit/bike friendly redevelopment ideas for all districts--including the Miracle Mile that inner city residents risk their necks to get to work on the bus crossing wide highways and parking lots? Or the November 14 SCSU Smart Growth conference? Or the November 15 ConnDOT listening sessions at which more folks than usual spoke up for non-auto mobility options? Or the
Transit for Connecticut hearing or opening $300K bus shelters last month with with ace reporters knowledgeable about big picture transit issues?

Why then is this one questionable incident between two guys so newsworthy? What does it matter to anyone's long-term well-being?

Posted by: Gary Doyens | November 16, 2007 3:05 PM

The silence from Ina Silverman and the mayor is deafening.

Posted by: robn | November 16, 2007 3:49 PM

Transituser,

Its important becuase during the last two presidential elections, the GOP took a crap on voting rights ...as a result, we're now in our second Vietnam and are no closer to energy independence than we were 30 years ago. As lifelong New Deal Dem, I refuse to let my party sink to that level. We can make a difference locally.

Posted by: Mort | November 16, 2007 4:03 PM

I agree with Robn - Andrews is heading down the wrong theoretical path here. I say avoid that issue entirely.

A genius could feel coerced and forced to vote too, not by that behavior perhaps, but by other behavior, theoretically. A genius with a gun to his head, for example, is definitely going to vote. The competence isn't the issue. It is only accidental - it went into the decision about the method of coercion that would be used.

It looks like it makes Vito accustomed to and prone to complying with authority and McGrath impersonated an authority no matter how vaguely, and deceived him as to whether he had a choice.

I am all for Vito voting if it occurs to him to vote. But he was commanded to vote.

Also, I hope Andrews focuses a laser on the issue of Mcgrath and his henchman entering the booth with Vito. Competence is a nonissue there.

Where are the staff members of the organization that serves Vito and others where he lives? Shouldn't they be offering transportation to the polls, if any desire it?

That the competence issue would seem to present itself for adjudication because bad people take advantage of things, is unfair, because any ajudication will be imperfect and ill-serve.

McGrath acts as if he is for the rights of the disabled, but his antics hurt their rights. He was discriminatory, knowing he could premept the autonomy of someone mentally disabled.

Lots of bad laws and decisions come from our need to deal with unreformable types who take advantage of people and can't leave well enough alone.

Posted by: Our Town | November 16, 2007 5:00 PM

I wonder if the NHR will now consider this as "news"?

Posted by: WAP | November 16, 2007 5:09 PM

This conduct is certainly deplorable. But the whole story does beg one obvious question. Why are Republicans opposed to the mentally disabled voting? I thought this was their base!

Posted by: WEBbloger 1 | November 16, 2007 5:27 PM

The state is investigating whether a New Haven Democratic machine vote-puller broke the law in aggressively bringing a mentally disabled man to the polls in Westville.

State law says "no mentally incompetent person shall be admitted as an elector." Who's to say his charges weren't of sound of mind? asked McGrath; one even has a day job at a Chili's restaurant.

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

It appears McGraft may have presented the deciding central question. No one has determined if Vito is mentally challenged to the extent the law would up-hold, after all he did vote and without assistance.

Too bad the complaining poster did not get a recorded statement from vito before the claim was made, you can be sure that McGraft will!

Posted by: Shirley Ugest | November 16, 2007 6:49 PM

This is a pretty disturbing accusation. Any inkling of coersive behavior at the polls is completely contrary to the Constitution. This would include include any suggestion of any quid pro quo in making campaign contributions among city employees.

The man's state of competency has nothing to do with it, but his goes beyond any legal question and goes deeper into what is moral. Only in that way would I add to what Robn has said.

Posted by: Dean Moriarty | November 17, 2007 12:09 AM

My thanks again to the NHI, and to all the voices here for bringing this to light. Now, the true value of REAL community reporting shines. Paul, Melissa and all, thank you. Should you ever go to a print edition I will be among the first to subscribe. However, don't ever abandon your online edition. The immediacy of your web prescence far outpasses our local journalism. You've broken a story that the local media wouldn't look at, and to boot, have initiated a investigation. Kudos, all around.

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | November 18, 2007 5:33 PM

Dean: The NHI can benefit from your financial support as they need to pay reporters, online hosting cost etc... You can make a contribution to sustain this paper here.

Posted by: Harvey Koizim | November 18, 2007 5:41 PM

Pulling votes and absentee ballot voting have created many scandals, criminal trials, fines and even imprisonments in New Haven. Variants of the story being told here have been enacted many times in New Haven's history.

Effectively, New Haven has only one party. It (meaning its leaders and City officials) wants to stay in power because party officials and office holders -- not the voters -- are the stakeholders. In office, they have almost unrestricted power to hand out favors (e.g. jobs) to "vote pullers." The Mayor is elected by a sickly minority of citizens. All you have to do to be alder is get 250 votes to the polls.

FOR GOODNESS SAKE, STOP COMPLAINING AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!! This is a democracy (small "d"). If you're really motivated, put your money where your big mouths are! RTER REFORM: (1) make municipal elections totally non-partisan; (2) transform the unwieldy, virtually unpaid, virtually unstaffed 30 person, Board of Aldermen into a paid 12 member City Council with staff; (3) give the Mayor and Council members 4 year terms; (4) Elect the Board of Ed.

Posted by: charlie | November 19, 2007 11:36 AM

I agree with Transit User! This is a complete non-issue. Not to mention BORING!

Posted by: strangerthanfiction | November 19, 2007 1:07 PM

It may rub some people the wrong way and make them feel uncomfortable. Those are legitimate concerns. But it's a question of what took place and whether it was within the law. When does "vote pulling" become "coercion and intimidation". Politics and electioneering is not for the faint of heart. People with the street skills of Brian McGrath are indispensable to candidates. Even Abraham Lincoln had his organizers and vote pullers that some called "street thugs".

Posted by: matt w | November 19, 2007 9:45 PM

Right on, StrangerThanFiction. If someone wanted to make a case that the practice is unethical, then we could be having a meaningful debate. People who want to claim that the practice is *illegal* are spouting fantasy.

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | November 20, 2007 8:05 AM

I have been enjoying the debate and wanted to make a comment on the process of filing a complaint. We, as citizens, are under obligation to report concerning behaviors and allow the experts to review it to determine whether to take action. As you know, we then have a full system of law and justice to determine whether someone is guilty. We do not have to be legal experts and know the final conclusion before making a complaint about a concern we have (that's what our tax dollars are paying the professionals to know). In fact, if we do not report the concern, we rob our legal system the opportunity to act. It is sort of like when you see a suspicious person looking in your neighbor's windows, you call the police and allow them to determine whether they are a criminal or there to repair the window - you don't need to wait until they kidnap your neighbor before calling the police; or like a crowd watching a shooting, and then magically, no one sees anything when the police arrive. The right to vote is fundamental to everything else that happens - the laws that get written, who runs the government, safety regulations on car manufacturers, lead paint on children's toys etc.... This is exactly why this issue is so serious - it all starts with the right to vote, and the right to have this process be free from coercion. If we don't take this seriously, then everything else afterward is tainted at best, and potentially much, much worse as human history can attest. So if you see something that is a concern, you can take action and let the process determine the law. By trying to claim that you need to know whether someone is guilty or not before filing a complaint, you imply that only the legal experts have the right to make a complaint. Each and every one of us has the right to make a complaint, we don't have to be right, that is for the legal system to decide.

Posted by: Disturbing to Say the Least | November 20, 2007 11:23 AM

Under Jeffrey's theory, maybe I should call up the police and suggest that someone I read something about in the newspaper is selling drugs. What is crazy is that a law enforcement officer actually chose to follow up on this complaint. This is such big brother nonsense that we should all be scared and ashamed.

If the Republican Registrar thought there was something wrong then he (who actually witnessed the actions) should have filed a complaint. If a friend or social worker who knows the voter in this case and talked to him felt his rights were violated, then that friend or social worker should have filed a complaint. If the voter felt abused, then he should have filed a complaint.

What evidence has been presented? Third hand newspaper reading? Is this how "crimes" get investigated in America?

Aside from the presumption running through out this that the disabled should not vote (or be brought to the polls), now we have do-gooders trampling the democratic process in the name of what?

Posted by: king james v | November 20, 2007 5:37 PM

Why hasn't Ina or Johnny da Mayor said anything?
Oh, and was Mcgrath being paid at the time? If he was, i'd like a full refund please.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 20, 2007 6:52 PM

Disturbing to Say the Least

I think Jeffrey is right. I think a large number of people that read the story were questioning how vito and possibly others from that complex were handled on election day. And to ask the state to look into it is not wrong. The writer of the story is a reporter that most in the city respect. I do. And I do understand how some people with challenges can act. So it is not to say that what happened may be a misunderstood behavior. But if we were to not, at the least be concerned, then what kind of people would we have been??? To ignore such a thing would of been down right wrong.
This is not a presumption that disabled people should not vote. It is a concern that disabled people should not be used. They have the right to vote, but they also have the right to be treated with the respect that everyone else is treated with.

Posted by: matt w | November 20, 2007 11:06 PM

Jeffrey, you say:

This is exactly why this issue is so serious - it all starts with the right to vote, and the right to have this process be free from coercion.

Now, inside the polling place voters have an absolute right to be free from all influence with respect to their votes. And whoever tried to follow Vito to the polls was busted, as he should have been.

But when it comes to other facets of political campaigns, where and how are we to be "free from coercion?" If twelve pieces of mail were sent to Vito's house, would that be improper? What if the same words spoken by McGrath were used by a phonebanker, or on a pre-recorded call?

And, while Most people savvy enough to be blogging also go out and gather information on their own, so canvassing or other campaign contacts are probably unhelpful and possibly unwelcome. For a lot of people, though, these contacts are how they get most of their information (when the election is, a bit of information about candidates, etc) -- except in entirely noncompetitive areas, elections are won or lost based on person-to-person contact, whether in the form of persuasion or mobilization.

That's my view, anyway -- and as such, the idea that knocking on doors and telling registered voters to "get your coat on and come vote" would be a crime is foreign bordering on obscene to me.

Could you flesh out what sorts of interactions you think should be allowed, and what enters into the realm of "coercion" in your view?

Should it be keywords or "calls to action" that are disallowed, or should mentally handicapped or senile voters be annotated in some way by the registrar of voters so campaigns can avoid them? Should it work differently depending on whether it's a campaign, neighbor, or family member making the contact? I'm really trying to parse how campaigns would work if you genuinely consider what McGrath did to be a criminal action.

Posted by: matt w | November 20, 2007 11:12 PM

It is a concern that disabled people should not be used. They have the right to vote, but they also have the right to be treated with the respect that everyone else is treated with.

Cedar Hill Resident -- the same phrases were most likely said to every voter who answered their door. Do you want disabled voters to be equal, or to be free from persuasion?

Posted by: Chris Gray | November 21, 2007 1:51 AM

Judging from the angle Andrews is taking; I do not think this case will be resolved in anything other than a perfunctory manner. In other words, the fix is in.

McGrath was only involved in this particular race because energetic opposition was faced.

Meanwhile, neither campaign opposing the Mayor was able to raise enough to qualify for public financing.

Listen, I am and have always been poor, so I can't follow JEFFREYKERKES' advice, but if you want to see change in this city, even if only by reform of the Democrats in power, it is going to cost.

Shoe leather (or synthetic shoe materials), skin (from handshaking), air (from the hot version you'll share talking to people) and money, some spent, some lost from the consequences of opposing the powerful, are just part of the costs.

The rewards will probably be disappointing but they will be better than having let things go on just as they always have been.

Posted by: -FairHavener- | November 21, 2007 4:08 PM

"Cedar Hill Resident -- the same phrases were most likely said to every voter who answered their door. Do you want disabled voters to be equal, or to be free from persuasion?"

Matt W - - If the same "persuasion" was directed at me at my door, do you think McGrath would look into the eyes of my 6'2", 215 lb body and "press" me like he did Vito? If he told me to put my coat on and come with him do you think I would just reluctantly do what he says? I surely wouldn't run away like the other guy felt he had to.

And, Jeffrey is absolutely right. It is our responsibility to "make the call" when we see things that don't appear to be legit. What is that saying "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"? Religious overtones aside, it is clear this wasn't the case regarding this issue, that is, good people taking action. If you would have read the article would have noticed:

"She said the SEEC decided to open an investigation into this case after reviewing the complaint, the Independent article, and the flood of outraged comments posted by readers. There appear to be legitimate facts worth investigating, she said."

Did you catch that? Here it is again:

"the complaint...and the flood of outraged comments posted by readers."

You see, our actions made a difference.

Now, let me break the rest of this down for you so you can understand it, because you're obviously not getting it:

"She said the SEEC decided to open an investigation into this case after reviewing the complaint..."

You see, Matt W, your rhetorical questions, "What evidence has been presented? Third hand newspaper reading? Is this how "crimes" get investigated in America?", are ridiculous. Good people take action, make complaints, etc, and the proper officials investigate. It is not "how "crimes" get investigated in America..." it is how (in this case) they get brought to the proper officials' attention. They investigate.

And the last tidbit:

"There appear to be legitimate facts worth investigating, she said"

You see, we the good people only had to _think_ there might be "facts worth investigating" and make the call. Being as smart as we are, we had a good chance of being right, but we do not make that decision. As it turned out, we were close to being right because Andrews (the SEEC official) said ""There appear to be legitimate facts worth investigating" Do you understand?

Posted by: matt w | November 22, 2007 2:00 PM

You see, Matt W, your rhetorical questions, "What evidence has been presented? Third hand newspaper reading? Is this how "crimes" get investigated in America?", are ridiculous.

It must be pointed out that this quote belongs to another poster, not I.

Posted by: matt w | November 22, 2007 2:08 PM

Matt W - - If the same "persuasion" was directed at me at my door, do you think McGrath would look into the eyes of my 6'2", 215 lb body and "press" me like he did Vito? If he told me to put my coat on and come with him do you think I would just reluctantly do what he says? I surely wouldn't run away like the other guy felt he had to.

Yes, I think he would look you in the eyes and say the exact same thing. I would.

Of course, I suspect that you wouldn't be on my list, as a history of macho puffery is normally a sign that you'd be unlikely to vote for my candidate, are a Republican, or both.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 23, 2007 11:05 AM

matt w

"macho puffery is normally a sign that you'd be unlikely to vote for my candidate"

Wow? Macho?? Puffery?? Who was your candidate?? No diplomacy in that comment.

Come one...do you really think that "Fairhavener" would of been treated the same as Vito?? The point was the disabled were treated different. Why are you so unset that people actually stood up and questioned it?

Posted by: -fairhavener- | November 23, 2007 11:25 PM

"Of course, I suspect that you wouldn't be on my list, as a history of macho puffery is normally a sign that you'd be unlikely to vote for my candidate, are a Republican, or both."

I am guessing by this almost incoherent sentence/paragraph that you mean I am macho therefore I vote republican because that is historically true according to you? Or, both macho and republican? Or, macho and on your list? The more I read what you wrote the more I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Anyway, it is obvious at this point that you are in no way capable of defending yourself against the arguments I posed critiquing your earlier comments. It becomes doubly obvious when you succumb to a ridiculous (and hypocritical) statement such as this:

"Yes, I think he would look you in the eyes and say the exact same thing. I would."

Oh you would, would you? Because you are so macho? Not only did you fail to address any of the arguments I presented that critiqued your earlier positions, you fell back on the only point I raised involving reasoning that used "macho puffery" as an example. I think that is rather telling regarding your weak (now hypocritical) position.

Posted by: matt w | December 7, 2007 3:05 PM

Oh you would, would you? Because you are so macho?

No, because that's the job. If this article were about a mentally disabled dude being offended when he was asked if he "wants fries with that" at a fast food joint, the response of the cashier would be "that's what you say to everyone!"

I think that is rather telling regarding your weak (now hypocritical) position.

Which you determined after arguing with yourself, it seems.