Undisclosed Bag Of 335 Ballots Opened, Counted

Thomas MacMillan Photo (Updated) Over the objections of the Tom Foley for Governor Campaign, Amy Espinosa cut the seal to a previously undisclosed bag of ballots at 9 p.m. Thursday, and, two days after polls closed, a team of tired Bridgeport poll workers started counting. The fate of Connecticut’s suddenly nuclear election for governor hung in the balance.

The bag of uncounted ballots emerged in Bridgeport Thursday evening as officials engaged in an after-deadline count of votes—a count that will determine who is Connecticut’s next governor. The whole state is waiting on their count so Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz can declare a winner in the paper-thin election between Foley and Democrat Dan Malloy. According to unofficial counts, Foley was leading statewide in the election, but Bridgeport is expected to provide a margin of victory for Malloy.

Just when you thought this election year couldn’t get any stranger, a startling discovery was announced earlier Thursday evening outside the Bridgeport government building where overtime vote-counting is taking place to determine the winner of Tuesday’s gubernatorial election: that officials in Bridgeport had neglected to mention that they had had a bag full of uncounted ballots stowed away.

A voting registrar offered an explanation—and Tom Foley called for the cops.

The 335 ballots apparently came from the John F. Kennedy Campus School in Bridgeport, one of the places people went to vote in Tuesday’s election; Amy Espinosa was the moderator at the polling place.

Bridgeport missed a legal deadline to finish counting its votes at 6 p.m. Wednesday. It’s still counting votes late into Thursday night. When they finish, Connecticut may finally find out whether Republican Foley or Democrat Dan Malloy is the state’s next chief elected official.

A tired worker responsible for counting ballots at the JFK School polling place went home after Tuesday night’s elections before the work was done. (Click here to read a story about the ordeal that the vote-counters underwent.) Only on Thursday night—when, because of a whole bunch of mistakes and problems in Bridgeport’s vote, officials were still busy working on an official tally—did the existence of the bag of uncounted ballots left behind become publicly known.

Chris Covucci, Foley’s state field director, was present as Amy Espinosa opened the bag Thursday night. He objected to the decision to count these ballots. He said they should be taken to a neutral place and counted by a third party.

“We don’t know where they’ve been,” he said.

City attorney Mark Anastasi overruled him and allowed the counting to proceed. It appeared that almost all the votes were for Democrats, including Malloy.

“These ballots are getting extraordinary scrutiny,” Anastasi said.

A Revelation

An attorney for the Foley campaign first revealed the existence of the ballots in an impromptu press conference outside McLevy Hall earlier on Thursday.

Richard Albrecht of Bridgeport, the Foley attorney, said Foley staffers were approached around 6 p.m. by Art Laske, Bridgeport’s assistant city attorney. Laske told them there’s a “bag of ballots” somewhere in the building that have not been counted yet, according to Albrecht.

Democratic officials—whom he wouldn’t name—wanted the Foley campaign to deputize someone to help count the ballots, according to Albrecht. But the Foley campaign refused, saying it was an improper procedure.

The Foley representatives present at the press conference said they have not seen the bag.

“It’s like Palm Beach County all over again,” Albrecht said.

Bridgeport Republican Registrar of Voters Joe Borges confirmed in an interview that moderator Espinosa went home without finishing counting after the election Tuesday night. She left behind the bag of photocopied ballots—facsimiles of official ballots that Bridgeport gave to voters after real ballots ran out.

The bag contained 335 ballots. Officials had kept it sealed and say they knew of its existence.

Borges quoted Espinosa as saying she was going home Tuesday night “because of the late hour.”

“I can’t do it. I’m tired. I’ve got to go to work” the next day, he quoted her as saying.

Laske himself later issued a statement calling it “ completely irresponsible for counsel for the Foley campaign to mischaracterize this part of the process to the media, and to assert that any impropriety exists with regard to these ballots, which have been secured since they were cast, and their existence has been fully disclosed to the parties and to the public.”

Tom Foley called for the state police to come into the picture.

“In the process of counting ballots in Bridgeport today, a bag of photocopied ballots was apparently discovered that had not been included in any previous count,” he said in a statement. “It is unclear where these ballots originated, where they have been for the last two days and whether they are valid ballots. This is a very serious matter and the state police should immediately impound them until their origin, chain of custody and
validity is determined.”

“This is not some mystery bag of ballots that appeared out of thin air,” said William Beccaro, a lawyer affiliated with Bridgeport’s city attorney’s office who also works for the state Senate Democrats. He said there’s an “chain of custody” for the bag since the election; people knew where it was at all times.

Democratic Registrar of Voters Santa Ayala (pictured) waxed practically poetic as she flatly denied the charge of a “missing” bag of ballots.

“There is no bag missing,” said Ayala, who was reelected to her position Tuesday. “No bag has been found, because there is no bag missing. There’s no bag, so there’s no bag to find. Any bag used in this election has been properly sealed under lock and key. Everything will be done in the light of night. I really don’t care what they are saying on TV and radio. The Republican registrar and I are on the same page. There are no bags missing or found.”

“What they are referring to is JFK” (Campus School, a voting precinct). “I’m not going into particulars. JFK will be fully counted before final tallies are done.”

How long will that be?

It could well be several hours, election officials said.

Secretary of the State Bysiewicz issued a statement around 6:30 p.m. Thursday stating that official returns for the statewide election won’t be released tonight after all. That means whether or not Bridgeport finishes counting, Connecticut won’t officially know the name of its new governor until at least Friday.

“At approximately 5:00 p.m., our office learned from the Registrar of Voters’ office in Bridgeport that it may take several more hours for the Head Moderator to complete the return from Election Day.  By law, this document was required by law to be delivered to our office by 6:00 p.m. yesterday.  As such, we do not anticipate receiving any completed return from Bridgeport this evening,” the statement read.

“In the interest of transparency and open government, we feel it is very important that this return from Bridgeport be processed during normal business hours when any member of the public can observe the submission of this important document. ”

That revelation was the latest in a topsy-turvy day in which, by the hour, Connecticut thought it would learn who its next governor will be.

Inside Room 103

As Bysiewicz noted, all local registrars of voters were by law supposed to report official voting returns to her office by 6 p.m. Wednesday.

Bridgeport wasn’t done counting. It’s still not done counting.

This evening they’re counting and counting, slowly.

Six registrar office employees are sitting around a table in Room 103 of McLevy Hall, a government building named after the late Socialist Party mayor (of the 1930s pragmatic “sewer socialism” era) who lost his job after he reportedly remarked in reference to a snowstorm: “God put the snow there. Let him take it away.”

Bridgeport’s Democratic and Republican registrars are overseeing them.

At any given time, three different video cameras are running. Six to eight reporters and about same number of representatives of the Foley and Malloy campaigns watch, like hawks, as the officials walk through the numbers one by one.

They are going precinct by precinct, adding up two sets of numbers: tallies from voting machines; and tallies from Xeroxed facsimiles of ballots that Bridgeport had to use Tuesday when the city ran out of real ballots.

In Room 103, it’s a double check system. One person reads a number. Others use old-school electronic adding machines with paper print-outs to check the math. Two others record the sums on big tally sheets.

Brenda Young, one of the workers, said she started working the election at 5 a.m. Tuesday. She worked all night, then through Wednesday; she didn’t go home until 9 p.m. Wednesday. Then she returned on Thursday.

Earlier On Thursday…

As Connecticut’s Florida 2000-like election drama continues, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz postponed a noon press conference—and a 3 p.m. press conference—to announce the official winner of the governor’s race.

She said she could not predict when Bridgeport will have official numbers.

“I know you are anxious,” Bysiewicz said. “We’re just as anxious as you are.” (Click on the play arrow above to watch her mini-press conference.)

Bysiewicz’s 3:20 p.m. statement followed a series of missteps by her office, which first announced that it would have an official announcement at noon on Thursday. That was postponed, and at 1:55 p.m. a spokesman emailed reporters a message that the announcement was re-scheduled to “at least 3:00 p.m.”

The 3 p.m. presser was delayed as the state waits on vote counting in Bridgeport, where a review of precinct results is underway.

That review began this afternoon in Bridgeport, according to Lennie Grimaldi of the news website Only In Bridgeport. Grimaldi reports that local elections officials in Bridgeport are reviewing each of the city’s 25 precincts’ elections results to produce a final citywide number. The count was pushed back so that officials could catch up on sleep, Grimaldi reports.

The review of ballots in Bridgeport did not start until after 2 p.m. according to the registrar’s office. Bysiewicz said in her announcement that the review began at 3 p.m., after workers took a break.

Bysiewicz told reporters on Thursday afternoon that her office had posted official election results from 168 towns on the Secretary of the State website.

Those numbers show that Foley leads Malloy by 8,409 votes—not including results from Bridgeport.

The state is just waiting now on Bridgeport, Bysiewicz said.

“I cannot compel Bridgeport to prepare their return and give it to us,” Bysiewicz said. She said that Bridgeport is in violation of a state statute that required all towns to turn in their official election results by 6 p.m.—yesterday. “They obviously didn’t follow the statute.”

Larger cities tend to take more time to crunch their numbers, she said.

“I am doing my job,” Bysiewicz said. “I’m just waiting for the registrars to do their job in Bridgeport.”

“We don’t have an announcement imminent,” she said. “Because we don’t know when Bridgeport will finish doing what they need to do.”

Meanwhile, the blame game started in earnest. Bysiewicz blamed Bridgeport for not getting official numbers in on time. (They were due at 6 p.m. Wednesday.) Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch distanced himself from suggestions that he was trying to save money by not ordering enough ballots for Tuesday’s election; Bridgeport ran out, having printed enough for roughly only a third of his city’s registered voters.

“I want to be clear: At no time did the City ask that the Registrar spend less money to purchase ballots,” Finch said in a statement released at 5:46 p.m. Thursday. “We would never let money stand in the way of ensuring that every voter have the chance to exercise his or her inalienable right to vote in a free democracy. For the Registrars to even think of using that as an excuse for causing such distress for so many of our residents is indefensible and inexcusable.”

At 3:49 p.m., the Malloy campaign responded to Bysiewicz’s statement in a brief email message: “Since early Wednesday morning we have said we’re 100 percent confident that when the final vote is certified, Dan Malloy will be declared the winner by a margin comfortably outside what is necessary to trigger a recount. Nothing that’s happened since has changed that.”

Connecticut does not conduct full recounts in which every ballot is inspected by hand and the candidates have an opportunity to object or accept each ballot. Instead, the state does what’s called a “re-canvass,” in which ballots are fed back through the machines and absentees are counted by hand.

According to Luther Weeks of CT Voters Count, the re-canvass law was never changed when Connecticut switched from the old lever voting machines to the new optical-scan machines. Instead of reading the numbers off the back of the lever machines and counting the absentees by hand, the ballots are run again through the optical-scan machines.

Ball Of Confusion

Bysiewicz earlier Wednesday “unofficially” crowned Democrat Dan Malloy the winner, the first Democrat to at least “unofficially” win the office since 1986.

Republican Tom Foley, not surprisingly, didn’t appreciate an “unofficial” declaration by the state’s top official. (Shades of Katherine Harris?) He says his internal numbers show him winning. He may file a challenge if Bysiewicz makes her declaration official later Thursday.

And Thursday afternoon his campaign called on Bysiewicz to postpone any more announcements for now.

Malloy declared victory and named transition team leaders—even though New Haven hadn’t yet produced official numbers. (It ended up releasing those official numbers to the Independent as Malloy spoke, shortly after 4 p.m. Wednesday, 20 hours after the polls had closed.)

Meanwhile, the trusted Associated Press added to the confusion. First it declared Malloy the winner Wednesday. Then it “withdrew” that announcement—and late Wednesday said its internal count showed Foley the winner.

However, those numbers from the AP left out over 10,000 votes cast for Malloy in New Haven. Foley’s forces declared victory again. What made that mistake particularly odd is that New Haven numbers were now publicly available; the Independent story was making the rounds of the Internet and political and media circles. As late as mid-morning Thursday, AP was still reporting the Foley victory and leaving out more than half the New Haven votes.

AP revised its numbers late Thursday morning and proclaimed Malloy the winner again. Bysiewicz promised the noon press conference to make it official—then, inexplicably canceled. Her communications director, Av Harris, released the follow statement: “This is to inform you that Secretary Bysiewicz’s planned news conference at her office at the state capitol originally scheduled for noon has been postponed until later this afternoon.  As soon as we know when, we will let you know.”

Most projections now show Malloy leading by well more than the 2,000 threshold below which an automatic recount is triggered. New Haven’s and Bridgeport’s vote-pullers lifted him over the top. Read about the New Haven vote-pulling effort here.

“We have full confidence that, while the numbers will likely fluctuate throughout the day, the totals will show Dan Malloy beating Tom Foley well outside the margin necessary to trigger a recount,” state Democratic Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo stated in a release Thursday.

Not so fast, Foley campaign manager said in a release distributed at 12:53 p.m. Thursday. It read:

“Tom Foley contacted the Secretary of the State’s office this morning to request that any further announcements of election results for the governor’s race be postponed until the results are certain and discrepancies between The Secretary of the State’s office, the Tom Foley for Governor campaign, and the media, are reconciled. In the last twenty-four hours alone, Bridgeport has revised downward the number of votes cast for Dan Malloy by over 3,500. Other cities and towns are likely to revise their results in the days ahead. We understand that Susan Bysiewicz plans to announce this afternoon that their results of the Gubernatorial election are official. We have sent the Secretary of the State’s office a letter requesting that she not refer to her preliminary results of the election as “official” until the results are unlikely to be amended.”

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: Rusty on November 4, 2010  11:49am

Crooks, at the Capitol and in Bridgeport.

If anyone thinks this was not orchestrated by Bridgeport to get in more Democratic votes to put Homes and Malloy over the top, then you are all smoking dope.

How many of those “copied” ballots where filled out without voters? Has anyone looked at the number of names crossed of the voting list in Bridgeport and compared that number to the number of ballots filled out? I will bet there are many more ballots than names.

Heads should roll and a new election should be called. Bysiewicz should be fired!

posted by: Florida on November 4, 2010  1:08pm

Rusty,

We learned the trick from Florida and we haven’t recovered since then.Thanks!

posted by: John Q. Public on November 4, 2010  1:21pm

Rusty They ran out of ballots in Bridgeport and voters left after waiting-sound like “OHIO” to you???
If anything we have not learned a thing since Florida and Ohio.
Shame on Bridgeport for seeing Obama in town encourage people to vote and the City skimping on voter ballots-asinine behaviour on Bridgeport’s behalf.
This is why we need a new voting system.
This never happened when my parents voted in the 70’s !!!

posted by: William Kurtz on November 4, 2010  1:21pm

Something is deeply wrong with our democracy when elections are ‘declared’ by news agencies, based on exit polling, well before the agencies responsible for, you know, actually counting the votes have any idea what the numbers are.

Mr. Mallow may yet prevail but Mr. Foley is looking like the classy one in the aftermath of the election.

At this point, even I want a comprehensive recount.

posted by: Steve B on November 4, 2010  1:35pm

I would stop well short of calling Foley “classy” although he has every right to be outraged by Susan B’s unprofessional and boneheaded behavior over the past 48 hours.

However, Foley has also called for reconciling his numbers (which aren’t official) with the media’s numbers (which aren’t official) and the SOTS Office numbers (which will, eventually, hopefully, be official). Foley’s stalling tactics are a distraction and far from classy. When the SOTS tallies the final numbers, that’ll be it. Foley doesn’t have a right to square those up with his internal numbers.

posted by: Bill on November 4, 2010  1:38pm

Why did we stop using the lever machines? They were accurate, quick and easy with no hanging chads, no running out of ballots. This is progress?

posted by: cba on November 4, 2010  3:26pm

Thank God Bysiewicz never got to be governor, can you imagine the problem that she would have had using numbers in billions since a million number is giving her fits. ...

posted by: Anderson Scooper on November 4, 2010  3:32pm

Paul, I think you’re being irresponsible in comparing the current goings on to Florida and Katherine Harris back in 2000.

They’re really not analogous, and you’re setting the table for Republican charges that this election was somehow stolen.

Running out of ballots in Bridgeport is hard to fathom, but it’s not the same as Palm Beach voting for Pat Buchannan.

And that it’s taken almost 48hrs for Bridgeport to finalize it’s vote tallies? What do we really expect? However there is no indication of fraud. (just incompetence).

Anyway, it’s a close election and we should be patient until all the towns get their finals results in. But my understanding is that that will be by tomorrow at the latest.

And thank god that Malloy leads by several thousand and not several hundred, as it looks as if we’re going to avoid weeks or months of litigation. Let’s hope Foley does the right thing and concedes once the final official tally is announced.

posted by: Cedarhillresident on November 4, 2010  3:40pm

You are killing me with the story titles HEHE

posted by: terrapin on November 4, 2010  3:47pm

Methinks Bysiewicz has been mailing it in lately if she’s not out making sure that cities aren’t prepared for elections. What larger responsibility would Sec. of the State have than overseeing elections?

posted by: Mary Helnorski on November 4, 2010  4:20pm

Capitol Report:
The NHI put up on their headers capitol report where DeStefano sends a thank you to the “Team New Haven” who got Malloy elected.
It seems:
1.You can’t comment so it seems that was very deliberate by making sure it was an email through another source.
2.It seems quite gutless but typical. Trying to take credit and involvement in and with some sort of team, yet we all know he sat on his hands.
3. It seems the most this mayor would consider doing is deliver food with Voigt to stagnant groups who sat around doing nothing having a social round table. The real workers were not part of DeStefano and Susie Voigt.
4. It seems he thinks he can fool the citizens of New Haven.
5. It seems the mayor is grasping at straws.
6. It seems all too sad that a mayor that when first elected gave everyone something to be proud of and now is a complete embarrassement and his days clearly are numbered.
IT IS CLEAR IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE!

posted by: Year of the Bysiewicz on November 4, 2010  4:43pm

2010 will forever be known as the year of the Bysiewicz:

- I’m running for Governor
- No I’m not
- I’m running for Attorney General
- Supreme Court: Seriously? You’re not a practicing lawyer.
- Malloy wins “unofficially” because people want my unofficial opinion
- Press conference at noon, I mean 3, sometime this afternoon, whenever Bridgeport shows up
- It’s not my fault, the law gives me no authority over the elections of this state
- Supreme Court: see we told you, you are not a lawyer, and it looks like we are going to now have to do your job for you too

posted by: Joe Fabian on November 4, 2010  6:25pm

This election is totally invalid. Dan Malloy is not governor. There needs to be a re-vote. The selective use of Reverse 9-1-1 by Democrats during the 2-hour Bridgeport extension was a clear violation of equal protection and perhaps a crime as well. I voted for Malloy, but I am ashamed to be a Democrat tonight.

posted by: roomforaview on November 4, 2010  6:30pm

At the very least, Bridgeport erred in not printing up enough ballots. Bysie erred in not overseeing this “mistake” and correcting it before it blew up. She doesn’t seem in control now, to say the least. Another nail in her political coffin. Ironically this is the woman who would have been governor easily herself.

And who could expect any less of a circus than this from a city where PT Barnum was mayor.
Love the Bridgeport Registrar’s ode:
Let’s call it…
“Done in the Light of Night”

There is no bag missing,
No bag has been found, because
there is no bag missing.
There’s no bag, so there’s no bag to find.
Any bag used in this election
has been properly sealed, under lock and key. Everything will be done in the light of night. I really don’t care what they are saying
on TV and radio.
There are no bags missing or found.

posted by: thebpp on November 4, 2010  7:37pm

I am completely appalled at Susan “I’m doing my job” Bysiewicz.  Her performance through this election is undercutting the credibility of the results. If she wasn’t about to step down from the job I would be demanding she resign. She shouldn’t be doing press conferences in Hartford, she should be IN BRIDGEPORT overseeing this mess and trying to restore confidence in all this… As it is, this whole thing is such a mess, when Malloy finally is certified no one will believe it.  And while Bridgeport officials deserve a large portion of the blame through all this, as the chief elected official, the buck stops with her.

posted by: City Hall II on November 4, 2010  8:20pm

As usual the NHI is all over this and is not taking any bureaucratic breaks to miss the sequence of this CT Ballot Snafu.  At this point there should be a state-wide re-count under scrutiny of a bevy of state and federal officials.  This STINKS!!!!

posted by: Dominik on November 4, 2010  8:45pm

The OSCE needs to start monitoring our elections.

posted by: Cedarhillresident on November 4, 2010  8:51pm

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b115/happypixie36/BPT.jpg

posted by: jschmidt on November 4, 2010  8:59pm

WHo would have known that when Obama visited he was giving lessons to Bridgeport on how to conduct CHicago style politics.
Supprised they didn’t find a bag of ballots dating back to the O’neil election.

posted by: Joe on November 4, 2010  9:03pm

This is so funny, but really it’s kind of sad.  Notice how the national media is not giving this story any attention.  Shows how irrelevant Connecticut is to the rest of the country.

posted by: Beth on November 4, 2010  9:08pm

I guess Foley is hoping the one VERY BAD decision to save a few bucks on their ballot order will allow them to question every move. They’ll look like jerks if it turns out there was a validated chain of custody on that “found” bag (which, BTW, is NOT filled with Foley votes putting him over the top!). Finch and Malloy hate each other—this certainly makes things worse an dis bad news for Bridgeport unless Malloy takes the high road.

posted by: Zack on November 4, 2010  9:28pm

Hey Foley, Rule #1: If you think there is a bag of ballots missing, in a city where 80% of them are for your opponent, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

posted by: Anderson Scooper on November 4, 2010  9:40pm

Paul, please.

The bag of uncounted votes was not suddenly found. That’s the truth.

And the outcome of the election does not depend on it’s contents, as MaMalays already winning by several thousand votes.

A lot of folks don’t know, but when they ran out of pre-printed ballots, they had to use xeroxed auxiliary ballots—which cannot be machine counted.

So at this one precinct, the officials who had been there from 6am-10pm decided not to hand count those ballots on the spot that night. (even though they should have). I guess someone was too tired, and had to be at work early the next morning.

The votes were sealed in an official bag, by members of both sides of the aisle. According to normal procedure.

And now they’re being counted in full public view with both Democrats and Republicans present.

Not really as sensational as you make it out to be.

posted by: jschmidt on November 4, 2010  10:53pm

So I guess ballots do not have to have a chain of custody where people sign off on receiving them and there is a paper trail of where they’ve been. SO a bag of ballot, photocopies, came from somewhere and we are suppossed to be they came from some election location and they were filled out by acutally voters, 1 vote, 1 ballot. THis is a comedy if it wasn’t so real. Photocopies ballots should be rejected. Every ballot should have a number so no duplicates are processed. How do we know where these ballots have been? THis process is a joke and something you’d would have expected in some banana republic. The Scy of State should be fired and the election in Bridgeport redone.

posted by: Lifeofthemind on November 4, 2010  11:02pm

Everything will be done in the light of night.

Fraud and theft from illiterate hacks. Nothing that the Democrats assert is legitimate.
No Governor installed as a result of fraud is legitimate.
No law signed by such a Governor or order issued is legitimate.
There is no Constitutional government in Connecticut and the law is not in effect.
No action taken by any Agent or Officer under color of the authority of such a Governor is legitimate.

posted by: Doyens on November 4, 2010  11:27pm

This is just so rich. Gotta love the Laske comment - what, you think these ballots just appeared out of thin air? In Bridgeport, one of the many homes of corruption in CT? uh, yeah. The governorship is hanging in the air but the poll worker goes home cuz she’s tired and just leaves the ballots there. You never leave the ballots at a polling place. It just kind of leaves you speechless. Bysie may have shot herself right out of Lieberman’s seat too. This stuff will make great campaign fodder.

posted by: Jose Ortega on November 5, 2010  12:38am

Maybe I should photocopy some ballots, fill them out, drop them off in Bridgeport and see if someone will count them. My God is this a joke.

posted by: TobyTucker on November 5, 2010  1:36am

Doesn’t this remind you of the Franken mess in Minnesota when they were “finding” ballots in the trunks of peoples cars? Somehow I think this election will have an equally sad ending. *sigh*

posted by: Iris on November 5, 2010  4:47am

This is a really great coverage—clear and informative. Thank you.

posted by: anon on November 5, 2010  5:58am

I agree with Anderson, this is not even remotely sensational.  Shame on the reporters for making it seem that way.

The only thing sensational are the remarks from the Foley campaign, and other Republicans, about trying to disenfranchise Bridgeport voters, instead of conceding to a clear victory by the Democrats. 

Did Foley want to activate the Florida “scrub lists” and roadblocks, too?

posted by: Tim on November 5, 2010  6:41am

All I can say is, are you kidding me!!

posted by: robn on November 5, 2010  8:23am

NOT AN ISSUE.

1) Malloy already had the margin for a win.

2) All vote bags were properly sealed and there was chain of custody.

3) It perfectly legal to keep polls open when there has been some disruption (the law leans on the side of allowing voters to vote.)

Classless actions on the part of the Foley campaign and for the first time shows their colors…and the national right wing cabal that he is so closely tied to. His wife was an associate counsel to the Bush White House (remember the people who supposedly told Bush it was fine and dandy to torture people) and her sister now works for Paul Wolfowitz at World Bank (remember the guy who thought it was fine and dandy to invade Iraq even though they had nothing to do with 911 and had no WMDs).

posted by: Townie on November 5, 2010  9:09am

A statewide recount would be appropriate. And Bridgeport should be sold to New York, or any willing buyer. I never liked the city and this only reinforces that sentiment.

Also, maybe we should consider a 51st state, New Connecticut, a place that doesn’t want to become a welfare state. Foley can be the governor and all reasonable, hard-working citizens can join us. Although it sounds ridiculous this might be the time to consider such options.

posted by: robn on November 5, 2010  9:49am

TOWNIE,

Please be our guest and form a 51st state with all of the “reasonable” people…
...you can have Long Island Sound. Of course it might be difficult to set up a new state on water ...

posted by: Dan F on November 5, 2010  10:01am

What strikes me as weird, browsing the election returns by town on CNN, is how Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford are extreme outliers.  Town by town, the winner, either Foley or Malloy, tends to claim 55 to 65% of the vote, with other candidate claiming the rest.  In these three cities, Malloy appears to have 90% or more of the vote, yielding gains of tens of thousands of votes in each.

I’m new to the state so maybe this is typical of CT, but it certainly appears very suspicious.

posted by: William Kurtz on November 5, 2010  10:12am

There are a lot of issues here, but none of them have anything to do with the sinister conspiracies being muttered about by the fright-wing.

Secretary Bysiewcz showed a staggering lack of judgment with her ‘unofficial’ declaration.  Her thinking defies comprehension.

If Bridgeport—or any city or town—ran out of ballots, that’s inexcusable, too.  It appears we talk a good game about civic duty and making your voice heard and getting out the vote, but when it comes down to it, we need 40,000 of you to just stay home.

Mr. Malloy’s Wednesday afternoon press conference was embarrassing to both him and his supporters.  Neither candidate had any business declaring himself the ‘governor-elect’ when their own estimates were about 13,000 votes apart and in complete discord with the official unofficial number being released by the Secretary of State’s office. 

Maybe Jimmy Carter and the UN should monitor Connecticut elections?

posted by: looking askance on November 5, 2010  12:22pm

Robn, it is NOT perfectly ok to keep the polls open longer than 8pm, since the law clearly states that any voter standing in line at the close of the polls can still vote.  All the ruling to keep the polls open until 10pm did was allow more people to get in line - not necessarily the same people who originally were “turned away” due to the polling place running out of ballots.
The use of the reverse 911 calls was also questionable, since they are to be used in case of emergency - this doesn’t seem to qualife.
In addition, Malloy’s own campaign staff called people who had not voted and told them to go to the polls by 10pm. 
No good…..

posted by: Bill on November 5, 2010  12:50pm

“a bag of photocopied ballots”
So that’s how they do it now, just feed ballots through a copy machine to get the number of votes they need.

Bring back the lever machines!

posted by: rover27 on November 5, 2010  1:17pm

It looks like the Republican candidate last…so there must be some kind of “fraud”.

It’s amazing that before this election, nationally, the GOP was playing the media and the voters that there was “fraud” out there. They were having voter suppression meetings under the guise of rooting out “fraud.” And sending out their “fraud” watchers on election day.

Now that they’ve had a huge victory, those claims have almost totally disappeared…except in CT and MN. Where two Democratic candidates for governor won close elections.

Watch out, America. The democracy you took for granted is disappearing.

posted by: Sydney on November 5, 2010  8:07pm

Bill,
This isn’t progress. This is politics.

posted by: Duzer on November 8, 2010  5:12pm

Perhaps a weakness of the a voting democracy, you get coat tail and or popular officials. Unfortunately, there is no correlation with their ability to do a proper job.

posted by: Granite Vanity Countertops on November 11, 2010  7:03am

I have seen many posts related to this topic on the internet but I really found your post informative and up-to-the mark. I like the way how the writer has thrown light on unhidden facts. I am looking forward for the posts written by you in future!