A Connecticut judge’s recent ruling for a new primary in Bridgeport has raised concerns about the security of U.S. elections and fueled conspiracy theories regarding the 2020 presidential election. The judge cited mishandling of absentee ballots, specifically noting surveillance videos that captured individuals dropping stacks of ballots into outdoor collection boxes. However, election experts argue that this incident is unique to Bridgeport, a city with a history of voting irregularities, and should not be seen as evidence of widespread problems.
Bill Bloss, a longtime election law attorney representing the Democratic candidate challenging the outcome of the mayoral primary, emphasized that this issue is isolated to Connecticut. He stressed the importance of evidence in determining the legitimacy of claims about former President Donald Trump’s 2020 defeat. An Associated Press review of potential voter fraud cases in the contested battleground states found fewer than 475 cases, which would have no significant impact on the election’s outcome. Challenges to the election results were also widely dismissed by state and federal courts, including those appointed by Trump.
Connecticut Judge William Clark nullified the results of the September 12 primary, ordering a new one. He referred to the “shocking” surveillance videos that appeared to show supporters of Mayor Joe Ganim depositing multiple ballots into absentee ballot boxes. Clark explained that the mishandling of ballots made it impossible to determine the legitimate outcome of the primary.
Ballot harvesting, the activity depicted in the surveillance videos, is prohibited in Connecticut but permitted in some other states. Connecticut law allows voters to designate someone to drop off their completed absentee ballots. Former Connecticut Secretary of the State Denise Merrill highlighted the familiarity of Bridgeport residents with allowing others to deliver their ballots, even prior to the pandemic-related introduction of absentee drop boxes.
Elon Musk, the entrepreneur, expressed concern on his social media platform X (previously known as Twitter), suggesting that the Bridgeport incident indicates the possibility of election fraud beyond the city. However, Musk’s assertion lacks solid evidence.
The ruling came just six days before the general election, leaving Bridgeport voters in a perplexing situation. They will decide the outcome of the mayoral election on November 7 and potentially be required to participate in a new Democratic primary at a later unconfirmed date. John Gomes, the Democratic candidate who initially lost to Ganim in the mayoral primary, will appear on the general election ballot as an unaffiliated candidate. Gomes has urged people to vote for him, asserting that his victory would render the primary issue irrelevant.
The resolution of legal matters related to the primary will determine when the Associated Press declares a winner in the general election. Lawyers in the case have ten days to confer with election officials and determine a date for the new primary.
The State Election Enforcement Commission is investigating complaints regarding the recent mayoral primary, including criminal referrals for Ganim’s 2019 primary and absentee ballots. In past years, similar incidents of mishandled absentee ballots in Bridgeport have led to rulings for new primaries and increased scrutiny of the election process.
A state funding allocation has recently been finalized to hire an independent election monitor in Bridgeport. The monitor will ensure the integrity of the November 7 municipal election and the 2024 state election by detecting and preventing irregularities. However, the Secretary of the State’s office has not yet hired anyone for the position, and an interim monitor has been appointed in the meantime.
