After an absentee ballot scandal upended Bridgeport’s mayoral election, the Connecticut Supreme Court is weighing whether voters in the city can seek the arrest of two key figures in the case.
The court heard oral arguments Wednesday in an appeal that will test whether a decades-old state law that allows voters to petition for the arrest of people they suspect of violating election rules is constitutional.
Three Bridgeport voters sought to exercise their rights under that law last year after an explosive video surfaced that appeared to show political operatives loyal to incumbent Democratic Mayor Joseph Ganim stuffing papers into an absentee ballot drop box. A judge ordered the city to redo its mayoral primary and general elections as a result.
Soon after, the voters filed applications in court, seeking warrants for the arrest of two people whose conduct came under scrutiny during the election lawsuit.
Attorney Cameron Atkinson, who represents the voters, argued in court Wednesday that the law is an important tool to help ensure public confidence in elections.
“When our officials, particularly in Bridgeport, are more interested in investigating the people who leaked the security footage that depicted these things than holding these people accountable for what they did, there are questions to be asked,” Atkinson said.
A judge threw out the results of Bridgeport’s September 2023 primary and its November 2023 general election after finding there was sufficient evidence to suggest two Ganim supporters — Wanda Geter-Pataky and Eneida Martinez — improperly handled other people’s absentee ballots.
The ruling came in a civil lawsuit filed by Ganim’s challenger, Democrat John Gomes. Gomes obtained video recordings that appeared to show people repeatedly stuffing papers into a ballot box placed outside one of Bridgeport’s municipal buildings days before the primary election.
Geter-Pataky and Martinez refused to answer some questions when they were called to testify in the civil hearing, invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Martinez and a lawyer representing Geter-Pataky did not respond to requests for comment this week from Connecticut Public.
In seeking arrest warrants for the pair, the three voters in Bridgeport cited a Connecticut law that says a judge shall issue an arrest warrant when presented with a written complaint from three electors of a town in which a violation of any law relating to elections has occurred — if the complaint is supported by an oath or affirmation from the electors that they believe their allegations are true and can be proven.
The voters who sought the arrests are Albert Bottone, Diahann Phillips and Alison Scofield. State records show Phillips is an unaffiliated voter; Bottone and Scofield are registered as Republicans.
After weighing their request last year, a superior court judge declined to grant it, ruling the statute they cited appears to allow for an arrest even if the available evidence doesn’t establish probable cause that a crime has been committed, an apparent violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The judge also found the law violates a provision of the state constitution that grants authority over prosecutions to the Division of Criminal Justice.
The voters filed an appeal with the Appellate Court, which was later transferred to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Among the issues now in question are whether the three voters have standing to appeal the lower court judge’s ruling, and if so, whether the lower court judge was correct in his assessment of the evidentiary standard provided for by the law; whether it establishes a mechanism to trigger prosecution without involvement by the Division of Criminal Justice; and whether such a prosecution would violate the state constitution.
Atkinson, the attorney for the plaintiffs, faced questions at oral argument Wednesday about how the law would be put into practice, including how Bridgeport police would become aware an arrest warrant had been issued.
“I could write the police chief a letter,” Atkinson replied, “which I'm sure my clients would have been thrilled that I did. I could have written the chief state's attorney a letter as well. There's any number of steps that I could have taken to make sure the notice of this got in front of the people it needs to get in front of.”
Atkinson said after warrants are issued, prosecuting authority would fall on the state’s attorney in Bridgeport or the chief state’s attorney in the case of a conflict. Prosecutors would have discretion on whether to proceed with a criminal case, he said.
Lawyers representing the state attorney general’s office and the Office of the Chief State's Attorney argued the Supreme Court doesn’t have jurisdiction over the case, and that the lower court properly denied the plaintiffs' request.
Last month, the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) sent two complaints of alleged absentee ballot misconduct in last year’s Bridgeport Democratic primary to the chief state’s attorney. The agency is seeking further investigation to determine if there were criminal violations.
SEEC also referred a case from Bridgeport’s 2019 Democratic primary to the chief state’s attorney last June. That case is still pending.
The Supreme Court will rule on the appeal regarding citizen arrests at a future date.
