Connecticut Local Politics

Two stories have come out in the last few days regarding Mayoral petitions and challenges to them.

First, Rep. Minnie Gonzalez was denied access to the ballot because of a state law that prevents a petition gatherer from gathering signatures for two different mayoral candidates in the same election (9-410: No person shall circulate petitions for more than the maximum number of candidates to be nominated by a party for the same office or position, and any petition page circulated in violation of this provision shall be rejected by the registrar.). Her camp was circulating petitions for her and petitions for the challenge slate of City Council candidates that she is running with (and, obviously, some of the volunteers were circulating both petitions). The challenge slate had a placeholder mayoral candidate who had no intention of actually running for mayor.

The decision to exclude her from the ballot is wrong for two reasons:

1. There is room for interpretation in this law – namely, that it is not triggered by a mayoral “candidate” who does not actually posses any intention of being a candidate. My guess is (I know I could look this up, but it would take a trip to the library because the statute is so old) that the legislature passed this law to prevent paid signature gatherers from mercenarily working for multiple campaigns or to prevent a candidate fron increasing the odds of election by cluttering the field. Neither justification is remotely relevant here as the placeholder would not have appeared on the ballot. When is a “candidate” not a candidate? Interpretively, perhaps when they have no intention of actually being a candidate.

2. There are two groups with interests here – what about the people who signed the petitions? There has been no allegation that these primary voters have acted in anything other than good faith. When a candidate is denied the ballot, the candidate is punished, but so are the voters whose will those petitions represent. As far as I can tell, those voters have not done a single thing wrong.

The Gonzalez campaign has filed suit in state court and a hearing will be held on Friday:

But Gonzalez and the slate, in their complaints filed in civil court, said they had not violated any election laws. They said that the disqualified petitions should be honored and that the law in question was so vague it violated their constitutional rights to free speech and association.

It should be noted that I am less than a fan of Rep. Gonzalez, but, as I am a fan of the will of the voters being respected, I hope she does ultimately appear on the primary ballot.

The other petition story regards allegedly falsified petitions of Rep. Feltman:

Three Hartford voters filed complaints with state election officials Wednesday, accusing state Rep. Art Feltman’s mayoral campaign of forging their signatures on petitions to have Feltman’s name placed on the ballot for the Democratic primary.
…
Officials from the State Elections Enforcement Commission said they were reviewing the complaints to determine whether they need to take any action before the primary. They said the circulator – in this case, Christopher A. Ryan – is legally responsible if there is a problem. Depending on the results of an investigation, the circulator could face civil penalties and possible criminal prosecution.

This isn’t good publicity for the Feltman campaign, but it probably won’t affect his presence on the ballot (given the small number of potential challenges and the legal responsibility of the petition circulator). It makes one wonder, given these two stories and the Mayor Perez’s bathroom story (BTW, does anyone have that contractor’s number? I need some work done that I would like to pay for in 2009.), does anyone actually want to be Mayor of Hartford?