As noted previously, the disputed Bridgeport, Connecticut, mayoral election failed to be certified after evidence of obvious election fraud and ballot box stuffing emerged.
This from hotair.com.
Mayor Joe Ganim and challenger John Gomes were separated by barely 250 votes in the original democrat primary tally, but videos emerged of women (plural) stuffing ballots into drop boxes, leading Gomes to challenge the outcome.
Now a judge has ruled the original election invalid and set January 23 as the date for the rerun.
But the judge is also ordering new rules to be put in place, ostensibly to reduce the chance of cheating taking place. The entire affair is already looking like a joke at this point, so perhaps the bigger question should be how the city has gotten away with this sort of election fraud to begin with and why nothing was done about it until now.
A Connecticut judge has set Jan. 23 as the date for a new Democratic primary election in the Bridgeport mayor’s race after having tossed out the September election results because of alleged ballot box stuffing.
Judge William Clark issued the order late Friday afternoon after Mayor Joe Ganim and challenger John Gomes agreed on the Jan. 23 date. Clark also ruled a new general election, if needed, would be held Feb. 27.
Clark’s order also includes specific procedures to be followed in the new primary, including making absentee ballot applications available on Dec. 29 and a new safeguard requiring the town clerk to stamp each absentee ballot received through drop boxes with the words ‘Drop Box.’
One aspect of this story that hasn’t received as much attention is the fact that this is not Joe Ganim’s first trip to the well in Bridgeport politics. He served as mayor for six terms from 1991 to 2003. His service was “interrupted” when he was convicted of federal corruption charges and sent to prison.
But upon his release, the voters of Bridgeport welcomed him back to serve again in 2015. Aren’t they really just getting what they asked for at this point?
As to the women who were seen stuffing the ballot boxes, their future is uncertain. They were brought into court and offered a chance to explain, but they invoked their Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer any questions.
They are legally entitled to do that, but if this was all just some sort of misunderstanding, they should have been able to explain it. This election was obviously rigged.
Since this race is only the democrat primary, the judge also said that a new general election would be held on February 27 “if needed,” long after the new mayoral term should have begun.
How can a new general election not be needed if the original primary was found to be fraudulent? Ganim handily won the first general election in the overwhelmingly [leftist] city, but it still shouldn’t count. Even if he “wins” the rerun of the primary, shouldn’t the city at least have to go through the steps of finishing the process to at least pretend that some semblance of honest democracy is taking place?
The judge appears to believe he can solve the problem by putting additional restrictions on the voting process. As noted above, the town clerk will be required to stamp the words “Drop Box” on each ballot envelope that is submitted in that fashion. Volunteers from both campaigns will reportedly be sought to monitor the drop boxes around the clock during the voting period.
But putting a stamp on the envelope doesn’t change the contents of the envelope. And if you have to go to these extreme measures to prevent election fraud in this fashion, shouldn’t the more important question be whether early voting via drop boxes is even feasible, not just in Bridgeport, but around the country? If it happened to this extent in this one city, why in the world would you assume that it’s not happening all over the place?
There are obviously people out there who are willing to cheat when it comes to elections. And modern “enhancements” to the electoral process, pushed almost entirely by the Left, have made such cheating easier than ever.
We need to return to strictly in-person voting on election day with election monitors from both parties overseeing the process. Exceptions can still be made for the disabled, the elderly, and those who are out of town on election day for valid reasons. That should at least move us a bit closer to a system of fair, honest elections where people can have a reasonable amount of faith in the announced results.
Bridgeport, Connecticut is serving as an example of obvious, correctable flaws in the system. The entire country should be paying attention.
