An effort seeking arrest warrants for suspected election fraud in Bridgeport was rejected by the Connecticut Supreme Court. The court denied arrest warrants for Wanda Geter-Pataky and Eneida Martinez, both accused of committing ballot fraud in Bridgeport’s 2022 Democratic mayoral primary between John Gomes and Joe Ganim.
Bridgeport electors Diahann Phillips, Alison Scofield, and Albert Bottone filed a lawsuit in November 2023, citing Connecticut General Statute 9-368, as well as a state statute governing how absentee ballots can be cast in elections.
The 1953 statute allows three electors in a town to seek an arrest warrant from the superior court in the judicial district where a violation of election law has occurred. Phillips, Scofield, and Bottone filed two applications in Fairfield Superior Court requesting arrest warrants for Geter-Pataky and Martinez, alleging that probable cause existed because of the video evidence, shown at a civil trial that resulted in a do-over election, showing the pair allegedly illegally depositing absentee ballots into drop boxes.
The applications were denied by Fairfield court judge Thomas Welch, who found that statute 9-368 violates both the United States Constitution and Connecticut constitution, as well as the rules of practice. According to the Connecticut Supreme Court’s slip opinion in the case, Welch found that the statute “permits the issuance of an arrest warrant based on a standard of less than probable cause, which is inconsistent with the requirement that probable cause exist for the issuance of an arrest warrant.”
He also found the statute violates the state’s constitution because it allows an arrest warrant to be issued without involving the Department of Criminal Justice. However, despite finding constitutional flaws, Welch did not declare the statute unconstitutional and did not make a ruling on the merits.
Phillips, Scofield, and Bottone appealed the ruling to the Connecticut Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court had misinterpreted the statute. They sought a declaration from the high court that the statute does not violate the constitution, as well as an order to issue arrest warrants for Geter-Pataky and Martinez, and an order remanding the case to the trial court.
The defendants sought to have the appeal dismissed on the grounds that the Bridgeport electors were “neither statutorily nor classically aggrieved by the denial of their arrest warrant.”
While the court dismissed the appeal, they ultimately denied the petition on the grounds that the plaintiffs are not classically aggrieved.
According to the court’s opinion, classical aggrievement involves two parts. First, the aggrieved party must show “a specific, personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the [controversy], as opposed to a general interest that all members of the community share.” Second, they must show the alleged conduct has “specifically and injuriously affected that specific personal or legal interest.”
The court noted that no Connecticut court had yet ruled on the issue, but that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had, finding that “if a judge or clerk-magistrate denies an application for a criminal complaint, a private party has no standing to challenge that decision by appealing because a private party lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”
The justices further stated that they found this argument persuasive and concluded that the Bridgeport electors are “not classically aggrieved by the trial judge’s denial of their arrest warrant application.” They further found that they had “no personal interest in the arrest and subsequent prosecution of those who allegedly violated election laws because [the Bridgeport electors] are not the subject of the prospective prosecution and have not been threatened with prosecution.”
Phillips, Scofield, and Bottone, the court found, had the same interest as any other community member in the potential arrest of Geter-Pataky and Martinez, and therefore had no standing to petition for their arrest.
Though the Supreme Court dismissed the request, attorney Cameron Atkinson, who represented the Bridgeport electors in the case and helped them file the initial lawsuit, said he will challenge the court’s finding.
“We will be asking the Connecticut Supreme Court to reconsider its decision within the next week. What happened in Bridgeport destroyed confidence in our elections, and Connecticut provided a remedy to restore confidence in thsoe elections. That remedy should not be gutted based on federal and Massachusetts law, but should be decided based on Connecticut’s unique history and tradition.” Atkinson told Inside Investigator.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Thank you for covering this story and doing so with facts and clarity. I’m repeatedly impressed by the quality of writing -and reporting from Katherine Revello.