On May 13, Andrew Rice, a progressive Democratic candidate seeking to unseat Connecticut’s longtime incumbent U.S. Representative, Rosa DeLauro, filed a complaint with the Democratic State Central Committee (DSCC), accusing Convention Chair Vincent Mauro Jr. of selectively applying and disregarding the convention’s rules in DeLauro’s favor. The DSCC held a heated convention dispute hearing on May 28, in which Rice pleaded his case with the assistance of civil rights attorney Alexander Taubes, before ultimately dismissing Rice’s complaint on June 1.

“After carefully reviewing the testimony, documentary evidence, affidavits, and arguments presented by the parties, the Panel concludes that, although certain procedural flaws occurred during the convention, the evidence presented does not establish that the outcome of the convention was placed in serious doubt,” reads the DSCC’s ruling. “The Panel unanimously agrees that the Complainant failed to meet its burden of showing that Mr. Rice would have received 15% of the votes cast but for these errors and flaws. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.”

Since 1990, DeLauro has sat as the U.S. Representative of Connecticut’s Third Congressional District. Per the state’s General Statutes, candidates seeking primary ballot access for one of the state’s two major political parties must receive at least 15% of the votes at the party’s convention. DeLauro ultimately secured 294 votes at the convention, representing 87% of the delegation, and Rice received 45, representing only 13%. As a result, DeLauro will now proceed without any Democratic primary challenger, leaving her to face only her Republican challenger, Chris Lancia, in November’s general election. This may have changed, Rice argued, if the convention had abided by its own rules, specifically Rule 10, which stipulates that delegates have a “10-minute period to change their votes” after the first roll call vote is completed. As a result, Rice and Taubes sought either to overturn the convention and do it over, or be given primary ballot access outright.

“The purpose of Rule 10; that the chair shall provide delegations with a 10-minute period to change their votes, which may be extended at the chair’s discretion for good cause — impliedly there’s nothing in here about skipping it, or shortening it, or not having it at all — this is the rule that exists precisely for candidates like Mr. Rice,” said Taubes at the May 28 dispute hearing. “These vote totals are not final; many of the people who voted for Congresswoman DeLauro may not have realized that Andrew Rice was going to come so close, and if they had seen that he was this close, they might have changed their vote.”

Taubes and Rice both highlighted that at the First Congressional District Convention, held on the same day, Jillian Gilchrest, the former State Representative who is now challenging U.S. Rep. John Larson, only received enough votes to qualify for the primary ballot after the 10-minute vote-changing window was called, an opportunity denied to Rice.

“Jillian Gilchrist received 8% of the delegates, then in that 10-minute period was able to get the 15%,” said Rice. “She was given the opportunity to get more delegates and have a 7% change in her delegate vote after the roll call, versus us only needing 1.7%.”

Furthermore, Taubes and Rice provided written testimony by two convention delegates, Heather Tolisano and Dawson Shyne-Appignani, who stated they intended to switch their votes to Rice had the rule been followed, narrowing the slim margins Rice needed to qualify even further.

Anthony Fiore, another DSCC delegate, testified at the hearing to state that he was unable to attend the convention and had a proxy appointed in his stead, who voted for DeLauro despite Fiore’s intent to vote for Rice. Fiore, a college student, explained he had an examination on the same date as the convention, and told Sean Grace, Hamden’s Democratic Party Chair, that he would need a proxy delegate to vote in his stead. As it was his first convention, Fiore explained that he did not know that he could select a proxy of his own.

“I didn’t know the process, in the sense of, I thought that it wasn’t really up to me to find a proxy by myself, or at the very least, I didn’t know that I should have found a proxy that was going to represent my vote,” said Fiore. “Because I had a proxy set in my place, I guess that person voted for Rosa DeLauro, because I found out that on the — I don’t even know what it’s called — the record, it shows that as Anthony Fiore, I voted for Rosa De Laura as a delegate, even though I wasn’t there, and it was only a proxy.”

Fiore clarified that he “absolutely” intended to vote for Rice had he been there in person.

“If this had been a fair process, Sean Grace would have notified Anthony that under rule five of delegates and proxies, that it is his decision as to who the proxy is, and had Anthony been informed of that, Anthony would have chosen a delegate that would have voted for me in his stead,” argued Rice. “Instead, he was deprived of that opportunity because Sean Grace withheld vital information to that delegate.”

In addition to the absence of a 10-minute re-vote period, Rice’s complaint also alleged that Mauro allowed DeLauro to speak for almost fourteen minutes after she won the nomination, when the rules state she should be cut off at five, and that she was allowed to speak a combined 12 minutes for her nominating and seconding speeches, which were supposed to be cut off at 8 minutes. On the other hand, Rice, and Nadine Padowitz, a delegate who spoke on Rice’s behalf, were promptly cut off at the 8-minute mark for these speeches, which Rice and Taubes argued showed a selective application of the rules. Taubes described Mauro’s administration of the convention as following, “no rules, all vibes.”

“The rules have to be applied equally to everyone,” said Taubes. “Frankly, a convention where the rules are enforced against one candidate and aren’t enforced against another is a tainted convention, and we shouldn’t accept it. We’re better than that as Democrats.”

Thomas Gaudett, a CSCC panel member, attempted to defend these rule violations by arguing that the rules of the convention were only draft rules, and as a motion was never made to formally adopt them at the beginning of the convention, the violations were immaterial. If judged by that standard, then the convention can only be judged by its adherence to Robert’s Rules of Order. The issue with this line of defense, argued Taubes, was that even if judged by Robert’s Rules of Order, Mauro still fell short.

“The problem with that theory is that the convention also didn’t follow Robert’s Rules,” said Taubes. “There was no rules being followed, it was anarchy, it was not democracy.”

After Mauro declined to call for the 10-minute vote-change period and instead announced DeLauro’s nomination, three separate delegates attempted to call a Point of Order to ask that the 10 minutes be called. Taubes asserted that Robert’s Rules stipulate that, in the case of a Point of Order being called, Mauro, as chair of the meeting, should have issued a ruling and, if he ruled to deny the 10 minutes, those delegates who called a Point of Order would be given the chance to appeal the decision. At that point, the meeting’s parliamentarian would hold a roll call vote on the issue. As Taubes pointed out, Mauro failed to appoint a parliamentarian for the convention, despite that item being on the meeting agenda.

“Only one point of order was heard; two other points of order were not heard, and none of the Points of Order were ruled on,” said Taubes. “Instead of ruling on the Point of Order, Mr. Mauro held a voice vote on the Point of Order, which doesn’t exist anywhere in Robert’s Rules of Order.”

Speaking in his own defense, Mauro argued that he did not hear the first two points of order because “the obscenities and vulgarities pointed at me were quite extensive” at the time, and described the room’s eruption as “a little distracting, to say the least.”

“And a parliamentarian is someone who could help in a situation where, for example, you may feel overwhelmed because a crowd is loud or people are yelling things, right?” asked Taubes.

“Theoretically, yeah,” responded Mauro.

Bradford Picarello, one of the delegates who called for a Point of Order at the time, said he wanted “to draw attention to how Vin Mauro runs conventions, particularly this election cycle.” Mauro has served as New Haven’s Democratic Chair since 2013. When Taubes asked Mauro how many conventions he had chaired in the past, Mauro said, “I don’t know, Alex, I couldn’t counsel.” Mauro insisted any oversights on his part were not done out of malice, and told Taubes that he operated the convention on the assumption that the draft rules had been officially adopted.

“If we had someone who said, ‘Wait, you forgot to do the rules,’ I probably would have been like, ‘Oh shit,’ quite frankly, like, ‘I’ll do it,'” said Mauro. There was nothing nefarious about it, I’ll tell you that.”

Picarello and Rice also claimed that at various points in the night, delegates had indicated to them that Party Chairs had also attempted to pressure them into voting for DeLauro. While this is not technically against the convention’s rules, as Gaudette pointed out during the hearing, Rice said that it only strengthened his feeling that “there was a heavy bias against my campaign.” Another point of concern for Rice was the fact that the individual votes themselves were not read off, as is customary at conventions, but only the tally totals for each candidate.

“The roll call vote is very important, especially if you’re going to then have the 10-minute period,” argued Taubes. “I mean, it’s less important if you’re not going to follow the other rules as well, because if you don’t have the 10-minute vote switch period, then you don’t have an opportunity to look at the roll call and decide, okay, this is a town I should go to, and I should talk to this person or that person.”

In the DSCC’s ruling, they acknowledged that “four of the claims” Rice made against the convention “have merit and [The DSCC] believes the circumstances presented by this convention require consideration.” These four concerns were the failure to adopt convention rules, the lack of announcement of paper-ballot votes to the convention, the absence of a 10-minute vote-change period, and Mauro’s handling of the Points of Order.

The DSCC panel determined that, because Article III of the state party’s rules “does not expressly require that each convention adopt rules to govern it, nor do Robert’s Rules,” that Mauro’s failure to pass the draft rules was “not improper.”

“In this instance, the absence of adopted rules did not interfere with the nomination and seconding of the two candidates,” reads the DSCC’s ruling.

Regarding the lack of a 10-minute vote change period, the DSCC stated that “neither Article III, nor Robert’s Rules addresses whether a period of time to change delegate votes must be announced,” and that because all delegates were allowed to submit their votes prior to the voting period’s end, it was not technically a violation. The DSCC also found that Picarello’s Points of Order “were not timely and should have been dismissed,” and that the recording of the event supported Maruo’s claim that he did not hear the other Points of Order being called.

Regarding Rice’s concerns with how the vote was read aloud, DSCC ruled that because the written votes for each candidate were included in the written record of the convention, it “satisfied the requirements of voting by roll call.” That being said, the DSCC did find that both the failure to adopt rules and the failure to read out tallied votes by delegations represented “legitimate procedural flaws.”

“There is an element of fairness and reasonableness that candidates and delegates to a convention should expect,” wrote the DSCC. “The Complainant can argue that it operated with the understanding that the proposed rules would be in effect, either in totality or substantially and that there would be an opportunity for delegates to change their vote. For a candidate who sits at 13% after the initial round of voting, the change period becomes compelling.”

On the issue of how the vote tallies were represented, the DSCC acknowledged that the lack of an announcement on how each town’s delegates voted, and a lack of a video screen to show candidates the vote tally as they came in, “potentially leaves the campaigns unaware of the actual count until they are able to read the submissions from each town. For a campaign on the edge of winning or qualifying for the primary, the timeliness of this information becomes critical.”

Despite these “legitimate procedural flaws,” the DSCC ruled that the results of the convention should not be overturned, nor should Rice be granted ballot access, as Rice “failed to demonstrate that the election results would have been different were it not for the flaws at the convention.” The DSCC also cited Bortner v. Woodbridge, a 1999 State Supreme Court case that set a high bar for overturning municipal election results. Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled at that time that elections are “essentially – and necessarily – a snapshot” that “reflects the will of the people as recorded on that particular day, after that particular campaign, and as expressed by the electors who voted on that day.” The Supreme Court went on to state that “when a court orders a new election, it is really ordering a different election,” and thus must only be done so with “caution and restraint,” or when the results are “seriously in doubt.”

The DSCC said that overturning the convention’s results could also lead to future uncertainty around their validity.

“The existence of a procedural error does not, by itself, require that the result of a convention be set aside,” wrote the DSCC. “To hold otherwise would invite endless uncertainty into the nominating process and would risk nullifying the collective judgment of the delegates who participated in good faith. The Panel’s responsibility, therefore, is not merely to identify whether a rule violation occurred, but to determine whether any such violation was of sufficient significance to cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the convention’s result.”

In response to the ruling, Rice told Inside Investigator that he “intends to take this as far I [he] possibly can.”

“The Democratic Party would rather disenfranchise working and middle class voters instead of allowing their incumbents’ record to stand for itself,” said Rice. “If the Party spent as much time fighting Trump as they did people like me, we wouldn’t have Trump. The Democratic Party’s contempt for Democracy is stunning and further shows why people have been abandoning them in droves.”

Rice said he is currently “in overdrive” trying to collect as many petition signatures as possible. As Rice did not achieve the 15% of delegates necessary to receive ballot access, per state law, he must receive signatures from 2% of the Democratic Party’s registered voter base by June 9. That would require Rice to receive 3,386 signatures by the end of next week. If that does not work, Rice said he would be willing to take the issue to court, but that such litigation would require him to raise $20,000 to cover the necessary legal fees.

“I think the Democratic Party has really underestimated me and this campaign, I am a tenacious motherfucker and I don’t stop,” said Rice. “All we asked for was to give people a choice, and stand for democracy, and allow people to express their voice on August 11, and they denied that for the people of the Third Congressional District.”

Taubes also released a statement in response to the ruling, which Rice provided to Inside Investigator.

“The one thing a machine like this fears is that there are more of us than there are of them,” said Taubes. “Over the next few days we are building that movement: delegates, volunteers, and voters who believe that a party that runs this state should have to follow its own rules. If that is you, we need you now — not next week. Now.”

Inside Investigator reached out to Rep. DeLauro’s campaign for comment, but did not receive a response.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.