VotersUnite!

Election hearing closes
By: B.J. O'Brien
Lawyers for both sides in the lawsuit filed by former First Selectwoman Judith Novachek and fellow Republicans against the town and the winning Democratic candidates on Election Day issued their closing briefs in Danbury Superior Court earlier this week.

Presiding Judge Douglas Mintz now has until Jan. 23 to render a decision as to whether another election would be held.
Attorney Thomas Beecher, who represents Mrs. Novachek and the other plaintiffs, said that another election should be held because the last one was flawed.
"A fair, properly run democratic process is the foundation of our society," he said.
"The voters couldn't properly vote [and] procedures weren't properly followed," Mr. Beecher said.
He said that the paper ballots was invalid, partly because they were not handed out by election moderators and no certificate explaining why a paper ballot was being used was included in their envelopes.
Mr. Beecher also said that there were problems with the machine votes, adding that there is evidence that every machine had an error.
It was pointed out that 163 votes were cast on the machines before they were shut down Election Day, Nov. 4.
The machines were then repaired and put back in service that day. However, the secretary of the state's office said that the machines should be shut down again.
Attorney Ted Bromley, who works in the secretary of the state's office, said during the early hearings that a machine cannot be put back in service if it had been used before.
Mr. Beecher said that people who voted before the machines were shut down that morning could have had their vote influenced by the fact that they could not cross-vote for some of the boards and commissions.
"We have no idea which are the valid votes," he said.
The problems with the voting machines along with the irregularities that were committed by election officials should be a reason for another election to be held, according to Mr. Beecher.
"The problem in this case is that Bethel election officials didn't follow the rules in the secretary of the state's moderator handbook," Mr. Beecher said. "We would not be here if the handbook was followed."
Attorney Tom Parisot, who represents the town officials, said that the moderator's handbook did not state that the machines had to be shut down.
He noted that any mistakes that were made did not lead to any votes being invalid, adding that his clients did their best in a difficult situation to ascertain what the voters wanted.
The attorney added that some people who encountered problems at the voting machines did not report them.
"They had a duty to himself or herself to report it to election officials," Mr. Parisot said. "They have to tell somebody about it."
Attorney John McDonald, who is representing the winning candidates, thinks that the election results should stand as they are.
"I don't know how you can find that the results of the election are in doubt," he said.
Mr. Beecher said that his side does not have to show that the results would be different if another election is held. It just has to show to show that the machine problems and other irregularities had an impact on the voting.
Members of the defense team said that the results were reliable.
"We do believe that the results accomplished are reliable," Mr. Parisot said.
Mr. McDonald said that his clients do not want to go against the wishes of the voters.
"It's not about attempting to defeat the will of the people of Bethel," he said.
He also pointed out that the 1980 moderator's handbook said that the material in it wasn't considered to be statute, adding that it recommended that the machines be isolated once a malfunction was found.
Mr. Beecher reiterated that the problems encountered on Election Day did affect the results of the voting.
"There was a complete and flagrant disregard here," he said. "We just have to show that what occurred here cast the result in serious doubt."
First Selectwoman Alice Hutchinson said after the hearing ended that she was happy with the work that the defense attorneys did.
"I think it went well," she said. "I thought the defense had a compelling argument."
Judge Mintz will submit a decision in writing or make an oral statement, which would require those involved with the lawsuit to show up at the court house.
"One thing is for certain: On the 23rd, it's over," Mrs. Hutchinson said.
Mrs. Novachek believes things went well for the plaintiffs.
"I think the case was presented very, very well," she said, adding that Judge Mintz would probably take as much time as he needed to make a good decision.
"I would think he would want to take as much time as necessary," said Mrs. Novachek.
Although she thought the lawyers representing the plaintiffs did a good job, she wouldn't say that she was confident about the outcome.
"I'm feeling that the facts were put forth pretty straightforward," Mrs. Novachek noted.