Elections board continues election investigation
By: B.J. O'Brien
It appears that the state Elections Enforcement Commission will not make any decisions concerning the complaints it received regarding the Nov. 4 elections in Bethel until its March meeting.

According to Joan Andrews, an attorney for the Elections Enforcement Commission, the case has nothing to do with the lawsuit that former First Selectwoman Judith Novachek and other Republicans who were defeated on Election Day filed against the town and the winning candidates, most of who were Democrats.
Danbury Superior Court Judge Douglas Mintz dismissed the case, but he decided that Dec. 11 recount of the votes cast Election Day would be the official results.
In dismissing the case, the judge stated that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear it because 50 candidates in the Nov. 4 municipal election were not notified of the lawsuit. Many of them were third party candidates who appeared on the ballot.
"We were waiting on the judge's decision," Ms. Andrews said recently.
The responsibility of the commission is to judge whether there were errors that were intentionally committed by election officials, which include moderators and mechanics.
If it is determined that there were such errors, the election officials could be fined up to $2,000 each per violation. There is also a small possibility that their certification could be revoked.
Ms. Andrews said that there is a difference between the court case and the investigation being conducted by the Elections Enforcement Commission. The court was asked to determine whether errors impacted the outcome of the election, and it's the responsibility of the commission to determine whether there were mistakes.
"We're looking at it through a very different lens," Ms. Andrews said.
Although the commission's decision is separate from the court's, she was able to use a lot of the testimony given during the court hearing for the commission's case. That's because she would have asked many of the same questions that were
asked by the attorneys involved.
"That is useful to us," Ms. Andrews said, adding that she had attended the hearings.
"It was certainly useful to me," she added.
The complaints came after problems arose with the voting machines. On the morning of Nov. 4, it was determined that there was a problem with the voting machines because voters weren't able to cross-vote in some of the board
races. In other words, voters could not pick candidates from different parties for some boards, such as the Board of Finance and the Board of Education.
The voting machines were then shut down and emergency paper ballots were distributed. The machines were then fixed and put back into use again, but the secretary of state's office said that this was not allowed and only spare machines could be used in the districts that had them.
Two districts each had one spare machine and paper ballots were used in the three other districts.
Because districts II and IV only had one voting machine in service, some voters had to wait in line for an hour or longer. Some residents left without voting when they realized how long they might have to wait to do so.
Mrs. Novachek and the other plaintiffs then filed the lawsuit, claiming that the voting machine problems and other irregularities that took place Nov. 4 affected the outcome of the election.
Judge Mintz requested that a recount of the votes be done. However, this didn't result in any changes regarding who won.