Connecticut must allow challengers to enter September primaries

By The Associated Press

08.06.02

Printer-friendly page

HARTFORD, Conn. — A federal judge who struck down the state's primary ballot law last month ordered the state yesterday to open its September primaries to challengers.

In an amended ruling, Senior U.S. District Court Judge Peter Dorsey said the secretary of the state must allow anyone to enter primaries for state offices and multitown legislative districts, as long as the person is a registered member of a political party and provides their address on a form. The challengers do not need petition signatures.

Edwin Gomes of Bridgeport, a plaintiff in the case, was the first person to fill out the new form yesterday. The Democrat, who wants a primary against state Sen. Alvin Penn, D-Bridgeport, submitted his application just hours after the judge's ruling.

"I'm on the ballot," Gomes said. "We're ready."

State officials took issue with Gomes' forward-moving feeling. They say they are worried that dozens, even hundreds, of people may try to enter primaries just a month before the election day.

"I am distressed about the potential chaos," Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz said. "We have no way of knowing, so close to the election, how many candidates will come forward."

The amended ruling gives applicants until Aug. 16 to register for the September primaries.

Dorsey denied a request by the state for an emergency stay. The attorney general's office had argued that changing the law now would disrupt elections.

The state has appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and is scheduled to argue its case Aug. 9.

Dorsey's first ruling on July 23 barred the state from using a 1955 law that required challengers to receive the support of 15% of a district's party delegates to wage a primary. Dorsey ruled the law favored incumbents by placing too great a burden on challengers.

Gomes and Jim Campbell, the two plaintiffs in the case, returned to court last week to ask Dorsey to amend his ruling after they were denied applications for primaries at the secretary of the state's office. Both men asked the judge to give them a way to get on the ballot. Campbell wants a Republican primary against U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays in the 4th District.

"I think this is a great victory for democracy in Connecticut," said Elizabeth Daniels, a lawyer for the Brennan Center for Justice in New York who represented Gomes and Campbell.

Campbell said, "The judge has done what the Connecticut legislature has failed to do for years — give Connecticut citizens their First Amendment rights."

But state officials predicted that the new requirements could spur further lawsuits from political parties or current candidates who believe the judge's ruling infringes on their campaigns.

"This is an invitation to political chaos," said state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin Sullivan, D-West Hartford.

Sullivan and House Speaker Moira Lyons, D-Stamford, said Dorsey overstepped his bounds by changing the law before the General Assembly had an opportunity to create a new primary law.

"This judge owes the legislature the right to come up with a legislative remedy," Sullivan said.

In his ruling, Dorsey criticized the General Assembly for failing to take action on changing the primary law, citing several failed attempts to pass direct primary legislation and indications from legislative leaders that the issue would not come up until the 2003 session.

"It was the legislature's creation of the present election system and its leadership's apparent lack of interest in addressing the problem today that creates any issues in this year's election," Dorsey wrote.

Update

Ruling that opened state primary system overturned
Federal appeals panel agrees with Connecticut that allowing challengers to enter primaries so close to election would cause chaos  08.12.02

Previous

Court blocks system used to place candidates on primary ballot
Federal judge says Connecticut law requiring challengers to party nominees to get support from at least 15% of their district delegates is likely unconstitutional.  07.24.02