STATE
OF
CONNECTICUT
STATE ELECTIONS
ENFORCEMENT
COMMISSION
In
the
Matter
of
a
Complaint
by
Thomas
Swarr
Ann
oshdigian,
artford
File
No.
018-014
AGREEMENT
CONTAINING
CONSENT
ORDER
This
Agreement,
by
and between
Giselle
Feliciano
and
Martin
A.
ones,
of
he City
of
artford,
County
of
artford,
State
of
onnecticut
and
he
authorized
representative
of
he
State
Elections
Enforcement
Commission
s
entered
into
in
accordance with
Section
9-7b-54
of
he Regulations
of
Connecticut
State
Agencies
and
Section
4-177
c)
f
he
General
tatutes
of
onnecticut.
In
accordance
herewith, he
parties
agree
that:
1.
The
Complainants
allege that
the
Respondent
Absentee
Ballot
Moderator
and
Democratic
Registrar
of
oters
failed
to
allow
the
public to
observe
the
central
counting
of
bsentee
ballots
during
a
Democratic
arty
Committee
rimary.2. General
Statutes
§
-147a
reads,
n
pertinent
part:
 a)
At
any
election,
primary
or
referendum
all
absentee
ballots
shall
becounted
in
the
respective
polling
places
except
when
counted
at
a
central location.
Any
lection
official
serving in
a
polling
place
may
observe
the
counting
of
bsentee
ballots
at that
polling
place.
 b)
t
any
lection,
primary
or
referendum,
ll
absentee
ballots
may
ecounted
at
a
central
location
designated
by
the
registrars
of
oters inwriting to the
municipal
clerk at
least
twenty days
before the
election,
primary
r
referendum,
hich
ocation
shall
be
ublished
in
the
warning
for
the
election,
primary or referendum.
If
unaffiliated
electors
are
authorized
under
section
9-431
to
vote in the
primary
of
ither
of wo
parties,
absentee
ballots
may
ot
be
counted
at
a
entral
location
unless
both
parties
decide
to
have
central
counting
and
designate
the
same
room
or
such
entral
counting. If
such
designation
of
a
entral
location
has
been
made,
he
ballots shall
not
be
counted
n
any
olling
place
but
all
absentee
ballots shall
be
separated,
counted,
tallied,
placed
indepository
envelopes
and
returned
by
voting
district
Anv member
of
the
public
may
bserve
the
counting
f
bsentee
ballots
at
such
centrallocation.
Emphasis
added.
 
3.
General
Statutes
§
-148
reads,
in
pertinent
part:
The
appointment
of
absentee
ballot
counters
shall
be
made
by
the
registrars
of
oters.
The
residing
officer
for
the
purpose
of
eclaring
the
result
of
he
vote
of
he
whole
municipality
is
the
moderator.
Each
erson
appointed
o
count
bsentee
ballots
shall articipate
in
a
raining ession
at
which
he
registrars
of
oters,
absentee
ballot
moderator
or
moderator
of
he
polling place,
as
the
case
may
be,
shall
review
and
study
the
absentee
counter s
manual
rovided
by
the Secretary
of
he
State
under
section
9-1 Oa.
Each
elector
so
appointed
shall
be
sworn
to
carry
out
faithfully
the duties
o
his
o
ce
and
not
o
attempt
o
ascertain
the
manner
in
which
any
absentee
elector
has
marked
his
absentee
ballot.
The
registrars
of
voters
shall ascertain
the voting
district
in
which
each
absentee
elector
is
registered
and
shall
apportion the
envelopes
ccording
to voting
districts
among
the
appointed
groups
of
lectors, if
there
is
more
than
one
such
group,
in
such
manner
that
each
group
can
conveniently
count
he
votes apportioned
to
it
Emphasis
added.)
Background
4.
The
acts
of
his
Complaint
concern
the observation
of
bsentee
ballot
counting during
the
March
6,
2018
Hartford
Democratic
Town
ommittee
Primary.
Complainant Swarr
was
the
husband
of
hallenge
slate
candidate
Donna
Swarr.
Complainant
Goshdigian
was
a
candidate
on
he
same
late
as
Ms.
Swarr.
Allegation
Mr.
Swarr and
Ms.
Goshdigian
alleged
that
they
attempted
to
observe
the
central
counting
of
he absentee
ballots
at
Hartford City
Hall
by
Absentee
Ballot
Moderator
Martin
Allen
Jones.
The
Complainants
llege that at
approximately
1:30pm,
Respondent
Jones
assertedthat
Ms.
Goshdigian
could
not
be
in
the
room
and
that
all
others
needed
to
leave
as
well,including
Mr.
ones.
The
Complainants
allege that
they
requested
proof
n writing that
they
were
not
ermitted
to
be
in
the
room
while
the
absentee
ballots
were
being counted.
They
assert that
Mr.
Jones
showed them
the
Moderator s
Guide
or
Polling Places as
proof
of
isassertion that
they
were
not
ermitted
to
be
there.
6.
They
asserted that
Registrar
Gisele
Feliciano
intervened
and
asserted
that
Ms.
Goshdigian
could
not
bserve
because
she
was a
candidate
and
candidates
could not
be
within
a
olling
place during the
hours
of
oting.
They
assert that
Town
lerk
John Bazzano
was
called
 
 
down
and
asked
to
opine
whether
he
room
n
which
he
ABs
ere
being counted
was a
polling place.
They
ssert
that
Mr.
azzano
opined
hat
t
was
ot.
7.
They
sserted
that
upon
Mr.
azzano's
ntervention,
Respondent
eliciano
then
changed
tact
and
asserted
that
t
was
ithin her
authority
to
remove
anyone
isrupting
the
counting
process.
They
ssert
that
Ms.
eliciano
contacted the
police
and had
them
oth
removed
from
he
room.
8.
They
sserted that
Donna
Swam
hen
called
the
Secretary
of
he
State's
office
and spoke
with Attorney
Bernard
Liu,
who
onfirmed
hat
they
had
a
ight
to
observe
the
counting
of
the
absentee
ballots.
They
ssert that
Ms.
eliciano herself
spoke
with the
office
of
heSecretary
of
he
State, at
which
oint
she allowed
Mr.
Swam
o
observe,
but
ot
Ms.
Goshdigian,
he candidate.
9.
Finally,
he
Complainants
sserted that
the
Respondents
were
both
angry
and
elligerent
with
them,
espite
Mr.
warr
emaining
largely
silent
and
Ms.
oshdigian
being
assertive
but
not
ggressive.
Investigation10.
The
nvestigation
here
was
imited
as
the
Respondents
do
not
deny
he
gravamen
of
he
allegations, that
t
was
heir
understanding
that
the absentee
ballot
counting
location
was a
polling
place
and
hat
the
Complainants
were
ot
permitted
to
observe
until
the intervention
of
he
Secretary
of
he
State's
office.
They
ispute
that
they
were
n
any
way
rude
r
aggressive
and
ssert
that
t
was
Ms.
oshdigian
who
was
eing
disruptive
and
ggressive.
Moreover,
hey
assert
that
Mr.
warr
was
ttempting
to
observe
from
directly
behind
hecounting,
which
hey
assert
could
have
isked
being
able to
see
how
oters
were
casting
their ballots.
11.
The
olice report
of
fficer
Barrett,
he City
Hall's
assigned
police
officer
on
he date in
question,
argely restated
the
Complainant's
allegations
here.
Analysis
12.
Liability
for
failing
to
allow
the
Complainants
ere,
both
of
hem,
o
observe
the absentee
ballot
count
s clear.
General
tatutes
§
-147a
b)
s
very
clear that
any
member
of
he
public,
without
exception,
may
bserve
the counting
of
he absentee
ballots
at
a
entral
counting
location.
Indeed, as
if
his
was
not
lear
enough,
one
need look
no
urther
than
the
prior
subsection,
which
ifferentiates
the
counting
of
allots
at
a
olling
place—in which
 
View on Scribd