U.S. District Court District of Connecticut (New Haven) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:20−cv−00623−JCH

EFILE

Gottlieb et al v. Lamont et al Assigned to: Judge Janet C. Hall Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff Andy Gottlieb on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff Lorna Chand on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff Richard Lacourciere
Plaintiff Jason W. Bartlett

Date Filed: 05/06/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 950 Constitutional − State Statute Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Alexander T. Taubes Alexander T. Taubes 470 James Street Suite 007 New Haven, CT 06513 203−909−0048 Email: alextt@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander T. Taubes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander T. Taubes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander T. Taubes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Ned Lamont Governor of the State of Connecticut

represented by Alma Rose Nunley Office of the Attorney General 165 Capitol Avenue Ste 5000 Hartford, CT 06106 860−808−5020 Fax: 860−808−5347 Email: alma.nunley@ct.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maura Murphy−Osborne Office of the Connecticut Attorney General 165 Capitol Avenue Ste 5000 Hartford, CT 06106 860−808−5020 Fax: 860−808−5347

Defendant
Denise Merrill Secretary of the State of Connecticut

Email: maura.murphyosborne@ct.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Skold State of Connecticut Office of the Attorney General 165 Capitol Avenue Ste 5000 Hartford, CT 06106 860−808−5020 Fax: 860−808−5347 Email: michael.skold@ct.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alma Rose Nunley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maura Murphy−Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Skold (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/06/2020
05/06/2020 05/06/2020 05/06/2020
05/06/2020
05/06/2020 05/06/2020 05/06/2020

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Class Action Declaratory & Injunctive Relief against Ned Lamont, Denise Merrill ( Filing fee $400 receipt number CCTDC−5841845.), filed by Lorna Chand, Andy Gottlieb.(Taubes, Alexander) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
2 NOTICE of Related Case by All Plaintiffs (Taubes, Alexander) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
Judge Janet C. Hall added. (Nuzzi, Tiffany) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
3 Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 7/5/2020. Discovery due by 11/5/2020. Dispositive Motions due by 12/10/2020. Signed by Clerk on 5/6/2020. (Reis, Julia) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
4 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL − PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 5/6/2020. (Reis, Julia) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
5 STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 5/6/2020. (Reis, Julia) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
6 Standing Order re: Discovery Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 5/6/2020. (Reis, Julia) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
7 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF−REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self−represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of 1 Complaint filed by Lorna Chand, Andy Gottlieb, 2 Notice of Related Case filed by Lorna Chand, Andy Gottlieb, 3 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, 4 Electronic Filing Order, 5 Standing Protective Order, 6 Standing Order re: Discovery Signed by Clerk on 5/6/2020. (Reis, Julia) (Entered: 05/06/2020)

05/12/2020 05/12/2020
05/12/2020 05/12/2020 05/12/2020 05/12/2020 05/13/2020 05/18/2020 05/18/2020
05/19/2020 05/19/2020
05/20/2020 05/20/2020 05/21/2020 05/22/2020
05/22/2020

8 AMENDED COMPLAINT for Class Action Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against All Defendants, filed by Lorna Chand, Andy Gottlieb, Richard Lacourciere, Jason W. Bartlett.(Taubes, Alexander) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (), MOTION for Declaratory Judgment () by Jason W. Bartlett, Lorna Chand, Andy Gottlieb, Richard Lacourciere.Responses due by 6/2/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit Exhibit A − Gottlieb, # 3 Affidavit Exhibit B − Bartlett, # 4 Affidavit Exhibit C − Lacourciere)(Taubes, Alexander) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by Maura Murphy−Osborne on behalf of Ned Lamont, Denise Merrill (Murphy−Osborne, Maura) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
Request for Clerk to issue summons as to All Defendants. (Taubes, Alexander) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Alma Rose Nunley on behalf of Ned Lamont, Denise Merrill (Nunley, Alma) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Skold on behalf of Ned Lamont, Denise Merrill (Skold, Michael) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
13 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Ned Lamont, Denise Merrill* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney * Alexander T. Taubes* *470 James Street, Suite 007* *New Haven, CT 06513*. (Reis, Julia) (Entered: 05/13/2020)
14 MOTION to Certify Class as to First Claim by Jason W. Bartlett, Lorna Chand, Andy Gottlieb, Richard Lacourciere.Responses due by 6/8/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Taubes, Alexander) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
15 MOTION for Status Conference re 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 14 MOTION to Certify Class as to First Claim − NOTICE by Jason W. Bartlett, Lorna Chand, Andy Gottlieb, Richard Lacourciere Letter to the Court (Taubes, Alexander) Modified on 5/19/2020 to change event to a motion and edit docket text (Reis, Julia). (Entered: 05/18/2020)
16 ORDER granting 15 Motion for Status Conference. SO ORDERED by Judge Janet C. Hall on 5/19/2020. (DeRubeis, B.) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
17 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/22/2020 03:00 PM in Chambers Room 107, 141 Church St., New Haven, CT before Judge Janet C. Hall. Counsel are requested to participate in this conference, via telephone. Please use the following dial−in for this call: 1−877−873−8017; Access Code: 6415663#. (DeRubeis, B.) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
18 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Complaint and Summons by State Marshal Holly A. Bryk, served on Ned Lamont, Denise Merrill on 5/19/2020, filed by Jason W. Bartlett, Lorna Chand, Andy Gottlieb, Richard Lacourciere. (Taubes, Alexander) (Entered: 05/20/2020)
20 Document 18 Corrected: SUMMONS Returned Executed by Lorna Chand, Jason W. Bartlett, Andy Gottlieb, Richard Lacourciere. Ned Lamont served on 5/19/2020, answer due 6/9/2020; Denise Merrill served on 5/19/2020, answer due 6/9/2020. (Reis, Julia) (Entered: 05/21/2020)
19 NOTICE by Ned Lamont, Denise Merrill Notice of Executive Order No. 7QQ (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Murphy−Osborne, Maura) (Entered: 05/21/2020)
21 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Janet C. Hall: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/22/2020. The Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 9) is due on June 2, 2020, and the Plaintiff's Reply, if any, is due by noon on June 5, 2020. Total time: 40 minutes. (Court Reporter Terri Fidanza.) (DeRubeis, B.) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
22 Amended Briefing Schedule re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction: At the telephonic conference today 5/22/2020, given that the plaintiff indicated he could file a

05/22/2020 05/27/2020

reply in 24 hours, and given that the court plans to schedule oral argument on plaintiff's Motion on June 5, the court amends its briefing schedule. The defendant's opposition is due by noon on June 2, and plaintiff's reply is due by noon on June 3. Absent a reply, plaintiff will have an opportunity to raise such issues at oral argument on June 5.
SO ORDERED by Judge Janet C. Hall on 5/22/2020.(DeRubeis, B.) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
23 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Oral argument re: 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction set for 6/5/2020 10:00 AM in Courtroom One, 141 Church St., New Haven, CT before Judge Janet C. Hall. This hearing will be held via video conference. Technical details for connecting to the conference will docket separately. (DeRubeis, B.) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
24 MOTION for Extension of Time until July 9, 2020 To file their answer and to respond to the motion for class certification, ECF No. 14 14 MOTION to Certify Class as to First Claim by Ned Lamont, Denise Merrill. (Murphy−Osborne, Maura) (Entered: 05/27/2020)

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB AND LORNA CHAND, ON
BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs,
v.
NED LAMONT, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, & DENISE MERRILL, SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

: Civil Action No: 3:20-cv-00623

:

:

Declaratory and

:

Injunctive Relief Requested

:

:

May 6, 2020

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1. This is a civil rights action challenging Connecticut state law requirements to
(1) collect in-person signatures to access the ballot for the August 11, 2020 primary election; and (2) use in-person ballots for the August 11 primary and the November 3 general elections, with few exceptions that exclude Plaintiffs and thousands of other voters. Plaintiffs, for themselves and a class of all Connecticut voters whose rights are at risk, seek a declaratory judgment that the requirements are violations of the Constitution of the United States, especially given COVID-19, and seek injunctive relief should Defendants fail to remedy the alleged constitutional violations promptly.
2. Connecticut is facing the worst pandemic in modern history. Connecticut has among the strictest ballot access and absentee voting laws in the country. Without action by Defendants or this Court’s intervention, the combination of Connecticut’s strict ballot access and absentee voting laws and the COVID-19 pandemic will place an unconstitutional severe undue burden on voters seeking to vote for the candidate of their choice.

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 2 of 13
3. Unless remedied, Plaintiffs and thousands of Connecticut voters will have their choice of primary candidate unduly and unjustifiably restricted by Connecticut’s Ballot Access Laws, infra pp. 4-6, which can require thousands of signatures on paper petitions for candidates to access the ballot.
4. Unless remedied, Connecticut’s Absentee Ballot Laws, infra p. 6, will give Plaintiffs and thousands of Connecticut voters a stark choice in the primary and general elections: either risk infection from a dangerous disease by voting in person; vote by mail utilizing the excuses provided for under state law and risk criminal prosecution for false statement; or be disenfranchised.
5. Recent events in Wisconsin demonstrate the disarray and voter confusion that results from inadequately planned elections held during a pandemic. As the Supreme Court of the United States has stated, “lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.” Republican Nat'l Comm. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205, 1207 (2020) (citing Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (per curiam)). Plaintiffs, Connecticut voters, thus file this suit to force action at the earliest possible time. A. Parties
6. Plaintiff Andy Gottlieb is a citizen of the State of Connecticut and a registered voter. Plaintiff Gottlieb wants to vote for a wider variety of candidates, but he is restricted from doing so by Connecticut’s Ballot Access Laws. Plaintiff ran for state senate in 2018 but he fell short of ballot access by 32 signatures because of the Ballot Access Laws. Plaintiff would likely run again for state representative or state senator, but for the existence and likely enforcement of the Ballot Access Laws. Plaintiff Gottlieb also believes it is his duty as a conscientious citizen
2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 3 of 13
to protect his own safety and the safety of others by voting by mail, but he is restricted from doing so by Connecticut’s Absentee Ballot Laws.
7. Plaintiff Lorna Chand is a citizen of the State of Connecticut and a registered voter. Plaintiff Chand wants to vote for a wider variety of candidates, but she is restricted from doing so by Connecticut’s Ballot Access Laws. Plaintiff Chand was Plaintiff Gottlieb’s treasurer in the 2018 election, and was prevented from voting for the candidate of her choice, Plaintiff Gottlieb, because of the Ballot Access Laws. Plaintiff Chand is a frontline essential worker and believes it is her duty to protect her own safety and the safety of others by voting by mail, but she is restricted from doing so by Connecticut’s Absentee Ballot Laws.
8. Defendant Ned Lamont is the Governor of the State of Connecticut and its chief executive officer. Because he has declared a public health emergency, he has the right to modify or suspend any Connecticut statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 28-9, but his emergency powers may expire before the November election, id. He is sued in his official capacity.
9. Defendant Denise Merrill is the Secretary of the State of Connecticut. She is Connecticut’s chief election official and is responsible for causing petitions for access to the ballot to issue under Connecticut State Law. She is sued in her official capacity. B. Jurisdiction
10. Because this action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
11. Venue is proper in this Court by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the District of Connecticut and the defendants reside in the District of Connecticut.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 4 of 13
12. Plaintiffs’ action for declaratory and injunctive relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, as well as by Rules 23, 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. C. Factual Allegations
a) Ballot Access Laws 13. Connecticut General Statutes Section 9-400 allows a candidate for the office of state representative or state senator to qualify for the ballot for a political party’s primary election in two ways: by receiving at least 15% of the votes of the delegates at a convention held by that political party; or by circulating a petition and obtaining the signatures of five percent of the enrolled members of the party in the district. 14. The gathering of petition signatures is governed by Connecticut General Statutes Sections 9-404a to 9-404c, inclusive. Candidates are given until 4:00p.m. on the fourteenth day after petitions are made available to collect and submit signatures from five percent of the party members in the district. 15. In 2018, Plaintiffs were the candidate and the treasurer, respectively, of a campaign for state senate that failed to qualify for the ballot by convention and was required to collect the signatures of 1,014 registered Democrats, five percent of the registered Democrats in the district. 16. Plaintiffs’ campaign turned in 1,120 signatures, of which 982 were found to be valid, 32 signatures short of ballot access.1
1 Plaintiffs were 32 signatures short, according to the count of the registrars of voters in the municipalities of the district in which they were seeking office, Connecticut’s Twelfth Senate District, comprising the towns of Madison, Guilford, Killingworth, Durham, Branford, and North Branford. However, upon information and belief, employees of Defendant Merrill sought to disqualify additional signatures, because the back of some of the pages of the petitions were allegedly incorrectly filled out by one of Plaintiffs’ petition circulators.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 5 of 13
17. Plaintiffs would have had enough signatures to run for governor of Ohio, member of Congress from Pennsylvania, or U.S. Senator from Oregon, but Plaintiffs were denied ballot access in the party primary. As a result, the candidate endorsed at convention ran unopposed.
18. Plaintiffs seek to prevent the unconstitutional operation of the Ballot Access Laws from again denying voters the right to vote for the candidate of their choice. Time is short. In the upcoming election, currently, petitions will be made available by the Secretary of the State on May 26, and must be turned in to the Secretary of the State’s office by June 9 at 4:00p.m.
19. The difficulty of obtaining so many signatures in so short a time is compounded by other arcane elements of Connecticut’s ballot access laws. As one example, no page of any petition may contain the names of enrolled political party members residing in different towns, requiring petition circulators to carry around separate packs of paper for each of the towns in multi-town districts. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 9-404b(c).
20. And crucially for this case, petition circulators must attest, under penalties of false statement, “that each person whose name appears on the page signed the petition in person in the presence of the circulator, . . . .” Id (emphasis added).
21. The Ballot Access Laws do not burden all political groups equally. 22. Because incumbents have a well-developed network of campaign contributors, supporters well-versed in the process, the loyalty of party bosses, and the advantages of their official office, they almost always garner more than 15% of the delegates at state conventions and rarely need to gather signatures at all.
5

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 6 of 13
23. On the other hand, new candidates who are either challenging incumbents or running for a vacant seat – and who already face an uphill battle in getting on the ballot – must often collect thousands of signatures in order to qualify for ballot access.
24. Because incumbents, in particular, are advantaged by the Ballot Access Laws, voters’ right to vote for the candidate of their choice is severely restricted. When incumbents are more difficult to challenge, more run unopposed. Unopposed elections are very common in Connecticut, much more common than in places with less restrictive Ballot Access Laws.
b) Absentee Ballot Laws 25. Connecticut voters are allowed to vote by mail-in absentee ballot only under six specific circumstances outlined in Connecticut statute: (1) active military service; (2) absence from one’s town of residence “during all of the hours of voting,” which in Connecticut is 6:00a.m. to 8:00p.m.; (3) his or her illness; (4) his or her physical disability; (5) religious reasons; or (6) service as a poll worker other than in one’s town. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 9-135. 26. Neither Plaintiff is eligible for absentee voting under the statute. 27. False statement on an application for an absentee ballot is a class D felony under Connecticut law. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 9-359a. c) COVID-19 28. “Social distancing” measures will likely remain in effect in some form at the time of the May 26—June 9, 2020 petition gathering period, at the time of the August 11, 2020 primary, and at the time of the November 3, 2020 general election. Even if federal, state, and local “social distancing” protocols are lifted, public health officials warn that in all likelihood such protocols could be re-imposed during another wave of COVID-19.
6

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 7 of 13
29. Public health researchers have concluded that there will be significant barriers to wide-scale in-person voting even in August and November 2020.
30. Defendant Lamont has postponed Connecticut’s presidential primary from April 28, 2020 to August 11, 2020, an admission of the severe burden that COVID-19 imposes on voters and the impossibility of maintaining a free and fair election without the ability to vote by mail, which most voters, like the Plaintiffs, cannot do because of the Absentee Ballot Laws.
31. Defendant Merrill has announced that she will mail an absentee ballot application to every voter in advance of the August 11, 2020 primary election.
32. Additionally, Defendant Merrill has requested that Defendant Lamont use his emergency powers to modify the Absentee Ballot Laws, but as of the time of this filing, he has failed to do so. But upon information and belief, Defendant Merrill has not made any public request regarding the Ballot Access Laws.
33. As Defendant Merrill has admitted, “[w]e are on the precipice of disaster” regarding the conduct of the upcoming elections. Plaintiffs bring this action to guarantee the right to vote for themselves and their fellow citizens amid the chaos and uncertainty of the pandemic.
34. Circulating petitions for signature is not listed as an “essential business” under any of Defendant Lamont’s emergency public health orders. The health crisis coupled with the Defendant’s stay-at-home orders make it impossible to gather enough signatures in enough time for candidates with significant support to access the ballot unless they attain the support of 15% of party delegates at a convention. This will, unless remedied, severely restrict the ability of Plaintiffs and other voters to vote for the candidate of their choice.
7

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 8 of 13
d) Special Grounds for Injunctive Relief 35. This Court concluded, almost twenty years ago, that the 15% convention delegate requirement, standing alone, likely fails to protect rights of free association of voters seeking to vote for the candidate of their choice. Campbell v. Bysiewicz, 213 F. Supp. 2d 152 (D.Conn. 2002) (Dorsey, J.). The remedy in that case came when the General Assembly created the ability to gather petition signatures. But the health crisis renders that remedy meaningless without further relief. 36. Without action, nearly every voter in Connecticut will face a legally significant increased burden on their voting rights and their associational rights amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendants’ continued inaction will force voters to choose from a more restricted set of candidates. Defendants’ continued inaction will force voters to choose risking infection or being disenfranchised. 37. This case must proceed quickly before the Purcell deadline established by the Supreme Court. Each day that passes increases the risk of voter confusion in the August 11 and November 3 elections. Plaintiffs, from their experience in 2018, understand close calls and the need for urgent action. A real and actual controversy exists between the parties, Plaintiffs have no actual remedy at law other than this action, and Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm until they obtain relief from this Court. D. Class Allegations 38. Plaintiffs bring this case on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of all Connecticut voters, including a subclass of voters ineligible to receive absentee ballots under the Absentee Ballot Laws.
8

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 9 of 13
39. The class consists of over a million people and is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
40. Plaintiffs’ claims are common to and typical of the class and subclass, that is, the ability of all members of the class to vote for candidates of their choice is burdened by Connecticut’s Ballot Access Laws, and all the right to vote of all members of the subclass is burdened by Connecticut’s Absentee Ballot Laws.
41. Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class and subclass. No conflicts of interest exist between Plaintiffs or their counsel and the class or subclass. Plaintiffs’ counsel, Attorney Alexander T. Taubes, Esq., has done substantial work in identifying and investigating potential claims in this action; has experience in handling class actions, Noble v. Northland, UWY-CV16-6033559-S (Conn. Super. Ct.) (class counsel through investigation, discovery, motion practice, class certification, and settlement of class action on behalf of approximately 1,000 former residents of a New Haven public housing complex), other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action, Pereira v. State Elections Enforcement Commission, HHB-CV19-6054160-S (Conn. Super. Ct.) (declaratory judgment action regarding Connecticut campaign finance law); has knowledge of the applicable law; and resources that he will commit to representing the class and subclass.
42. Defendant Lamont and Defendant Merrill have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class and subclass, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class and subclass as a whole.
9

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 10 of 13
D. Claims for Relief First Claim: Unconstitutional Abridgment of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States by Defendants Lamont and Merrill, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Campbell v. Bysiewicz, for Enforcement of the Ballot Access Laws
43. The allegations above are incorporated as if included fully here. 44. Even without the circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic, Connecticut’s ballot access laws unduly burden and violate Plaintiffs’ right to petition, speech, and free association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, including by having a “chilling effect” on the ability of individuals such as Plaintiff Gottlieb to run for office in the first place. 45. Under the circumstances of the pandemic, enforcement of the Ballot Access Laws will violate the Constitution as applied. The requirements of the Ballot Access Laws are not only difficult to achieve on their face, but unsafe and impossible amid the pandemic. If undisturbed, enforcement of the Ballot Access Laws will unduly and unjustifiably restrict Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 46. The Ballot Access Laws trigger strict scrutiny because of the burden they impose on Plaintiffs’ associational rights, scrutiny that the Ballot Access Laws cannot survive. But under the circumstances of this case, including federal, state, and local shelter-in-place orders amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ballot Access Laws fail even rational basis review. Second Claim: Unconstitutional Abridgment of the First and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by Defendants Lamont and Merrill, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, for Enforcement of the Absentee Ballot Laws 47. The allegations above are incorporated as if included fully here. 48. Voting and participating in the electoral process is a form of expression which is the ultimate form of political speech. In light of the Supreme Court’s cases giving strong First
10

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 11 of 13
Amendment protection to campaign funds spent to influence voters, the voters and their votes themselves can hardly be entitled to less protection.
49. As a restriction on free speech and association, the Absentee Ballot Laws must therefore be judged under the standard of strict scrutiny, a scrutiny that the Absentee Ballot Laws cannot survive under ordinary circumstances, much less under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.
50. Restricting access to absentee ballots only to the six identified categories in Connecticut law is not necessary or narrowly-tailored to any compelling state interest.
Third Claim: Violation of Procedural Due Process for Vagueness in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by Defendants Lamont and Merrill, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for Enforcement of the Absentee Ballot Laws
51. The allegations above are incorporated as if included fully here. 52. Should Defendant Lamont fail to act to expand absentee ballot eligibility, thousands of voters will be mailed absentee ballot applications by Defendant Merrill, which they will be ineligible to complete. Completing the applications falsely could subject the voters to criminal prosecution. 53. A restriction to the right to vote due to the vagueness of a statutory provision creates conditions on the right to vote that violates voters’ Due Process rights. 54. The Absentee Ballot Laws violate Plaintiffs and other voters’ Due Process rights because the law, under the circumstances, fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence with a reasonable opportunity to understand whether or not they are permitted to vote by mail during the COVID-19 pandemic. 55. The Absentee Ballot Laws also violate Plaintiffs and other voters’ Due Process rights because the confusion that results amid the pandemic may encourage arbitrary and
11

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 12 of 13
discriminatory enforcement, bar access to the right to vote, and increase the risk of criminal prosecution. Fourth Claim: Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by Defendants Lamont and Merrill, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for Enforcement
of the Absentee Ballot Laws 56. The allegations above are incorporated as if included fully here. 57. The Absentee Ballot Laws violate the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause because the state allows some voters to access absentee ballots but not others, treating similarly situated voters differently. Because of the pandemic, Plaintiffs are similarly situated to voters who are eligible for absentee ballots, but Plaintiffs are denied eligibility to vote absentee by Connecticut’s Absentee Ballot Laws. 58. No rational interest exists in putting citizens’ health at risk in voting, rendering the state’s activities in enforcing the Absentee Ballot Laws unconstitutional. E. Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief: A. Certification under 28 U.S.C. §2403 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1 that the constitutionality of a state statute has been questioned; B. Certification of a class and subclass under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2); C. Declaratory judgment that enforcement of the Absentee Ballot Laws and Ballot Access Laws described above violate the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitution of the United States as guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and an order allowing Defendants a reasonable but prompt amount of time to correct the violations;
12

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 13 of 13

D. In the event that a reasonable time elapses and no action is taken, an order in the nature of an injunction relieving the unconstitutionally unacceptable burdens imposed by the enforcement of the Absentee Ballot Laws and Ballot Access Laws;
E. Attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and costs; and F. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

Dated: May 6, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

PLAINTIFFS, ANDY GOTTLIEB AND LORNA CHAND, FOR THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

By:_____/s/_______________ Alexander T. Taubes, Esq. Federal Bar No.: ct30100 Alexander T. Taubes 470 James Street, Suite 007 New Haven, CT 06513 (203) 909-0048 alextt@gmail.com
Their Attorney

13

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NED LAMONT, et al., Defendants.

:

:

Case No. 3:20-cv-623-JCH

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

May 12, 2020

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1. This civil rights class action was brought May 6, 2020 to address impending

violations of the First Amendment by Defendants’ threatened enforcement, despite the COVID-

19 pandemic, of Connecticut’s strict state law requirements to (1) collect in-person petition

signatures for ballot access and (2) vote in-person at polling places unless voters meet one of six

statutory “excuses” that exclude thousands of voters including Plaintiffs.

2. On May 11, 2020, Defendant Governor Ned Lamont issued Executive Order

7LL, making changes to Connecticut’s petitioning process for ballot access, but not the process

for obtaining absentee ballots.

3. As Defendant Lamont’s executive order says, COVID-19 is a highly contagious

respiratory disease that has caused a pandemic resulting in mass severe illness and death,

especially for individuals who are 60 or older or for those with chronic health conditions, and

public health experts have concluded that it is possible to transmit COVID-19 even before a

person shows symptoms and through aerosol transmission.

4. As Defendant Lamont further stated, to reduce the spread of COVID-19, the U.S.

CDC and the CT DPH have recommended implementation of community mitigation strategies

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 18
to slow transmission of the virus, including cancellation of gatherings of ten people or more and social distancing in smaller settings.
5. Defendant Lamont further stated that there exists a compelling interest in reducing the risk of transmission of COVID-19 among candidates seeking election, their supporters who are seeking to contact potential voters, and the public at large.
6. Defendant Lamont admitted that the COVID-19 pandemic makes it more difficult for candidates to meet the existing statutory petitioning requirements to qualify for ballot access because fewer people are going outside or to public places and some people may be less willing to have in-person interactions with candidates or their supporters. Defendant Lamont omitted that his “stay home, stay safe” executive orders also fail to list petition signature gathering as an essential business or activity.
7. Defendant Lamont admitted that in-person interactions needed under the petitioning statutes may further the potential transmission of COVID-19 during an ongoing public health emergency.
8. However, Defendant Lamont’s executive order fails to remedy the problem that it recognizes. In fact, it requires candidates to handle thousands of additional pages of paperwork in order to qualify for the ballot, more paper than candidates would have required if the old petitioning requirements were left in place.
9. Defendant Lamont’s order introduces a cumbersome new mechanism for collecting in-person petition signatures that are still required to be signed by hand and will require hundreds of in-person interactions or a massive mailing using U.S. mail that would cost thousands of dollars and still risk meeting the deadline, which has been extended only two days.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 18
10. Specifically, Defendant Lamont’s cumbersome new mechanism requires the
following:
(i) an enrolled party member signs a petition containing only his or her signature that is mailed by U.S. mail to the candidate and later to the registrar of the municipality by the applicable deadline; or (ii) an enrolled party member signs a petition containing only his or her signature, which signature may be scanned or photographed electronically and sent by electronic mail to the candidate and later to the registrar of the municipality by the applicable deadline along with a copy of the email demonstrating the electronic transmission of the petition by the enrolled party member. Any petition submitted in accordance with subdivisions (i) or (ii) of this subsection shall contain the information required under sections 9-404a through 9-404c, and 9-406, 9-409 and 9-410 of the General Statutes and shall include a statement by the enrolled party member attesting to his or her identity, qualification as an elector and enrolled party member and shall be signed under the penalties of false statement. If more than one signature is on a petition page, all the requirements of sections 9-404b and 9-410 of the General Statutes must be satisfied, provided that any existing Executive Orders governing remote notarizations may be utilized. Nothing in this Order shall preclude petitioning by any other means set forth in sections 9-404a through 9-404c of the General Statutes.  
11. This cumbersome new mechanism requires petitions to be mailed or dropped off
at voters’ homes unless the candidate has the email address of a voter with a printer and a
scanner or photographic device with email capability. Voters are then required to mail, scan and
email, or leave the signed petition at their homes for candidates to pick up. Each voter must use
their own piece of paper for their own petition, resulting in an explosion of paper forms not
previously required to be individually printed for each voter. This procedure is more difficult
than it was to go door-to-door to collect signatures before COVID-19. It is a mess.
12. Although this cumbersome new mechanism was introduced just days before
petition signatures are required to be collected, the number of signatures required has been
reduced only thirty percent under Defendant Lamont’s order, a paltry discount given the
difficulties the order necessarily entails. For candidates running for the district offices of state
representative or state senator, that will be 3.5% of all registered party members in the district,
3

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 4 of 18
down from 5% of all registered party members under the old system. This will still require in excess of 500 signatures from registered Democrats in many districts. It is likely impossible.
13. The governor’s order gives candidates only two extra days to collect the petitions of 3.5% of all registered party members in the district. Plaintiffs would need at least an extra month to gather so many signatures given (1) COVID-19, (2) Defendant Lamont’s “stay home, stay safe” orders, and (3) the cumbersome new mechanism for obtaining the signatures under the latest executive order. It is completely unreasonable.
14. After Defendant Lamont issued his order, counsel for the Defendants emailed it to counsel for the Plaintiffs. Counsel then met and conferred by phone regarding the instant litigation. Counsel for the Defendants represented that Defendant Lamont’s order was final, and represented that this Court was the only available avenue for Plaintiffs to seek relief, inviting this amended complaint and emergency motion practice.
15. Without this Court’s intervention, Connecticut’s still-strict ballot access laws as well as its absentee voting laws—which remain unchanged—will place an unconstitutional severe undue burden on candidates running for office and voters seeking to vote for the candidate of their choice, given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
16. Recent events in Wisconsin demonstrate the disarray and voter confusion that results from inadequately planned elections held during a pandemic. As the Supreme Court of the United States has stated, “lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.” Republican Nat'l Comm. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205, 1207 (2020) (citing Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (per curiam)). Plaintiffs, Connecticut voters, thus file this suit to force action at the earliest possible time.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 5 of 18
A. Parties 17. Plaintiff Andy Gottlieb is a citizen of the State of Connecticut and a registered
voter. Plaintiff Gottlieb wants to vote for a wider variety of candidates, but he is restricted from doing so by Connecticut’s Ballot Access Laws, even as modified by Defendant Lamont’s executive order. Plaintiff ran for state senate in 2018 but he fell short of ballot access by 32 signatures because of the Ballot Access Laws. Plaintiff would likely run again for state representative or state senator, but for the existence and likely enforcement of the Ballot Access Laws as modified by Defendant Lamont’s executive order. Plaintiff Gottlieb also believes it is his duty as a conscientious citizen to protect his own safety and the safety of others by voting by mail, but he is restricted from doing so by Connecticut’s Absentee Ballot Laws.
18. Plaintiff Lorna Chand is a citizen of the State of Connecticut and a registered voter. Plaintiff Chand wants to vote for a wider variety of candidates, but she is restricted from doing so by Connecticut’s Ballot Access Laws as modified by Defendant Lamont’s executive order. Plaintiff Chand was Plaintiff Gottlieb’s treasurer in the 2018 election, and was prevented from voting for the candidate of her choice, Plaintiff Gottlieb, because of the Ballot Access Laws. Plaintiff Chand is a frontline essential worker and believes it is her duty to protect her own safety and the safety of others by voting by mail, but she is restricted from doing so by Connecticut’s Absentee Ballot Laws.
19. Plaintiff Jason W. Bartlett is a citizen of the State of Connecticut and a registered voter. Plaintiff Bartlett is a candidate for the 10th State Senate District of the Connecticut General Assembly with significant support, but he is unlikely to obtain ballot access by state party convention. Because he is unlikely to obtain ballot access by convention, and Defendant Lamont’s executive order fails to relieve the significant burden of gathering in-person petition
5

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 6 of 18
signatures, Plaintiff Bartlett will be precluded from ballot access unless action is taken by this Court. Each day that passes without action hinders Plaintiff Bartlett’s campaign for public office, because even if an alternative form of petition gathering is created, the time for planning and organizing the logistics of a significant ballot access drive is limited in advance of the August 11 primary, and rapidly elapsing.
20. Plaintiff Richard Lacourciere is a citizen of the State of Connecticut and a registered voter. Plaintiff Lacourciere is a candidate for the 24th State Representative District of the Connecticut General Assembly with significant support, but he is unlikely to obtain ballot access by state party convention. Because he is unlikely to obtain ballot access by convention, and Defendant Lamont’s executive order fails to relieve the significant burden of gathering inperson petition signatures, Plaintiff Lacourciere will be precluded from ballot access unless action is taken by this Court. Each day that passes without action hinders Plaintiff Lacourciere’s campaign for public office, because even if another alternative form of petition gathering is created, the time for planning and organizing the logistics of a significant ballot access drive is limited in advance of the August 11 primary, and rapidly elapsing.
21. Defendant Ned Lamont is the Governor of the State of Connecticut and its chief executive officer. Because he has declared a public health emergency, he has the right to modify or suspend any Connecticut statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 28-9, but his emergency powers may expire before the November election, id. He is sued in his official capacity.
22. Defendant Denise Merrill is the Secretary of the State of Connecticut. She is Connecticut’s chief election official and is responsible for causing petitions for access to the ballot to issue under Connecticut State Law. She is sued in her official capacity.
6

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 7 of 18
B. Jurisdiction 23. Because this action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, jurisdiction is
invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 24. Venue is proper in this Court by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events
giving rise to the claims occurred in the District of Connecticut and the defendants reside in the District of Connecticut.
25. Plaintiffs’ action for declaratory and injunctive relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, as well as by Rules 23, 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. C. Factual Allegations
a) Ballot Access Laws 26. Connecticut General Statutes Section 9-400 allows a candidate for the office of state representative or state senator to qualify for the ballot for a political party’s primary election in two ways: by receiving at least 15% of the votes of the delegates at a convention held by that political party; or by circulating a petition and obtaining the signatures of five percent of the enrolled members of the party in the district. 27. The gathering of petition signatures is governed by Connecticut General Statutes Sections 9-404a to 9-404c, inclusive. Candidates are given until 4:00p.m. on the fourteenth day after petitions are made available to collect and submit signatures from five percent of the party members in the district. 28. In 2018, Plaintiff Gottlieb and Plaintiff Chand were the candidate and the treasurer, respectively, of a campaign for state senate that failed to qualify for the ballot by convention and was required to collect the signatures of 1,014 registered Democrats, five percent of the registered Democrats in the district.
7

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 8 of 18
29. Plaintiff Gottlieb’s 2018 campaign turned in 1,120 signatures, of which 982 were found to be valid, 32 signatures short of ballot access.1
30. Plaintiff Gottlieb would have had enough signatures to run for governor of Ohio, member of Congress from Pennsylvania, or U.S. Senator from Oregon, but Plaintiff Gottlieb were denied ballot access in the party primary. As a result, the candidate endorsed at convention ran unopposed, and Plaintiffs Gottlieb and Chand were denied the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice, a candidate with significant support.
31. Defendant Lamont’s executive order, described above, supra, paragraphs 2-13, fails to eliminate the undue burden of Connecticut’s Ballot Access Laws. Thus, Plaintiffs seek to modify Defendant Lamont’s Executive Order No. 7LL, which will otherwise deny candidates with significant support access to the primary ballot and deny voters the right to vote for the candidate of their choice. Time is short. In the upcoming election, currently, petitions will be made available by the Secretary of the State on May 26, and must be turned in to the Secretary of the State’s office by June 11 at 4:00p.m. under Defendant Lamont’s order.
32. The Ballot Access Laws, as modified by Defendant Lamont’s executive order, do not burden all political groups equally.
33. Because incumbents have a well-developed network of campaign contributors, supporters well-versed in the process, the loyalty of party bosses, and the advantages of their official office, they almost always garner more than 15% of the delegates at state conventions,
1 Plaintiffs were 32 signatures short, according to the count of the registrars of voters in the municipalities of the district in which they were seeking office, Connecticut’s Twelfth Senate District, comprising the towns of Madison, Guilford, Killingworth, Durham, Branford, and North Branford. However, upon information and belief, employees of Defendant Merrill sought to disqualify additional signatures, because the back of some of the pages of the petitions were allegedly incorrectly filled out by one of Plaintiffs’ petition circulators.
8

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 9 of 18
rarely need to gather signatures at all, and need not worry about Defendant Lamont’s cumbersome new mechanism for ballot access.
34. On the other hand, new candidates who are either challenging incumbents or running for a vacant seat – and who already face an uphill battle in getting on the ballot – will need to collect hundreds of signatures in order to qualify for ballot access, amid a pandemic, using a cumbersome new method and only two days of extra time.
35. Because incumbents, in particular, are advantaged by the Ballot Access Laws as modified by Defendant Lamont’s order, voters’ right to vote for the candidate of their choice is severely restricted. When incumbents are more difficult to challenge, more run unopposed. Unopposed elections are very common in Connecticut, much more common than in places with less restrictive Ballot Access Laws.
36. Because Defendant Lamont’s executive order was intentionally tailored to prevent candidates with significant support from accessing the ballot, it constitutes an intentional violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.
b) Absentee Ballot Laws 37. Connecticut voters are allowed to vote by mail-in absentee ballot only under six specific circumstances outlined in Connecticut statute: (1) active military service; (2) absence from one’s town of residence “during all of the hours of voting,” which in Connecticut is 6:00a.m. to 8:00p.m.; (3) his or her illness; (4) his or her physical disability; (5) religious reasons; or (6) service as a poll worker other than in one’s town. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 9-135. 38. Neither Plaintiff is eligible for absentee voting under the statute. 39. False statement on an application for an absentee ballot is a class D felony under Connecticut law. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 9-359a.
9

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 10 of 18
c) COVID-19 40. “Social distancing” measures will likely remain in effect in some form at the time of the May 26—June 9, 2020 petition gathering period, at the time of the August 11, 2020 primary, and at the time of the November 3, 2020 general election. Even if federal, state, and local “social distancing” protocols are lifted, public health officials warn that in all likelihood such protocols could be re-imposed during another wave of COVID-19. 41. Public health researchers have concluded that there will be significant barriers to wide-scale in-person voting even in August and November 2020. 42. Defendant Lamont has postponed Connecticut’s presidential primary from April 28, 2020 to August 11, 2020, an admission of the severe burden that COVID-19 imposes on voters and the impossibility of maintaining a free and fair election without the ability to vote by mail, which most voters, like the Plaintiffs, cannot do because of the Absentee Ballot Laws. 43. Defendant Merrill has announced that she will mail an absentee ballot application to every voter in advance of the August 11, 2020 primary election. 44. Additionally, Defendant Merrill has requested that Defendant Lamont use his emergency powers to modify the Absentee Ballot Laws, but as of the time of this filing, he has failed to do so. Defendant Merrill has also made repeated requests regarding the Ballot Access Laws, but Defendant Lamont’s action is inadequate, as summarized above. 45. As Defendant Merrill has admitted, “[w]e are on the precipice of disaster” regarding the conduct of the upcoming elections. Plaintiffs bring this action to guarantee the right to vote for themselves and their fellow citizens amid the chaos and uncertainty of the pandemic.
10

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 11 of 18
46. Circulating petitions for signature is not listed as an “essential business” under any of Defendant Lamont’s emergency public health orders. The health crisis coupled with the Defendant’s inadequate executive order make it impossible to gather enough signatures in enough time for candidates with significant support to access the ballot unless they attain the support of 15% of party delegates at a convention. This will, unless remedied, severely restrict the ability of Plaintiffs and other voters to vote for the candidate of their choice.
d) Special Grounds for Injunctive Relief 47. This Court concluded, almost twenty years ago, that the 15% convention delegate requirement, standing alone, likely fails to protect rights of free association of voters seeking to vote for the candidate of their choice. Campbell v. Bysiewicz, 213 F. Supp. 2d 152 (D.Conn. 2002) (Dorsey, J.). The remedy in that case came when the General Assembly created the ability to gather petition signatures. See Public Act 03-241 (creating petitioning system). But the health crisis and Defendant Lamont’s inadequate executive order render that remedy meaningless without further relief. 48. Without action, nearly every voter in Connecticut will face a legally significant increased burden on their voting rights and their associational rights amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendants’ failure to take adequate action will force voters to choose from a more restricted set of candidates. Defendants’ continued inaction with regard to absentee ballots will force voters to choose risking infection or being disenfranchised. 49. This case must proceed quickly before the Purcell deadline established by the Supreme Court. Each day that passes increases the risk of voter confusion in the August 11 and November 3 elections. Plaintiffs, from their past experiences in the political process, understand close calls and the need for urgent action. A real and actual controversy exists between the
11

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 12 of 18
parties, Plaintiffs have no actual remedy at law other than this action, and Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm until they obtain relief from this Court. D. Class Allegations
50. Plaintiffs bring this case on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of all Connecticut voters, including a subclass of voters ineligible to receive absentee ballots under the Absentee Ballot Laws.
51. The class consists of over a million people and is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
52. Plaintiffs’ claims are common to and typical of the class and subclass, that is, the right of all members of the class to vote for candidates of their choice is burdened by Connecticut’s Ballot Access Laws as modified by Defendant Lamont’s executive order, and the right to vote of all members of the subclass is burdened by Connecticut’s Absentee Ballot Laws.
53. Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class and subclass. No conflicts of interest exist between Plaintiffs or their counsel and the class or subclass. Plaintiffs’ counsel, Attorney Alexander T. Taubes, Esq., has done substantial work in identifying and investigating potential claims in this action; has experience in handling class actions, Noble v. Northland, UWY-CV16-6033559-S (Conn. Super. Ct.) (class counsel through investigation, discovery, motion practice, class certification, and settlement of class action on behalf of approximately 1,000 former residents of a New Haven public housing complex), other complex litigation, Nat'l Ass’n for Advancement of Colored People v. Merrill, 939 F.3d 470, 473 (2d Cir. 2019) (argued and briefed Defendants’ unsuccessful interlocutory appeal on justiciability grounds in novel reapportionment claim), and the types of claims asserted in the action, Pereira v. State Elections Enforcement Comm’n, HHB-CV19-6054160-S (Conn. Super.
12

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 13 of 18
Ct.) (declaratory judgment action regarding Connecticut campaign finance law); has knowledge of the applicable law; and resources that he will commit to representing the class and subclass.
54. Defendant Lamont and Defendant Merrill have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class and subclass, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class and subclass as a whole. E. Claims for Relief First Claim: Unconstitutional Abridgment of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States by Defendants Lamont and Merrill, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Campbell v. Bysiewicz, for Enforcement of the Ballot Access Laws as
Modified by Defendant Lamont’s Executive Order 7LL 55. The allegations above are incorporated as if included fully here. 56. Even without the circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic, Connecticut’s ballot access laws unduly burden and violate Plaintiffs’ right to petition, speech, and free association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, including by having a “chilling effect” on the ability of individuals such as Plaintiff Gottlieb to run for office in the first place. 57. Defendant Lamont’s Executive Order No. 7LL, while containing admissions of the severe burden on petition signature gathering imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, continues to unduly burden and violate Plaintiffs’ right to petition, speech, and free association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as applied. The requirements of the Defendant’s executive order are not only difficult to achieve on their face, but unsafe and impossible amid the pandemic. If undisturbed, enforcement of Defendant Lamont’s executive order will unduly and unjustifiably restrict Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
13

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 14 of 18
58. Defendant Lamont’s executive order triggers strict scrutiny because of the burden they impose on Plaintiffs’ associational rights, scrutiny that the order cannot survive. But under the circumstances of this case, including federal, state, and local shelter-in-place orders amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the executive order fails even rational basis review.
Second Claim: Unconstitutional Abridgment of the First and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by Defendants Lamont and Merrill, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, for Enforcement of the Absentee Ballot Laws 59. The allegations above are incorporated as if included fully here. 60. Voting and participating in the electoral process is a form of expression which is the ultimate form of political speech. In light of the Supreme Court’s cases giving strong First Amendment protection to campaign funds spent to influence voters, the voters and their votes themselves can hardly be entitled to less protection. 61. As a restriction on free speech and association, the Absentee Ballot Laws must therefore be judged under the standard of strict scrutiny, a scrutiny that the Absentee Ballot Laws cannot survive under ordinary circumstances, much less under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. 62. Restricting access to absentee ballots only to the six identified categories in Connecticut law is not necessary or narrowly-tailored to any compelling state interest. In fact, a compelling interest exists in reducing the in-person interactions required by mass in-person voting. Third Claim: Violation of Procedural Due Process for Vagueness in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by Defendants Lamont and Merrill, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for Enforcement of the Absentee Ballot Laws 63. The allegations above are incorporated as if included fully here. 64. Should Defendant Lamont fail to act to expand absentee ballot eligibility, thousands of voters will be mailed absentee ballot applications by Defendant Merrill, which
14

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 15 of 18
they will be ineligible to complete. Completing the applications falsely could subject the voters to criminal prosecution.
65. A restriction to the right to vote due to the vagueness of a statutory provision creates conditions on the right to vote that violates voters’ Due Process rights.
66. The Absentee Ballot Laws violate Plaintiffs and other voters’ Due Process rights because the law, under the circumstances, fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence with a reasonable opportunity to understand whether or not they are permitted to vote by mail during the COVID-19 pandemic.
67. The Absentee Ballot Laws also violate Plaintiffs and other voters’ Due Process rights because the confusion that results amid the pandemic may encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, bar access to the right to vote, and increase the risk of criminal prosecution. Fourth Claim: Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by Defendants Lamont and Merrill, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for Enforcement
of the Absentee Ballot Laws 68. The allegations above are incorporated as if included fully here. 69. The Absentee Ballot Laws violate the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause because the state allows some voters to access absentee ballots but not others, treating similarly situated voters differently. Because of the pandemic, Plaintiffs are similarly situated to voters who are eligible for absentee ballots, but Plaintiffs are denied eligibility to vote absentee by Connecticut’s Absentee Ballot Laws. 70. No rational interest exists in putting citizens’ health at risk in voting, rendering the state’s activities in enforcing the Absentee Ballot Laws unconstitutional.
15

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 16 of 18
F. Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief:
A. Certification under 28 U.S.C. §2403 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1 that the constitutionality of a state statute has been questioned and certification of a class and subclass under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2);
B. As to the First Claim, issue a declaratory judgment stating that, in light of the current public health emergency caused by COVID-19 and executive orders requiring Connecticut citizens stay at home and shelter in place, Connecticut’s in-person petition collection requirements for qualifying for the August 11, 2020 primary election ballot, as modified by Defendant Lamont’s Executive Order No. 7LL, cannot be constitutionally enforced;
C. As to the First Claim, a preliminary injunction (i) enjoining or modifying enforcement of Connecticut’s in-person petition collection requirements for qualifying for the August 11, 2020 primary election ballot as modified by Defendant Lamont’s Executive Order No. 7LL; (ii) enabling and requiring the Defendants to allow for petitions to be submitted electronically via names of qualified electors collected by an online form to be created by the Secretary of the State or by placing an electronic signature on an electronic form created by the candidates; (iii) extend the deadline for the collection of the names of qualified electors from June 11, 2020 to July 15, 2020; and (iv) reduce the number of signatures required to qualify for the offices of state representative or state senate on the primary ballot to one percent of the registered party members in the district or to some percentage of required signatures necessary to demonstrate a significant
16

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 17 of 18

modicum of public support in light of the cumbersome process imposed by Defendant Lamont’s executive order; D. As to the Second through Fourth Claims, declaratory judgment that enforcement of the Absentee Ballot Laws described above violate the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitution of the United States as guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and an order allowing Defendants a reasonable but prompt amount of time to correct the violations; E. As to the Second through Fourth Claims, in the event that a reasonable time elapses and no action is taken, an order in the nature of an injunction relieving the unconstitutionally unacceptable burdens imposed by the enforcement of the Absentee Ballot Laws; F. As to the Second through Fourth Claims, appoint a Special Master or panel of Special Masters to find facts and make recommendations regarding the modification of the Absentee Ballot Laws; G. Attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and costs; and H. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

Dated: May 12, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

PLAINTIFFS, ANDY GOTTLIEB, LORNA CHAND, JASON BARTLETT, AND RICHARD LACOURCIERE, FOR THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

17

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 8 Filed 05/12/20 Page 18 of 18 By:_____/s/_______________ Alexander T. Taubes, Esq. Federal Bar No.: ct30100 Alexander T. Taubes 470 James Street, Suite 007 New Haven, CT 06513 (203) 909-0048 alextt@gmail.com Their Attorney
18

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NED LAMONT, et al., Defendants.

:

:

Case No. 3:20-cv-623-JCH

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

May 12, 2020

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF AS TO FIRST CLAIM (BALLOT ACCESS)

NOW COMES Plaintiffs, Andy Gottlieb, et. al., by and through counsel, and pursuant to

Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure move this Court for an Emergency

Preliminary or Permanent Injunction and a Declaratory Judgment as a matter of law against the

Defendants as to Count One of their Amended Complaint, ECF No. 8.

In support of this Motion, the Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their Amended Complaint,

Affidavits and Verified Expert Reports of Jason W. Bartlett, Andy Gottlieb, and Richard

Lacourciere, as well as their Memorandum of Law in Support of this Motion, and hereby state as

follows:

1. NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS: Pursuant to Rule 65, undersigned counsel for

the Plaintiffs respectfully certifies to the Court that on May 12, 2020, Plaintiffs provided a copy

of the Amended Complaint, this Motion, the Affidavits, and the supporting Memorandum to the

following attorneys via email:

• Maureen Murphy-Osborne, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney

General of the State of Connecticut, 165 Capitol Avenue Suite 5000, Hartford, CT

06106, maura.murphyosborne@ct.gov

1

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-2 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 6
Exhibit A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NED LAMONT, et al., Defendants.

:

:

Case No. 3:20-cv-623

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

May 11, 2020

VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT AND/OR EXPERT REPORT OF ANDY GOTTLIEB

I, Andy Gottlieb, hereby declare this 11th day of May, 2020 based on facts within my

personal knowledge:

1. I am 26 years old and a registered Connecticut voter in Guilford.

2. I bring this case because Connecticut’s ballot access laws, even with Governor

Lamont’s new executive order, place an undue burden on candidates seeking access to the primary

ballot and on voters seeking to vote for the candidate of their choice.

3. Connecticut’s ballot access laws placed severe burdens on the rights of candidates

and voters before COVID-19. Before COVID-19, even candidates with a significant modicum of

support were confronted with very substantial obstacles in obtaining access to the ballot. The

threshold was much more difficult to surmount than is reasonably necessary to achieve the

legitimate purpose of screening out candidates with no real support and systematically denied

Connecticut voters the chance to be heard.

4. Now, with COVID-19, the magnitude of the burdens placed by Connecticut’s ballot

access laws have increased even further, and Governor Lamont’s new executive order fails to begin

to address the magnitude of the present situation. Thus, as a potential candidate for office and as a

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-2 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 6
Connecticut voter, I feel compelled to bring this action, and the urgency of this matter compels me to urge this Court’s issuance of an emergency order. In this affidavit, I explain why I am bringing this case and why I believe it requires immediate action by this Honorable Court. A. Potential Candidate
5. As alleged in the Complaint in this action, I ran for the office of state senate in 2018, and fell just short of the signatures required to qualify for the primary ballot. In 2018, the seat was vacant – an “open seat” – but the seat is now occupied by an incumbent Democrat.
6. I’ve been asked many times since my 2018 state senate campaign whether I will ever run again. I always say, “Yes, I will! I just don’t know when I might be able to get on the ballot.” Given that it was next-to-impossible to run for even an open seat, I know that running against an incumbent would be even more quixotic.
7. Being denied ballot access is not an easy loss to accept, precisely because it’s not even a defeat. It feels more like one’s candidacy is put in suspended animation, with voters never getting to weigh in one way or another.
8. As heartbreaking as it would be, I could accept defeat at the polls, because that would have democratic legitimacy. But Connecticut’s ballot access laws make a mockery of those ideals. A group of party insiders selecting a group of party insiders to be delegates to decide on the nominee (knowing that whoever doesn’t make the cut will be thrown to the wolves in the petition process) echoes the worst of closed political systems.
9. As far as I can tell, the state has an interest in ensuring that only serious candidates make it onto the ballot. I understand and agree with that proposition, but Connecticut’s laws go well beyond that of almost any other state.

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-2 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 6
10. Gathering the valid signatures of five percent of all registered Democrats in my district is a hefty challenge, but it could be done. Doing so in an arbitrary two-week window in late May and early June is what makes it nearly impossible. Again, I can understand why the state would have a deadline to turn in signatures, but I will never grasp the rational basis of having a start date a mere fourteen days beforehand.
11. In most other states, I would be given months to gather such a quantity of signatures. I did my utmost to meet the requirements in 2018, knocking on thousands of doors, along with my volunteers. I certainly demonstrated the earnestness of my candidacy.
12. I (rather dangerously) lost seven pounds over two weeks of nonstop petitioning, going door to door in scorching heat and through torrential downpours.
13. The overwhelming majority of people I spoke with were willing to sign, seeing ballot access as essential to democracy. B. Voter
14. I also believe the ballot access laws violate my rights as a voter. 15. I’m a registered Democrat in a blue state who votes a straight-party ticket in November. My only real choice could come in a primary. 16. But in the four state elections I’ve been eligible to vote in since I turned 18, not once has there been a primary in either my state representative district or my state senate district. 17. I know firsthand how difficult the process is, and I’m certain that more people would step up to run (and succeed in doing so) if only a viable path existed to getting on the ballot. 18. I also desire a way to vote absentee without meeting one of the six narrow excuses allowed under current law. Voting is one of our most fundamental rights and should be accessible to all citizens, not dependent on one’s physical availability on a single day in August or November.

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-2 Filed 05/12/20 Page 4 of 6
C. Urgency 19. The indefensibility of Connecticut’s ballot access and absentee voting laws has
been brought to the fore by the COVID-19 pandemic. 20. Collecting signatures moves from nearly impossible to absolutely impossible under
social distancing measures, closing off any avenue to candidates not backed at party conventions. Similarly, voting in person goes against social distancing measures. Common sense dictates that voting by mail is the only safe way to conduct an election in the near future.
21. While I was prepared earlier to give the state time to respond to our Complaint, after speaking with Jason Bartlett about the unfair pressures his candidacy is facing due to ballot access uncertainty, I believe that action is required immediately to give candidates a reasonable method of attaining a spot in their primary. D. The Governor’s New Executive Order
22. Reducing the number of signatures by 30% and adding two days to the petition period does not begin to address the magnitude of the present situation.
23. A Democratic candidate in my senate district, for instance, would still need approximately 700 valid signatures to make the primary ballot. This would be substantially more in a district with higher concentrations of registered Democrats, such as the 10th Senate District where Jason Bartlett is running.
24. Corralling that many registered voters without going door-to-door would be extraordinarily difficult; a mere 16 days to collect that many signatures under fast-changing circumstances would be completely impossible. Requiring it is completely irrational.

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-2 Filed 05/12/20 Page 5 of 6
25. I cannot comprehend why Governor Lamont would insist on such a high standard for a candidate to make the primary ballot, except to exclude those disfavored by the party establishment.
26. A reasonable standard would be at least a month to gather petition signatures, along with a reduction of the needed signatures by at least 80% or simply a fixed number of signatures, such as 100 for state senate candidates and 50 for state representative candidates. This would be sufficient to prove that the candidate has a significant modicum of voter support.
27. The use of electronic signatures could ameliorate the burden somewhat, but the executive order makes it as cumbersome as possible.
28. Requiring potential petition signers to print out, sign, scan, and email the petition form puts the process out of reach for all but the most determined and well-resourced voters.
29. The only other option, of mailing in the form, also places an undue burden on the voter – unless Secretary Merrill decides to send every registered voter a petition form with a selfaddressed stamped envelope, as she is planning on doing for absentee ballot application forms.
30. A reasonable standard would be for the Secretary to set up a web form, similar to the very successful one already used for registering to vote or checking a voter’s registration. A voter could simply type in their name, town, and birthdate, and be presented with a dropdown of petitioning candidates in their district. The voter could then select which candidates they would “sign” for and submit directly to the Secretary. The procedure would be straightforward and secure.
31. Keep in mind that party convention candidates’ delegates are being allowed to appear via Zoom to ratify their choices in this year’s conventions, and it is likely that no incumbent office-holder in the State of Connecticut will be required to collect any petition signatures at all, because they will be nominated by the party convention.

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-2 Filed 05/12/20 Page 6 of 6
32. Each day that passes without action causes greater irreparable injury placing an ever-greater undue burden on candidates seeking access to the primary ballot and, by discouraging them, on voters seeking to vote for the candidate of their choice.
* * * I swear under penalty of perjury, pursuant to Title 28, § 1746 of the United States Code, that the foregoing is true, correct, and within my personal knowledge.
/s/Andy Gottlieb Andy Gottlieb Dated this 7th day of May, 2020
NOTARIZATION Subscribed to and sworn before me, this 11th day of May, 2020, through Communication Technology pursuant to the terms of Governor Lamont’s Executive Order No. 7Q (3).
/s/ Alexander T. Taubes, Esq. Commissioner of the Connecticut Superior Court

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 3
• Alma Rose Nunley, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, 165 Capitol Avenue Suite 5000, Hartford, CT 06106, alma.nunley@ct.gov
2. As established by the Memorandum in Support of this Motion, and the documents and pleadings referenced therein, the Plaintiffs are entitled to immediate declaratory and injunctive relief because 1) they are likely to succeed on the merits, 2) they are suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 3) the balance of equities tips in the Plaintiffs’ favor, and 4) because an injunction is in the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
3. The Plaintiffs request telephonic or videoconference oral arguments on their motion this week or next or at the Court’s earliest convenience.
4. The Plaintiffs request the waiver of any bond requirement before preliminary injunction issues. Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Sioux City, Iowa, 305 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1043–44 (N.D. Iowa 2004) (“[R]equiring a bond to issue before enjoining potentially unconstitutional conduct by a governmental entity simply seems inappropriate, because the rights potentially impinged by the governmental entity's actions are of such gravity that protection of those rights should not be contingent upon an ability to pay.”).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: A. Issue a declaratory judgment stating that Connecticut’s restrictions on ballot access, as modified by Defendant Lamont’s May 11, 2020 executive order regarding qualifying for the August 11, 2020 major party primary election ballot cannot be constitutionally enforced;
2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 3

B. Issue a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction (i) enjoining or modifying enforcement of Connecticut’s petition collection requirements for qualifying for the August 11, 2020 party primary election ballot; (ii) enabling and requiring the Defendants to allow for petitions to be submitted electronically via names of qualified electors collected by an online form to be created by the Secretary of the State; (iii) extend the deadline for the collection of the names of qualified electors from June 11, 2020 to July 15, 2020; and (iv) reduce the number of signatures required to qualify for the offices of state representative or state senate on the primary ballot to one percent of the registered party members in the district or to some percentage of required signatures necessary to demonstrate a significant modicum of public support in light of the cumbersome process imposed by Defendant Lamont’s executive order;
C. Order Defendants to pay to Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); and
D. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems proper and appropriate.

Dated: May 12, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

PLAINTIFFS, ANDY GOTTLIEB, LORNA CHAND, RICHARD LACOURCIERE, AND JASON BARTLETT, FOR THEMSELVES AND THE PROPOSED CLASS

By:

/s/

Alexander T. Taubes, Esq.

Federal Bar No.: ct30100

Alexander T. Taubes

470 James Street, Suite 007

New Haven, CT 06513

(203) 909-0048

alextt@gmail.com

Their Attorney

3

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-1 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NED LAMONT, et al., Defendants.

:

:

Case No. 3:20-cv-623-JCH

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

May 12, 2020

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY OR PERMANENT
INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF AS TO FIRST CLAIM (BALLOT ACCESS)

This is a federal civil rights class action to enjoin Connecticut’s (1) in-person petition

signature requirements for ballot access in the August 11, 2020 primary election (First Claim) and

(2) eligibility requirements for obtaining mail-in absentee ballots for the August 11 primary and

November 3, 2020 general elections (Second, Third, and Fourth Claims) because the requirements

violate Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as candidates and voters.

Plaintiff brings this emergency motion for preliminary or permanent injunctive and

declaratory relief as to the First Claim only, regarding in-person petition signature requirements

for candidates to access the August 11, 2020 primary ballot, about which Defendant Lamont issued an executive order yesterday.1 Defendant Lamont’s executive order fails to remedy the First

Amendment violations identified in Plaintiffs’ initial complaint, ECF No. 1, as described in their

amended complaint filed today, ECF No. 8. Plaintiffs request an audience with this Court as soon

as possible to address this matter of paramount constitutional importance.

1 State of Connecticut, By His Excellency Ned Lamont, Executive Order No. 7LL (May 11, 2020), available at https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Office-of-the-Governor/ExecutiveOrders/Lamont-Executive-Orders/Executive-Order-No-7LL.pdf?la=en (last acc. May 12, 2020).
1

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-1 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 12
Petitions will be made available for candidates by Defendant Merrill beginning May 26 and candidates will be given only 16 days to collect signatures under Defendant Lamont’s order. Time is therefore particularly of the essence as to Plaintiff’s First Claim regarding ballot access for the August 11, 2020 primary election. The key facts in support of this motion are verified as set forth in the attached executed Affidavits and Expert Reports of Plaintiffs, Andy Gottlieb (Exhibit A), Jason W. Bartlett (Exhibit B), and Richard Lacourciere (Exhibit C).
ARGUMENT Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the four well-settled factors for consideration of a preliminary injunction, Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008), weigh heavily in their favor, as follows. 1. Plaintiffs are Highly Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their First Claim,
Because This Case is Essentially Indistinguishable from Campbell v. Bysiewicz Almost twenty years ago this Court held that Connecticut’s “15%-delegate-vote rule,” then the only method for candidates to gain access to the primary ballot for state offices, “far exceeds a means to a legitimate end, the screening out of candidates who lack a significant modicum of support,” Campbell v. Bysiewicz, 213 F.Supp.2d 152, 157 (D.Conn. July 23, 2002) (Dorsey, J.), finding that “[t]his system ha[d] systematically denied Connecticut voters over the last 47 years a direct primary for district and state offices,” Id. Without this Court’s immediate action Connecticut voters will again be systematically denied their First Amendment free associational rights by requirements that again far exceed any legitimate State interest, and again serve only to insulate incumbent officeholders from legitimate competition. The legislature’s remedy for the constitutional violation identified in Campbell was Public Act 03-241, effective January 1, 2004, creating another method for candidates to gain
2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-1 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 12
access to the primary ballot: collecting in-person petition signatures. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Secs. 9-404a-404c. It is highly doubtful that Public Act 03-241 was ever an adequate constitutional remedy for the violations identified in Campbell. See Exhibit A (Affidavit of Andy Gottlieb) at ¶¶ 10 (“Gathering the valid signatures of five percent of all registered Democrats in my district is a challenge, but it could be done. Doing so in an arbitrary two-week window in late May and early June is what makes it nearly impossible.”), ¶ 1, 11-13 (candidate went door to door “nonstop in scorching heat and through torrential downpours” and rallied volunteers, but fell short of the signatures required to qualify); see Campbell, 213 F.Supp.2d at 155 (testimony from candidates of the “considerable effort to access the primary ballot . . . goes to show a burdensome primary ballot access system.”).
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, as Defendant Lamont has admitted by issuing Executive Order No. 7LL, supra note 1, the requirements in Public Act 03-241 are unquestionably an unconstitutionally undue severe burden on candidates’ and voters’ First Amendment rights to run for office and to vote for the candidate of their choice. Amended Complaint, ECF No. 8, at ¶¶ 3-7 (Defendant Lamont’s admissions of the extraordinary circumstances). Defendant Lamont’s cumbersome new executive order, id. at ¶¶ 8-13, however, fails to remedy the First Amendment harm that motivated it, and continues to inflict a severe undue burden on the First Amendment rights of Plaintiffs and all Connecticut voters. Id. at ¶¶ 813, 33-37, 57-59.
As Mr. Gottlieb’s affidavit and report demonstrates, Defendant Lamont’s new executive order fails even to “begin to address the magnitude of the present situation,” Ex. A at ¶ 22, the application of Public Act 03-241 to the COVID-19 pandemic. A Democratic candidate in Mr. Gottlieb’s senate district would need to collect over 700 valid signatures from registered
3

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-1 Filed 05/12/20 Page 4 of 12
Democrats to qualify for the ballot. Id. at ¶ 23. The number will be significantly higher in districts with more Democrats, like Mr. Bartlett’s. Id. As Mr. Gottlieb notes, the order would require petition signers “to print out, sign, scan, and email the petition,” which would exclude “all but the most determined and well-resourced voters,” id. at ¶ 28, or require mailing a form back and forth in the U.S. Mail, which will be an undue severe burden at least unless Secretary Merrill sends every voter a self-addressed stamped envelope as she is planning to do for absentee ballot application forms, id. at ¶ 29.
Mr. Gottlieb – who has knowledge, training, and experience running a petition signature drive, id. at ¶¶ 5-9 – concludes that it is “completely impossible” to access the ballot using the mechanism created by Defendant Lamont’s executive order, id. at ¶ 24. The severity of the restrictions, such as the mere two-day extension to use the order’s cumbersome new mechanism introduced yesterday, id., causes Mr. Gottlieb to conclude, reasonably, that the purpose of the order was “to exclude those disfavored by the party establishment.” ¶ 25. He further concludes that a reasonable system would require fewer signatures with more time to obtain them, ¶ 26, obtained through a web form created by the Secretary that is straightforward and secure, ¶ 30.
Mr. Lacourciere and Mr. Bartlett – candidates presently running for state representative in the 24th House District and state senator in the 10th Senate District, respectively – concur in Mr. Gottlieb’s judgment regarding the severe violation of First Amendment rights imposed by Defendant Lamont’s order. Mr. Bartlett is one of the most sophisticated political operatives in the state, with decades of success running petition signature drives. Ex. B at ¶ 9 (ran multiple successful petition signature drives as campaign manager). However, as Plaintiff Bartlett concludes in his affidavit and report, “[t]he executive order fails to provide a meaningful
4

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-1 Filed 05/12/20 Page 5 of 12
alternative” for accessing the ballot in the state party primary. Id. at ¶ 16. As Plaintiff Bartlett
explains:
Under the executive order, I would still need to obtain 3.5% of the registered members of the Democratic Party in my state senate district, a number that likely exceeds 1,000 registered Democrats. . . . [T]he voter to be either mailed a petition, or requires candidates to email the petition to the voter, which is unlikely because voters’ email addresses are rarely provided in applications to register to vote and are therefore not public information. The voter must then sign and mail the petition back to the candidate, or print and sign the petition then upload the petition by photograph or scanner to their computer and email it back to the candidate. The candidate must then print out all of the emails and petitions, one petition and the email that it came with per voter, to the registrar of voters of the voter’s municipality. This new process is cumbersome and costly and the executive order only gives two additional days to complete it.
[And] [u]nlike applications for absentee ballots, which are being mailed to every voter by the Secretary of the State, petitions will not be mailed to any voters. . . .
Petitions are routinely circulated online through websites such as Change.org but Governor Lamont’s order requires people to not only have computers, but also printers and scanners. The total number of steps and new paperwork created by the Governor’s new order will increase the time spent by either candidates going door-to-door to canvas for the signatures, volunteers, or voters leaving their homes to print or scan documents. . . .
Given my knowledge, training, and experience running campaigns and collecting signatures, I can easily conclude within a reasonable degree of professional certainty that unless the number of signatures required is capped at 500, and a substantial amount of additional time is provided, there is essentially no way that anyone will qualify for the ballot under the Governor’s cumbersome new system for collecting signatures. It is absurd, and demonstrates that the Governor has little concern for candidates’ and voters’ First Amendment rights.
Id. at ¶¶ 16-20. Mr. Lacourciere, running for the office of state representative albeit a relative
newcomer to politics, agrees, see Ex. C, and concludes that a severe reduction in the number of
signatures and a significant expansion of the amount of time required to obtain them is needed to
protect voters’ and candidates’ constitutional rights to meaningful democratic participation. Id. at
¶¶ 7-8.
Without meaningful alternatives to the party convention system, the present case is
essentially indistinguishable with Campbell v. Bysiewicz: effectively, once again, “[t]o get on a
5

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-1 Filed 05/12/20 Page 6 of 12
political party's primary ballot for state or district offices, a candidate must either receive the political party endorsement or else obtain at least 15% of the delegate votes to that political party's state or district convention.” 213 F.Supp.2d at 153. No other option at all existed then; no realistic option exists now. Thus, this Court must once again act to safeguard First Amendment rights by entering a preliminary injunction.
The record observations of the district court in Campbell – that, inter alia, only one person ever successfully navigated the convention delegate system against an incumbent congressperson, senator, governor, or secretary of the state in 47 years of modern democracy – are directly applicable to this case, where once again the convention delegate system will be the only meaningful method for candidates to access the August 11, 2020 primary ballot for congress, state senate, or state representative, absent action by this Court. The district court’s observations “strongly suggest[ed] an overly burdensome primary ballot access system” then, id. at 156, and they still do now.
In light of Plaintiffs’ “sufficient and persuasive evidence of an overly burdensome system,” 213 F.Supp.2d at 157, the governor’s executive order must be considered “severe” restrictions, which “must be narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.” Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992).
In Campbell, the state offered “no real analysis in support” of the convention-delegate system for ballot access. 213 F.Supp.2d at 156. Defendant Lamont’s executive order puts forth two possible interests in the continued severity of Connecticut’s ballot access restrictions: ensuring “viable” candidates qualify for the ballot “based on a minimum threshold of support,” and “to promote an election that is orderly, fair and transparent.” See supra note 1 at pp. 1-2. But the Defendant’s executive order, like the statutory scheme in Campbell, “far exceeds a means to
6

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-1 Filed 05/12/20 Page 7 of 12
a legitimate end, the screening out of candidates who lack a significant modicum of support,” 213 F.Supp.2d at 157, and instead imposes an overly severe restriction on Plaintiffs’ and all voters First Amendment rights.
The restrictions imposed by Defendant Lamont’s executive order are far more severe than necessary to guarantee a significant modicum of support. Defendant Lamont’s executive order fails to justify the severity of the restrictions – requiring 3.5% of party members’ signatures to be collected in 16 days under a cumbersome new mechanism without a direct online portal – by any compelling state interest. Defendants, meanwhile, will be unable to show that the relief requested by Plaintiffs would “encumber the ballot with the names of frivolous candidates,” allow “distortion of the electoral process by the device of ‘party raiding,’” or that the restrictions on access are related to any other legitimate state goals. Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 n.9 (giving examples of legitimate reasons for restrictions). As in Campbell, “[v]oters comprising a candidate’s significant modicum of support should not be disenfranchised by an overly burdensome primary ballot process that bars their candidate from appearing on the primary ballot.” 213 F.Supp.2d at 157.
Plaintiffs have shown that significant numbers of voters would be disenfranchised by Connecticut’s primary ballot access process which, absent this Court’s action, will likely bar them both from appearing on the primary ballot and from voting for the full range of candidates of their choice. See generally Exhibits A-C. Plaintiffs therefore show a very high likelihood of success on the merits of their First Claim.
2. Plaintiffs are Suffering, and Will Continue to Suffer, Harm to their First Amendment Rights if the Injunction is Denied, Harm That is Severe and Irreparable
The severe restrictions imposed by Connecticut’s ballot access requirements are causing at least three forms of irreparable harm to Plaintiffs, Connecticut candidates and voters.
7

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-1 Filed 05/12/20 Page 8 of 12
First, as shown in Mr. Gottlieb’s affidavit, they harm Plaintiffs as potential candidates, by deterring them from running for office in the first place, even if they desire to do so and have a significant modicum of support. Exhibit A at ¶ 6 (“I’ve been asked many times since my 2018 state senate campaign whether I will ever run again. I always say, ‘Yes I will! I just don’t know when I might be able to get on the ballot.’”). This “chilling” of the right to speak, petition, and run for office is cognizable First Amendment injury of the utmost importance justifying entrance of declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction.
Second, also shown in Mr. Gottlieb’s affidavit, the restrictions harm Plaintiffs as voters, by restricting the number of candidates to choose from and denying voters the ability to vote for candidates of their choice. Exhibit A at ¶¶ 15-16 (“I’m a registered Democrat in a blue state who votes a straight-party ticket in November . . . But in the four state elections I’ve been eligible to vote in since I turned 18, not once has there been a primary in either my state representative or my state senate district.”); ¶ 20 (“Collecting signatures moves from nearly impossible to absolutely impossible under social distancing measures, . . . .”). Ms. Chand is also a Plaintiff being denied her rights as a voter. The injury to voters from overly restrictive ballot access requirements is cognizable First Amendment injury. See Rockefeller v. Powers, 74 F.3d 1367 (2d Cir. 1995) (voters have standing to challenge ballot access requirements).
Third, as shown in Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Lacourciere’s affidavits, the restrictions harm Plaintiffs if they choose to run for office, as Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Lacourciere have, as candidates, because for candidates who are not incumbent officeholders, no available method for qualifying for the ballot is practicable under the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. This injury is compounded every day because any ballot access method takes time to plan for and organize. Even with the governor’s new executive order, the ballot access requirements under
8

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-1 Filed 05/12/20 Page 9 of 12
Connecticut state law continue to place a severe undue burden on candidates seeking to qualify for the primary ballot, as explained supra, pp. 2-7. These harms are irreparable and Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, because, as it is well-settled, harms to their First Amendment rights cannot be repaired by money damages.
“[T]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976); Murphy v. Zoning Comm’n of the Village of New Milford, 148 F.Supp.2d 173, 180-81 (D. Conn. 2001). Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable damage because candidates who would challenge incumbent public officials will not run for office—or even if they do, like Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Lacourciere, qualifying for the ballot will be impossible. Plaintiffs are also suffering as voters, because they will be unable to choose from a full range of candidates when they cast their ballots.
Plaintiffs’ irreparable injury will only compound as the petitions are issued on May 26, the petitioning deadline approaches 16 days later on June 11, and the August 11, 2020 primary comes closer. Plaintiffs have reached out to Defendants to confer about settlement, but have been told that in light of the executive order they now have no other recourse than this Court. At some point, as this Court has observed, there no longer is “sufficient time to permit Plaintiffs access to the ballot.” Campbell, 213 F.Supp.2d at 159 (rejecting state’s argument there was insufficient time as of July 23 to permit access for September 10 primary). Plaintiffs seek immediate action now to prevent, for example, ballots from needing to be re-printed should this case take weeks or longer to resolve.
9

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-1 Filed 05/12/20 Page 10 of 12
3. The Balance of the Harms Favors Plaintiffs Because They Will Be Severely Harmed Without Action by This Court, and They Request Readily Available Relief from Defendants
Any speculative harm to the Defendants is far outweighed by the harm that the Plaintiffs would suffer by being deprived of their constitutional freedoms to petition and to speak, in the distinct ways identified above and in their affidavits and expert reports.
Injunctive and declaratory relief here, meanwhile, would simply require Defendants to make reasonable modifications to their election procedures in light of the pandemic as a number of states have voluntarily done.
This Court can take notice that, as demonstrated by other states, there is minimal burden associated with protecting the rights of petition and speech in this case:
The Arizona Secretary of State has provided an online petitioning mechanism for candidates since 2015;2
On March 19, 2020, the Governor of New Jersey issued an executive order to the Secretary of State to implement online petitioning and signature collection;3
On April 2, 2020 Florida’s Secretary of State signed an emergency order allowing for the collection of petition signatures online;4
It is evident, therefore, that narrowly-tailored options that protect both the health of the general public as well as their constitutional rights are readily available and have been implemented without any harm to any legitimate State interests. Thus far, however, Connecticut
2 Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, E-Qual, available at https://www.azcleanelections.gov/E-Qual. 3 New Jersey Executive Order No. 105, available at https://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/assets/pdf/candidate/EO-105.pdf 4 Florida Certification of Department of State Emergency Rule, 11SER20-2 – Candidate Petition Process, available at https://dos.myflorida.com/media/702874/1ser20-2.pdf
10

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-1 Filed 05/12/20 Page 11 of 12
has failed to follow suit, which this Court can and should remedy. Plaintiffs’ relief is therefore reasonable in light of the impossibility of gathering in-person petition signatures and the balance of the harms favors Plaintiffs.
4. Granting the Relief Requested Will Serve the Public Interest, Because Vindicating First Aendment Rights is Always in the Public Interest
“Vindicating First Amendment freedoms is clearly in the public interest.” Pacific Frontier v. Pleasant Grove City, 414 F.3d 1221, 1237 (10th Cir. 2005). See also Am. Civil Liberties Union of Georgia v. Miller, 977 F.Supp. 1228, 1235 (N.D. Ga. 1997) (“No long string of citations is necessary to find that the public interest weighs in favor of having access to a free flow of constitutionally protected speech.”) (quotation and citation omitted). “[I]njunctions protecting First Amendment freedoms are always in the public interest.” Am. Civil Liberties Union of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 590 (7th Cir. 2012).
“The impact of candidate eligibility requirements on voters implicates basic constitutional rights.” Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 786 (1983). “The exclusion of candidates also burdens voters’ freedom of association, because an election campaign is an effective platform for the expression of views on the issues of the day, and a candidate serves as a rallying point for likeminded citizens.” Id. at 787-88. “The right to associate with the political party of one’s choice is an integral part of . . . basic constitutional freedom.” Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208, 214 (1986). The right to “the political franchise of voting . . . is regarded as a fundamental political right, because [it is] preservative of all rights.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886).
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs motion should be granted, and an order in the nature of the relief requested in the Motion, at pp. 2-3 (prayer for relief), should be issued.
11

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-1 Filed 05/12/20 Page 12 of 12

Dated: May 12, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,
PLAINTIFFS, ANDY GOTTLIEB, LORNA CHAND, JASON BARTLETT, AND RICHARD LACOURCIERE, FOR THEMSELVES AND THE PROPOSED CLASS OF CONNECTICUT VOTERS
By:_____/s/_______________ Alexander T. Taubes, Esq. Federal Bar No.: ct30100 Alexander T. Taubes 470 James Street, Suite 007 New Haven, CT 06513 (203) 909-0048 alextt@gmail.com
Their Attorney

12

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-2 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 6
Exhibit A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NED LAMONT, et al., Defendants.

:

:

Case No. 3:20-cv-623

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

May 11, 2020

VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT AND/OR EXPERT REPORT OF ANDY GOTTLIEB

I, Andy Gottlieb, hereby declare this 11th day of May, 2020 based on facts within my

personal knowledge:

1. I am 26 years old and a registered Connecticut voter in Guilford.

2. I bring this case because Connecticut’s ballot access laws, even with Governor

Lamont’s new executive order, place an undue burden on candidates seeking access to the primary

ballot and on voters seeking to vote for the candidate of their choice.

3. Connecticut’s ballot access laws placed severe burdens on the rights of candidates

and voters before COVID-19. Before COVID-19, even candidates with a significant modicum of

support were confronted with very substantial obstacles in obtaining access to the ballot. The

threshold was much more difficult to surmount than is reasonably necessary to achieve the

legitimate purpose of screening out candidates with no real support and systematically denied

Connecticut voters the chance to be heard.

4. Now, with COVID-19, the magnitude of the burdens placed by Connecticut’s ballot

access laws have increased even further, and Governor Lamont’s new executive order fails to begin

to address the magnitude of the present situation. Thus, as a potential candidate for office and as a

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-2 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 6
Connecticut voter, I feel compelled to bring this action, and the urgency of this matter compels me to urge this Court’s issuance of an emergency order. In this affidavit, I explain why I am bringing this case and why I believe it requires immediate action by this Honorable Court. A. Potential Candidate
5. As alleged in the Complaint in this action, I ran for the office of state senate in 2018, and fell just short of the signatures required to qualify for the primary ballot. In 2018, the seat was vacant – an “open seat” – but the seat is now occupied by an incumbent Democrat.
6. I’ve been asked many times since my 2018 state senate campaign whether I will ever run again. I always say, “Yes, I will! I just don’t know when I might be able to get on the ballot.” Given that it was next-to-impossible to run for even an open seat, I know that running against an incumbent would be even more quixotic.
7. Being denied ballot access is not an easy loss to accept, precisely because it’s not even a defeat. It feels more like one’s candidacy is put in suspended animation, with voters never getting to weigh in one way or another.
8. As heartbreaking as it would be, I could accept defeat at the polls, because that would have democratic legitimacy. But Connecticut’s ballot access laws make a mockery of those ideals. A group of party insiders selecting a group of party insiders to be delegates to decide on the nominee (knowing that whoever doesn’t make the cut will be thrown to the wolves in the petition process) echoes the worst of closed political systems.
9. As far as I can tell, the state has an interest in ensuring that only serious candidates make it onto the ballot. I understand and agree with that proposition, but Connecticut’s laws go well beyond that of almost any other state.

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-2 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 6
10. Gathering the valid signatures of five percent of all registered Democrats in my district is a hefty challenge, but it could be done. Doing so in an arbitrary two-week window in late May and early June is what makes it nearly impossible. Again, I can understand why the state would have a deadline to turn in signatures, but I will never grasp the rational basis of having a start date a mere fourteen days beforehand.
11. In most other states, I would be given months to gather such a quantity of signatures. I did my utmost to meet the requirements in 2018, knocking on thousands of doors, along with my volunteers. I certainly demonstrated the earnestness of my candidacy.
12. I (rather dangerously) lost seven pounds over two weeks of nonstop petitioning, going door to door in scorching heat and through torrential downpours.
13. The overwhelming majority of people I spoke with were willing to sign, seeing ballot access as essential to democracy. B. Voter
14. I also believe the ballot access laws violate my rights as a voter. 15. I’m a registered Democrat in a blue state who votes a straight-party ticket in November. My only real choice could come in a primary. 16. But in the four state elections I’ve been eligible to vote in since I turned 18, not once has there been a primary in either my state representative district or my state senate district. 17. I know firsthand how difficult the process is, and I’m certain that more people would step up to run (and succeed in doing so) if only a viable path existed to getting on the ballot. 18. I also desire a way to vote absentee without meeting one of the six narrow excuses allowed under current law. Voting is one of our most fundamental rights and should be accessible to all citizens, not dependent on one’s physical availability on a single day in August or November.

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-2 Filed 05/12/20 Page 4 of 6
C. Urgency 19. The indefensibility of Connecticut’s ballot access and absentee voting laws has
been brought to the fore by the COVID-19 pandemic. 20. Collecting signatures moves from nearly impossible to absolutely impossible under
social distancing measures, closing off any avenue to candidates not backed at party conventions. Similarly, voting in person goes against social distancing measures. Common sense dictates that voting by mail is the only safe way to conduct an election in the near future.
21. While I was prepared earlier to give the state time to respond to our Complaint, after speaking with Jason Bartlett about the unfair pressures his candidacy is facing due to ballot access uncertainty, I believe that action is required immediately to give candidates a reasonable method of attaining a spot in their primary. D. The Governor’s New Executive Order
22. Reducing the number of signatures by 30% and adding two days to the petition period does not begin to address the magnitude of the present situation.
23. A Democratic candidate in my senate district, for instance, would still need approximately 700 valid signatures to make the primary ballot. This would be substantially more in a district with higher concentrations of registered Democrats, such as the 10th Senate District where Jason Bartlett is running.
24. Corralling that many registered voters without going door-to-door would be extraordinarily difficult; a mere 16 days to collect that many signatures under fast-changing circumstances would be completely impossible. Requiring it is completely irrational.

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-2 Filed 05/12/20 Page 5 of 6
25. I cannot comprehend why Governor Lamont would insist on such a high standard for a candidate to make the primary ballot, except to exclude those disfavored by the party establishment.
26. A reasonable standard would be at least a month to gather petition signatures, along with a reduction of the needed signatures by at least 80% or simply a fixed number of signatures, such as 100 for state senate candidates and 50 for state representative candidates. This would be sufficient to prove that the candidate has a significant modicum of voter support.
27. The use of electronic signatures could ameliorate the burden somewhat, but the executive order makes it as cumbersome as possible.
28. Requiring potential petition signers to print out, sign, scan, and email the petition form puts the process out of reach for all but the most determined and well-resourced voters.
29. The only other option, of mailing in the form, also places an undue burden on the voter – unless Secretary Merrill decides to send every registered voter a petition form with a selfaddressed stamped envelope, as she is planning on doing for absentee ballot application forms.
30. A reasonable standard would be for the Secretary to set up a web form, similar to the very successful one already used for registering to vote or checking a voter’s registration. A voter could simply type in their name, town, and birthdate, and be presented with a dropdown of petitioning candidates in their district. The voter could then select which candidates they would “sign” for and submit directly to the Secretary. The procedure would be straightforward and secure.
31. Keep in mind that party convention candidates’ delegates are being allowed to appear via Zoom to ratify their choices in this year’s conventions, and it is likely that no incumbent office-holder in the State of Connecticut will be required to collect any petition signatures at all, because they will be nominated by the party convention.

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-2 Filed 05/12/20 Page 6 of 6
32. Each day that passes without action causes greater irreparable injury placing an ever-greater undue burden on candidates seeking access to the primary ballot and, by discouraging them, on voters seeking to vote for the candidate of their choice.
* * * I swear under penalty of perjury, pursuant to Title 28, § 1746 of the United States Code, that the foregoing is true, correct, and within my personal knowledge.
/s/Andy Gottlieb Andy Gottlieb Dated this 7th day of May, 2020
NOTARIZATION Subscribed to and sworn before me, this 11th day of May, 2020, through Communication Technology pursuant to the terms of Governor Lamont’s Executive Order No. 7Q (3).
/s/ Alexander T. Taubes, Esq. Commissioner of the Connecticut Superior Court

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-3 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 6
Exhibit B

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NED LAMONT, et al., Defendants.

:

:

Case No. 3:20-cv-623

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

May 11, 2020

VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT AND/OR EXPERT REPORT OF JASON W. BARTLETT

I, Jason W. Bartlett, hereby declare this 11th day of May, 2020 based on facts within my

personal knowledge:

1. I am a registered Connecticut voter at 22 Howard Ave., New Haven, CT 06519.

2. I have filed paperwork with the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement

Commission (SEEC) to become a candidate for the 10th State Senate District of the Connecticut

General Assembly and have filed the legal candidate committee paperwork to raise funds in the

exploratory designation for such office.

3. I have obtained the paperwork to transition to an official State Senate candidate

committee according to SEEC guidelines and Connecticut law and intend to officially file that

paperwork the day before the Democratic Party State Senate Convention for the 10th State Senate

District. I am following the rules and guidelines as written by the SEEC in order to run for State

Senate and to abide by the laws of the State of Connecticut in order to receive public financing

monies to support my campaign.

4. I am a former member of the Connecticut House of Representatives, having served

in the General Assembly from 2007 to 2011 for the 2nd State House District serving parts of the

1

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-3 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 6
towns of Danbury, Bethel and Redding. I have also served the former Mayor of New Haven, Toni Harp, 2014-2020, as the Director of Youth Services and Liaison to the New Haven Board of Education. I am also the elected State Central Committee member representing the Cities of New Haven & West Haven for State 10th State Senate District within the Connecticut Democratic Party.
5. My experiences as an active elector, legislator and municipal employee and community activist enables my desire to serve the people of New Haven as their next State Senator from the 10th State Senate District.
6. When I decided to run for State Senate in the 10th Senate District, a Democraticmajority voter district, I understood that it would be a challenge to obtain the necessary votes from the delegates who would be appointed by New Haven’s Democratic Party Chair, who had opposed the election campaign of my former employer, Toni Harp, and had opposed my election to the State Central Committee two years ago. I knew, based on my knowledge and experience in New Haven Democratic Party politics, that New Haven’s Democratic Party Chair would make it highly improbable for me to qualify for the ballot by state party state senate convention.
7. In fact, the New Haven Democratic Party Chair chose the delegates for the state party state senate convention himself.
8. Knowing it was highly improbable that I would qualify for the ballot by state party state senate convention, I ran for office, believing that I would not be precluded from obtaining ballot access because I could petition my way onto the ballot in a Democratic Party Primary.
9. I have years of experience obtaining ballot petition signatures, because I was successful as a campaign manager in charge of obtaining the necessary petitions for a variety of candidates for office and ensuring they achieved ballot access in the State of Connecticut. This experience includes successful petition access campaigns for James Newton, Democratic
2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-3 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 6
candidate for Mayor of New Haven in 1999, State Senator Martin Looney, Democratic candidate for Mayor of New Haven in 2001, Mary Jane Foster, Democratic candidate for Mayor of Bridgeport in 2011, and then-Sen. Toni Harp, Democratic candidate for Mayor of New Haven 2013. I believed, when I began planning to run for office, because of my experience, that I would be able to collect enough signatures from electors to qualify for the ballot in a Democratic Party Primary.
10. However, due to COVID-19 and the continuing shelter-at-home orders issued by Governor Lamont, going door-to-door will be impossible to obtain legal signatures in person. I am aware that Governor Lamont issued an executive order allowing for remote notarization to be legal and legitimate with a proper attestation so I have theorized that we could do an electronic signature on petitions.
11. Conventions for political office in the Democratic Party are scheduled to begin by the Connecticut Democratic Party on May 10th. The State Senate Conventions for the City of New Haven are scheduled for May 19, 2020. Time is of the essence.
12. Based on my knowledge, training, and experience, I know that political campaigns that challenge incumbent political leaders require foresight, planning, and organization.
13. By the time this case was filed, as a candidate for public office challenging a public official, guidance should have been provided by the Secretary of the State’s office or the Governor regarding the establishment of procedures and guidelines to obtain and legally attest electronic signatures for the office I and other candidates seek.
14. The Secretary of the State and the Governor's office had already articulated strategies to ensure that the Presidential Primary Election delegates have access to the democratic system months in advance of the elections, but no strategy for Connecticut residents who seek to
3

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-3 Filed 05/12/20 Page 4 of 6
obtain access to the ballot in order to represent our Cities, towns and communities in which we live and to hold incumbent officeholders accountable was announced until today.
15. I have reviewed the Secretary of the State and the Governor’s new executive order, which is supposedly meant to provide an alternative to paper petition signatures for candidates who, like me, are unlikely to receive the support of the local party insiders at convention has placed an undue burden on my candidacy seeking access to the primary ballot.
16. The executive order fails to provide a meaningful alternative to paper petition signatures. Under the executive order, I would still need to obtain 3.5% of the registered members of the Democratic Party in my state senate district, a number that likely exceeds 1,000 registered Democrats.
17. The supposed alternative to an in-person paper petition drive requires the voter to be either mailed a petition, or requires candidates to email the petition to the voter, which is unlikely because voters’ email addresses are rarely provided in applications to register to vote and are therefore not public information. The voter must then sign and mail the petition back to the candidate, or print and sign the petition then upload the petition by photograph or scanner to their computer and email it back to the candidate. The candidate must then print out all of the emails and petitions, one petition and the email that it came with per voter, to the registrar of voters of the voter’s municipality. This new process is cumbersome and costly and the executive order only gives two additional days to complete it.
18. Unlike applications for absentee ballots, which are being mailed to every voter by the Secretary of the State, petitions will not be mailed to any voters.
19. The City of New Haven is doing distance learning, and it is well known that between 5 to 7 thousand children do not have a computer to be able to do the online learning.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-3 Filed 05/12/20 Page 5 of 6
Petitions are routinely circulated online through websites such as Change.org but Governor Lamont’s order requires people to not only have computers, but also printers and scanners. The total number of steps and new paperwork created by the Governor’s new order will increase the time spent by either candidates going door-to-door to canvas for the signatures, volunteers, or voters leaving their homes to print or scan documents.
20. Given my knowledge, training, and experience running campaigns and collecting signatures, I can easily conclude within a reasonable degree of professional certainty that unless the number of signatures required is capped at 500, and a substantial amount of additional time is provided, there is essentially no way that anyone will qualify for the ballot under the Governor’s cumbersome new system for collecting signatures. It is absurd, and demonstrates that the Governor has little concern for candidates’ and voters’ First Amendment rights.
21. Every hour and day that passes without being able to plan for a meaningful electronic petition signature gathering effort that we could actually achieve – or some other alternative form of ballot access – irreparably harms my ability to exercise my First Amendment right to run for office. I can never get that time back. The time lost due to the failure of the Governor and the Secretary of the State put me at a competitive disadvantage in my race challenging my incumbent State Senator.
22. The extreme difficulty of the Governor’s executive order, and the absurdly little amount of time given to complete its requirements – two extra days – can leave me with no other conclusion than that Governor Lamont is intentionally discriminating against candidates for office who are challenging incumbent office-holders. Although I can understand the chief executive’s desire to curry legislative support, I believe it is inconsistent with voters’ First Amendment rights.
5

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-3 Filed 05/12/20 Page 6 of 6

23. In my opinion, if an order from this Court does not issue, time will run out and

irreparably harm the ability of myself and other candidates for office to meaningfully access the

ballot, unless they are well-connected and have the support of someone like the New Haven

Democratic Party Chair.

24. This case isn’t just about me. It’s about the voters of New Haven and West Haven,

towns dominated by the Democratic Party, who will only have a realistic voice in the selection of

their elected representatives if they can choose from a full range of candidates in the state party

primary. Unless candidates are given reasonable access to the ballot in the state party primary,

Democratic Party insiders will be able to maintain a political monopoly over many state senate

and state representative districts in our state. Unless this Court takes action, the ballot access

restrictions in the Governor’s order will deny thousands of voters in cities across Connecticut the

First Amendment right to vote for the candidate of their choice, including candidates with

significant support.

* * *

I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to Title 28, § 1746 of the United States Code,

that the foregoing is true, correct, and within my personal knowledge.

/s/Jason W. Bartlett Jason W. Bartlett Dated this 11th day of May, 2020

NOTARIZATION

Subscribed to and sworn before me, this 11th day of May, 2020, through Communication

Technology pursuant to the terms of Governor Lamont’s Executive Order No. 7Q (3).

/s/ Alexander T. Taubes, Esq. Commissioner of the Connecticut Superior Court
6

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-4 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 2
Exhibit C

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NED LAMONT, et al., Defendants.

:

:

Case No. 3:20-cv-623

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

May 11, 2020

VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT AND/OR EXPERT REPORT OF RICHARD LACOURCIERE

I, Richard Lacourciere, hereby declare this 11th day of May, 2020 based on facts within

my personal knowledge:

1. I am over 18 years old and a registered Connecticut voter.

2. At the heart of politics is person-to-person connection, whether it be door-to-door

canvassing, signature collection, or fundraisers.

3. I am running for State Representative in the 24th House District of the Connecticut

General Assembly as a Democrat.

4. The current COVID-19 pandemic has struck not only at the heart of politics, but

also the democratic process we all believe in and fight for.

5. Now, more than ever, it is incumbent on those with the power to allow democracy

to do so.

6. I have reviewed the Governor’s Executive Order on ballot access. It does not go far

enough.

7. A reasonable system for ballot access would reduce the number of signatures

required by 80% and greatly expand the window in which to collect them, an extension of 3 weeks.

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 9-4 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 2
8. Another possibility is to allow the number of in-district donations as the threshold for being on the ballot, as this can primarily be done online.
9. People who know me, know my enthusiasm when it comes to speaking with my neighbors and community and under any other circumstances I am more than happy to do so and look forward to it.
10. But under the current circumstances, where it is inadvisable to go visit my younger cousins, it is also unwise to spend so much time going door-to-door and to be forced by those in power to do this to engage in our democratic process running for office.
11. It is the responsibility of those in power to use that power correctly and not force those without it to give up their rights and put themselves in harm’s way to have a voice in our democracy.
12. For all of these reasons, I join the above-titled lawsuit and ask that this Honorable Court take the immediate action required by Plaintiffs.
* * * I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to Title 28, § 1746 of the United States Code, that the foregoing is true, correct, and within my personal knowledge. /s/Richard Lacourciere Richard Lacourciere Dated this 11th day of May, 2020
NOTARIZATION Subscribed to and sworn before me, this 11th day of May, 2020, through Communication Technology pursuant to the terms of Governor Lamont’s Executive Order No. 7Q (3). /s/ Alexander T. Taubes, Esq. Commissioner of the Connecticut Superior Court

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 14 Filed 05/18/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NED LAMONT, et al., Defendants.

:

:

Case No. 3:20-cv-623-JCH

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

May 18, 2020

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AS TO FIRST CLAIM (BALLOT ACCESS)

NOW COMES Plaintiffs, Andy Gottlieb, et. al., by and through counsel, and pursuant to

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, move this Court for an order certifying a class as

to Count One of the Complaint (First Claim) regarding ballot access in the upcoming August 11,

2020 state party primary, appointing them as class representatives, and appointing their counsel as

class counsel.

In support of this Motion, the Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their Amended Complaint

(ECF No. 8), and their Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Memorandum of Law, and Attached

Exhibits (ECF No. 9). Plaintiffs ask this Court to certify a class consisting of all Connecticut

registered voters. The grounds for this motion are set forth in the Memorandum in Support of

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification attached hereto.

1

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 14 Filed 05/18/20 Page 2 of 2

Dated: May 18, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

PLAINTIFFS, ANDY GOTTLIEB, LORNA CHAND, RICHARD LACOURCIERE, AND JASON BARTLETT, FOR THEMSELVES AND THE PROPOSED CLASS

By:

/s/

Alexander T. Taubes, Esq.

Federal Bar No.: ct30100

Alexander T. Taubes

470 James Street, Suite 007

New Haven, CT 06513

(203) 909-0048

alextt@gmail.com

Their Attorney

2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 14-1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NED LAMONT, et al., Defendants.

:

:

Case No. 3:20-cv-623-JCH

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

May 18, 2020

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AS TO FIRST CLAIM (BALLOT ACCESS)

“The exclusion of candidates . . . burdens voters’ freedom of association, because an

election campaign is an effective platform for the expression of views on the issues of the day, and

a candidate serves as a rallying point for likeminded citizens.” Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S.

780, 787-88 (1983). See also Esshaki v. Whitmer, No. 20-1336, 2020 WL 2185553, at *1 (6th Cir.

May 5, 2020) (denying stay of Anderson injunction prohibiting enforcement of ballot access laws

because of COVID-19, but staying district court’s specific remedy).

This action is filed on behalf of all Connecticut voters, all of whom are harmed when

burdensome state law requirements unjustifiably exclude candidates from ballot access, as they

threaten for the August 11, 2020 primary elections. Common questions of both law and fact

pervade this matter, and Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable

to the class as a whole. Simply put, this is the quintessential civil rights class action, and class

certification should be granted.

The requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b) are amply met. The

class is indisputably numerous. The question at the heart of this case binds together all members

of the class: do Connecticut’s ballot access requirements, as modified by Defendant Lamont’s

1

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 14-1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 2 of 7
recent executive order, severely and unjustifiably burden voters’ First Amendment rights? Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of absent class members and their counsel will adequately and vigorously represent the class. Finally, Rule 23(b)(2) is satisfied because Defendant Lamont’s executive order – and his refusal to take further action – is “on grounds that apply generally to the class” and applies to all voters, as would any injunction or declaration providing relief. I. PROPOSED CLASS DEFINITION
All registered voters in Connecticut. II. PROPOSED CLASS REPRESENTATIVES
The proposed class representatives are the Plaintiffs, active Connecticut registered voters. Their allegations and their affidavits are incorporated by reference. See ECF 8, 9. III. ARGUMENT
Plaintiffs seek class certification under Rule 23, which requires determination of certification “[a]t an early practicable time.” Rule 23(c)(1)(A). “By its terms, [Rule 23] creates a categorical rule entitling a plaintiff whose suit meets the specified criteria to pursue his claim as a class action.” Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 398 (2010). These criteria are met here, so class certification should be granted.
Civil rights actions like this case are particularly amenable to class action treatment. Rule 23 was enacted to “facilitate the bringing of class actions in the civil-rights area.” 7A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure §1775 (3d ed. 2018). The arguments are particularly strong for class action where individuals are unlikely to pursue claims individually. That is this case. Voters are unlikely to bring their own individual claims against to fight onerous state law ballot access requirements. See Campbell v. Bysiewicz, 213 F.Supp.2d 152, 157 (D.Conn. July 23, 2002)
2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 14-1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 3 of 7
(noting that the ballot access laws had “systematically denied Connecticut voters over the last 47 years a direct primary for district and state offices.”).
For these reasons, courts routinely certify voting rights classes comprising all candidates, potential candidates, voters, and potential voters in cases such as this seeking injunctive and declaratory relief from onerous restrictions on the franchise. E.g., Paul v. Indiana Election Bd., 743 F. Supp. 616, 618 (S.D. Ind. 1990) (certifying class of all potential candidates, voters, and potential voters in the State of Indiana in voting case). The challenge of bringing individual cases is exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, making class action all the more appropriate. A. Plaintiffs’ Claim Meets the Prerequisites of Rule 23(a)
1. The proposed class is so numerous that joinder would be impractical. Although there is no “magic number” for numerosity, the Second Circuit has held that a proposed class with as few as 40 class members should raise a presumption that joinder is impracticable based on numbers alone. See, e.g., Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d 931, 936 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing cases and treatise). See also NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS (5th. ed. 2018) §3.12. Numerosity is easily met here, where the class will exceed 1 million Connecticut voters. 2. The proposed class will be adequately represented. To show adequacy, Plaintiffs and their counsel must show they will “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Rule 23(a)(4). For Plaintiffs, that means showing that their interests are not in conflict with the class. “In order to defeat a motion for certification . . . the conflict must be fundamental.” In re Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Sec. Litig., 574 F.3d 29, 35 (2d Cir. 2009). See also Charron v. Wiener, 731 F.3d 241, 251 (2d Cir. 2013). Alleged conflicts must also not be speculative or hypothetical. In re Olsten Corp. Sec. Litig., 3 F. Supp. 2d 286, 296 (E.D.N.Y. 1998), opinion adhered to on reconsideration sub nom. In re Olsten Corp., 181 F.R.D.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 14-1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 4 of 7
218 (E.D.N.Y. 1998). (“The court finds that this alleged conflict is speculative and hypothetical, and should not prevent [appointment of class representatives].”). No conflicts exist here. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical.
In addition, counsel must show that they are qualified, experienced, and able to vigorously conduct this proposed litigation. That is the case here. The plaintiffs have retained Alexander T. Taubes, Esq., a graduate of Yale Law School, who has significant experience in Election Law, Class Actions, and Civil Rights. For those reasons and others counsel satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(g) and should be appointed class counsel.
3. The plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the class. To satisfy typicality, “a class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members.” Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 156 (1982). Typicality is not a demanding standard: “When it is alleged that the same unlawful conduct . . . affected both the named plaintiff and the class . . . the typicality requirement is usually met irrespective of minor variations in the fact patterns underlying individual claims.” Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d 931, 936–37 (2d Cir. 1993). While numerosity and commonality “identify the characteristics that make representative litigation appropriate,” typicality, like adequacy of representation, “focus[es] on the desired attributes of the class’s representative.” NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 3:28 (5th ed.). The requirement is intended “to ensure that the interests of the class representative[s] are closely aligned with those of the class, so that by pursuing [their] own interests the class representative will also promote those of the class.” Id. at § 3:32 (5th ed.). Here typicality is easily met. The class representatives are Connecticut voters suffering the same injury as class members—diminished choices at the ballot box, because potentially
4

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 14-1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 5 of 7
viable candidates are being excluded from the state party primary. Their First Amendment claim is typical – indeed, identical – to all Connecticut voters.
4. Common issues pervade this litigation Rule 23(a)(2) requires that “questions of law or fact” be “common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Commonality requires the identification of an issue that by its nature “is capable of classwide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). A single common issue is sufficient to establish commonality. Id. at 359 (“We quite agree that for purposes of Rule 23(a)(2) even a single common question will do. . . .”) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted). The named plaintiffs’ claims satisfy the commonality requirement because “each class member’s claim arises from the same course of events, and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant’s liability.” Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, LLC, 504 F.3d 229, 245 (2d Cir. 2007). The common claim is that the ballot access laws, as modified by Defendant Lamont’s executive order, violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Many common issues of law and fact predominate over the common claim: the extent to which the ballot access laws, as modified by the order, burden First Amendment rights; the state interests justifying the restrictions; whether to apply strict scrutiny or a lesser scrutiny to the regulations; whether and to what extent the COVID-19 pandemic affects the First Amendment analysis; and many other legal and fact questions are common among Plaintiffs and all Connecticut voters. Of course there are differences among Connecticut voters. Some people eligible to vote may prefer not to vote, while others are enthusiastic about voting, for example. But as courts have
5

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 14-1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 6 of 7
repeatedly recognized, even under the more stringent standards applicable to class actions that seek damages under Rule 23(b)(3), class action treatment is appropriate despite the existence of individual differences among class members. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, --- U.S. ---, 136 S.Ct. 1036, 1045 (2016) (“When one or more of the central issues in the action are common to the class and can be said to predominate, the action may be considered proper under Rule 23(b)(3) even though other important matters will have to be tried separately, such as damages or some affirmative defenses peculiar to some individual class members.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Where as here, the commonalities are readily apparent, Rule 23 is amply satisfied. B. Plaintiffs’ Claim Meets the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(2)
Plaintiffs’ claim fits within Rule 23(b)(2), which applies when “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.” The “prime examples” of Rule 23(b)(2) cases, Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614 (1997), are civil rights cases like this one, where the defendants have engaged in unlawful behavior toward a defined group. The rule applies, moreover, where “a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class” (as opposed, for example, to cases in which each class member would need an individual injunction or declaration, or in which each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of money damages). Dukes, 564 U.S. at 360-61.
Plaintiffs’ First Claim, on which they seek class certification today, satisfies these requirements. Defendants have engaged in unconstitutional behavior toward the entire class. Every member of the class is at risk of being denied “an effective platform for the expression of views
6

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 14-1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 7 of 7

on the issues of the day,” Anderson, supra p. 1, because Defendants’ activities will prevent

legitimate candidates from accessing the ballot for the August 11, 2020 primary elections. And,

because every member of the class is entitled to relief from this unconstitutional conduct, an

appropriate injunction or declaration will provide relief on a class-wide basis. “The key to the

(b)(2) class is the indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted – the notion

that the conduct is such that it can be enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class

members or as to none of them.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 360. That is this case.

IV. CONCLUSION

Class certification should be granted, Plaintiffs should be appointed as class

representatives, and the undersigned should be appointed as class counsel.

Dated: May 18, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

PLAINTIFFS, ANDY GOTTLIEB, LORNA CHAND, RICHARD LACOURCIERE, AND JASON BARTLETT, FOR THEMSELVES AND THE PROPOSED CLASS

By:

/s/

Alexander T. Taubes, Esq.

Federal Bar No.: ct30100

Alexander T. Taubes

470 James Street, Suite 007

New Haven, CT 06513

(203) 909-0048

alextt@gmail.com

Their Attorney

7

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 33

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al. Plaintiffs
v.
NED LAMONT, GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT, DENISE MERRILL, SECRETARY OF THE STATE,
Defendants

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-cv-00623(JCH)

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

JUNE 2, 2020

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
I. INTRODUCTION The State of Connecticut has a compelling state interest in conducting orderly, fair, and
transparent elections. Eu v. San Francisco Democratic Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 233 (1989). To achieve this state interest it may craft regulations that maintain electoral integrity, minimize voter confusion at the ballot box, maintain the integrity of petition circulation, maintain the stability of its political parties, discourage party splintering and factionalism, discourage cross party raiding and manipulation, and ensure electoral finality. Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974) (noting “substantial regulation” of elections is necessary to ensure they are fair, honest, and orderly); see also Castine v. Zurlo, 756 F.3d 171, 177 (2d Cir. 2014); Lerman v. Bd. of Elections of City of New York, 232 F.3d 135, 151 (2d Cir. 2000).
Notwithstanding these compelling state interests, the State’s ability to advance its interests is not limitless and must balance against the rights of individuals and political organizations. When the State seeks to regulate the internal operations of a political party, as, for

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 33
example, Connecticut regulates the Connecticut state branches of the Democratic and Republican parties by, inter alia, requiring those parties hold primary elections, it must do so in a manner that respects their First Amendment associational rights and that of its individual members. This is because political parties are comprised of like-minded individuals who seek to associate to advance political speech and policy goals and, therefore, have their own independent First Amendment rights. Eu, 489 U.S. at 224. The party’s selection of its preferred standard bearer is at the core of these associational rights. Id., at 223-225 (ban on party endorsements affects speech at the core of the electoral process). Thus, states’ regulation of a party’s nomination of candidates cannot exceed what is necessary to ensure “fair and orderly” elections. Id., at 233. Moreover, the state need not, and ought not, seek to protect the political parties from themselves, including by making their party selection process more open. The membership of a political party is fully capable of reaching those decisions on their own terms.
Here, the State of Connecticut has sought to advance its interest in a fair and orderly major party candidate selection process by permitting no less than three opportunities for a candidate to gain the party’s nomination. Exhibit 1, Bromley Decl. ¶11. This process has the approval of the parties themselves and, in the case of the Democratic Party, is a direct reflection of the party’s own written party rules. Bromley Decl. ¶8, Exhibit A (Democratic Party Rules). Plaintiffs — three current or former Democratic candidates for office Andy Gottlieb, Jason W. Bartlett, and Richard Lacourciere (collectively “Plaintiff Candidates”) and the former campaign treasurer for Mr. Gottlieb, Lorna Chand — seek the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction mandating further State encroachment upon the parties’ First Amendment rights to select their candidate in the manner they prefer and control. See ECF No. 8, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory & Injunctive Relief (“Compl.”), pp.16-17,
2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 3 of 33
ECF No. 9, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary or Permanent Injunctive & Declaratory Relief as to First Claim (Ballot Access) (“Motion for PI”), p.3. Such relief, even if available over the objection of the political parties, one of whom has sought intervention, ECF No. 26, Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee’s Motion to Intervene as Defendant (“Democrats’ Motion to Intervene”), is both foreclosed by controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent, New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008) (“Lopez Torres”) and not even required under any measure of fairness. Major party challengers in Connecticut have a fair opportunity to become the major party standard bearer in the November general election under the current system; indeed, they have ample opportunity. The State’s overall statutory scheme, which is the proper context in which to assess this third petitioning option, LaRouche v. Kezer, 990 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. 1993), provides candidates several paths to the party’s nomination. First, a candidate can seek the endorsement at the convention, and if they cannot achieve that goal they have two more chances to override the party endorsement through a showing of 15% support among delegates at the convention or garnering signatures of as few as 9 enrolled party members in a district. Bromley Decl. ¶¶10-11, 34-36. That these Plaintiffs fail to capitalize on these multiple avenues to ballot access, or build the requisite support among their fellow party members, does not render Connecticut’s primary system unconstitutional and certainly does not satisfy the extremely high bar for mandatory injunction relief in the midst of an election cycle.
Connecticut’s three paths to the major party’s nomination: 1) win the endorsement at the convention; 2) win the support of at least 15% of the delegates at the convention; 3) petition on the ballot with the signatures of only 5% of the enrolled party members in the candidate’s district, Bromley Decl. ¶10-11, is so generous that it alone could be dispositive of any constitutional inquiry. However, the constitutional inquiry is made even simpler by Supreme
3

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 4 of 33
Court precedent directly on point. The Supreme Court has held that the State is not required to treat a challenger candidate as favorably as Connecticut does. Neither the State nor the parties are constitutionally required to provide a candidate with the fullest opportunity to win a party’s nomination or even a “realistic chance,” Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. at 204–205, these matters are largely within the purview of the parties and the individuals who set their internal rules, often by vote. See Kozin Decl. ¶12.
Although perhaps Connecticut could mandate the system Plaintiffs seek, and that is hardly a given considering the objection of the political parties, ECF No. 26, Democrats’ Motion to Intervene, that “is a far cry from saying that the Constitution demands it.” Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. at 204-205. Even though a “fair shot” at winning the party’s nomination is not constitutionally required, id., Connecticut’s overall electoral scheme nonetheless provides it. It even, for many candidates, including Mr. Bartlett, Bromley Decl. ¶22, funds their political speech with taxpayer money once they have attained ballot access for the primary. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-700 to 9-759 (Citizens’ Election Program).
The COVID-19 public health crisis does not alter the analysis and it certainly does not compel this Court to step in to impose a primary ballot access requirement more lenient than that approved by the parties or required by the State. Having already considered the burden imposed on candidates by the public health crisis, the State determined that it was appropriate to reduce the number of signatures required for primary ballot access by 30% and permit electronic circulation, collection, and submission of petitions by candidates, which it accomplished by executive order. The parties have not objected to this relaxation of the rules applicable to them. Kozin Decl. ¶15. Indeed, they have sought intervention to defend Connecticut’s electoral scheme and the Executive Order. ECF No. 26, Democrats’ Motion to Intervene.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 5 of 33
Even if the State were required to facilitate a candidate’s “fair shot” at winning the party’s nomination, which it is not, any assertion that the accommodations provided by the State in the Executive Order are insufficient is speculative at this point. Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence to this Court that they have attempted to gather a single signature using the additional methods now permitted or of their efforts at the convention to gain the endorsement or the support of 15% of the delegates. Plaintiffs bear the burden in this case and on this motion. Even if Lopez Torres did not foreclose Plaintiffs’ claims, they would still have to meet the high bar of a clear and substantial showing that the overall electoral scheme severely burdens their ability to gain access to the ballot. Their incomplete and speculative factual record renders such a conclusion inappropriate.
The petitioning process is not a stand-alone path to the ballot but is part of an integrated statutory scheme. See LaRouche v. Kezer, 990 F.2d at 39. As noted, the major parties in Connecticut afford candidates three avenues to appear on the ballot. Prior to even ascertaining whether any of the Plaintiff Candidates would be able to attain ballot access via the more direct avenues, Plaintiffs brought this action challenging the validity of the third, and final, avenue to primary ballot access- petitioning. Indeed, candidates for state and district office could not even request primary petitioning forms until May 26, 2020 — two weeks after Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief with this Court. Bromley Decl. ¶12. As such, the Court has no basis to conclude that a candidate could not successfully attain primary ballot access in Connecticut in 2020.
Given the right of the Democratic Party to establish its own requirements for attaining the party’s nomination, the multiple ways in which Plaintiffs could gain ballot access for a major party, and the failure of Plaintiffs to provide more than cursory speculation as to the difficulty of
5

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 6 of 33
satisfying their party’s requirements, Plaintiffs have not established at this time that they are entitled to the extraordinary relief of an injunction preventing the operation a provision of Connecticut’s overall electoral scheme that facilitates orderly and fraud free elections and respects the major parties’ right to determine which candidates best represent the platform of the party and should appear on the ballot under the party banner. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. at 204– 205, Almontaser v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 519 F.3d 505, 508 (2d Cir. 2008). II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. CONNECTICUT’S OVERALL ELECTORAL SCHEME AFFORDS MAJOR PARTY CANDIDATES MULTIPLE WAYS TO ATTAIN ACCESS TO THE PRIMARY BALLOT.
Connecticut’s overall election scheme is generous, as are the rules of the major parties, including those provisions that apply to primary ballot access for major party challenger candidates. That the State and the parties set the bar so far below the constitutional minimum should not be used as a sword to require them to make the third path to the nomination even easier. In 2018 there were Democratic primaries for 26 offices and Republican primaries for 15 offices, with a combined total of 49 candidates qualifying for primary ballot access without receiving their party’s endorsement. Bromley Decl. ¶17, Exhibit D (Table 2- 2016 & 2018 Primary History). Of those candidates, 18 attained ballot access through the petitioning process. Id. at ¶18, Exhibit D. In the six prior election years, 2006-2016, the number of primaries ranged from 17 to 47, with the vast majority of primaries held for the Democratic Party. Bromley Decl., Exhibits D, E (Table 3- Primary History 2006-2014). This is a far cry from the “highly doubtful” primary ballot access system that Plaintiffs attempt to portray to this Court. ECF No. 9-1, Pl. Br., p.3.
Although the major parties are in many respects self-governing, the requirements for candidates to attain ballot access are codified in Connecticut’s statutes. Pursuant to statute, a
6

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 7 of 33
candidate seeking to run for state or district office under the banner of a major party has three avenues to attain ballot access, each requiring a different showing of support among party members for the candidate: 1) party endorsement, 2) 15% of delegate votes, or 3) petitioning. Bromley Decl. ¶11, Kozin Decl. ¶2.
Major parties in Connecticut are given flexibility in their ability to organize at the local level with some, usually in larger municipalities, electing town committees and others using caucuses. Bromley Decl. ¶4, Exhibits A (Democratic Party Rules), B (Republican Party Rules); Kozin Decl. ¶4 (Democratic Party requires town committees for all municipalities). In turn, those town committees and caucuses select delegates to nominating conventions for state and district offices.1 Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-390, 9-391, Kozin Decl. ¶5. For the 2020 election, selection of delegates to state and district conventions were made by party town committees or caucuses between March 24 and March 31, 2020, and certification of such selections were required to be delivered to the town clerks no later than April 1, 2020. Bromley Decl. ¶9. It is those delegates to whom the local major party members entrust selection of which candidates will best represent the party on the ballot. Id. at ¶10, Kozin Decl. ¶5,6.
In light of the role that nominating convention delegates play in selecting the major parties’ standard bearers, it is no surprise that the primary path to ballot access for most major party candidates is party endorsement at a nominating convention. Kozin Decl. ¶9. To be endorsed by a major party for a state or district office, a candidate must secure a majority of the
1 The ballot access rules in Connecticut vary based on whether the office represents a single town (municipal office) or all or part of multiple towns (district office). Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-372. Party endorsements for municipal office are made at a town level by the party town committee or by a caucus of enrolled party members in the town, which were required to be held between May 19 and May 26, 2020. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-390, 9-391. Due to the differences in nominating procedure, candidates for municipal office must either secure the party endorsement or petition for ballot access. None of the Plaintiff Candidates, however, are attempting to attain ballot access for municipal office.
7

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 8 of 33
votes of the party delegates at a state or district nominating convention, which were required to be held between May 5 and May 26, 2020 for this election cycle. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-382, 9383, Kozin Decl. ¶7. Certifications of party endorsement must be filed with the Secretary of the State within 14 days of the nominating convention. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-388, Kozin Decl. ¶8. If no other candidate attains access to the primary ballot, the endorsed candidate appears on the ballot for the general election. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-416.
Respecting the fact that nominating convention delegates may not be unanimous in their endorsement of a candidate, a candidate for state or district office who fails to garner enough support to achieve party endorsement may still appear on the August primary ballot if they make a modest showing of support from those selected by their party to nominate candidates. Kozin Decl. ¶¶6, 7, 10. To do so, a candidate must garner 15% of the votes of convention delegates in any roll call vote on endorsement of a candidate for the office sought. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-400, Kozin Decl. ¶10. A candidate must file a signed certification with the Secretary of the State with an attestation by the presiding officer or secretary of the convention that the candidate received 15% of the votes within 14 days of the convention. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-400.
Finally, even if a candidate is not the endorsed candidate, and cannot garner a modest showing of support from the delegates to a state or district nominating convention, the candidate may attain primary ballot access if they can evidence a sufficient showing of support from their enrolled party members at large. To make such a showing the candidate must petition for primary ballot access. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-400, Kozin Decl. ¶11. For United States Congress, the petition signature requirement is 2% of enrolled party members in the district. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-400. For the remaining offices on the 2020 ballot, other than United States President,
8

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 9 of 33
the petition signature requirement is 5% of the enrolled party members in the district or town.2 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-400. The first day that candidates may seek petition forms coincides with the final day for nominating conventions, May 26, 2020. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-404a. Candidates have 14 days, until June 9, 2020, to secure signatures and file their petitions with the registrars of voters of the towns in which the petition pages were circulated. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-400. The registrars of voters must then certify the signatures on each petition page against the enrolled party members and file the certification with the Secretary of the State by June 16, 2020. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-404c.
The deadline for submission of petition forms is not arbitrary. Bromley Decl. ¶¶58-60. Immediately after the certification process is complete, and all primary challengers have been identified, the town clerks must begin arranging to have the absentee ballots printed for the primary. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-135b(a). For the 2020 primary, military and overseas ballots must be sent out by the town clerks on June 27, 2020, only 16 days after the original deadline to submit petitions, and 18 days before Plaintiffs would like this Court to extend their petitioning deadline. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-158c; Motion for PI, p.3 (seeking deadline of July 15, 2020). Absentee ballots must be available to voters on July 21, 2020. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-135, 9140(f); Bromley Decl. ¶59. The primary election is scheduled for August 11, 2020. Bromley Decl. ¶59.
B. GOVERNOR LAMONT’S EXECUTIVE ORDER MODIFYING THE PRIMARY PETITIONING PROCESS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSES ANY BURDEN IMPOSED ON MAJOR PARTY CANDIDATES IN GAINING BALLOT ACCESS DUE TO COVID-19
Defendants do not dispute that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on our nation and our state. Indeed, they have acknowledged as much. The virus, and the response 2 For municipal offices there is more flexibility: the signature requirement is 5% or “such lesser number of electors as such party by its rules prescribes.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-406.
9

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 10 of 33
necessary to combat spread of the virus, has impacted almost every aspect of our society and altered the ways in which we, as a community, interact with one another. Nonetheless, the virus has not required cessation of all civic activities. Both public and private entities are learning to adapt to the need to socially distance by engaging in forms of interaction other than face to face meetings, from tele-visits with doctors to town meetings conducted on video-meeting platforms. See, e.g. Executive Order 7B, Mar. 14, 2020 (suspending in person open meeting requirements, permitting videoconferencing as alternative); Executive Order 7F, Mar. 18, 2020 (expanding Medicaid telehealth coverage to audio-only telephone).3 As in other areas, Connecticut should not simply abandon its long-standing regulation of ballot access in the face of the health crisis or its balanced approach to the major party candidate selection process that respects the First Amendment rights of the parties.
According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) the first reported case of COVID-19 in the United States was on January 24, 2020. See CDC, Cases in the U.S., https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html (last visited June 1, 2020). On March 8, 2020, Governor Lamont announced that the first Connecticut resident had tested positive for COVID-19. Press Release: Governor Lamont Announces First Positive Case of Novel Coronavirus Involving a Connecticut Resident, Mar. 8, 2020, available at https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2020/03-2020/GovernorLamont-Announces-First-Positive-Case-of-Novel-Coronavirus-Involving-a-ConnecticutResident.
3 All Connecticut Executive Orders related to the emergency declaration can be found at https://portal.ct.gov/Coronavirus/Pages/Emergency-Orders-issued-by-the-Governor-and-StateAgencies.
10

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 11 of 33
In response to the positive cases of COVID-19 in Connecticut, the high risk of infection, and the current understanding of the fatality rate, Governor Lamont issued a declaration of civil preparedness and public health emergency on March 10, 2020, which shall remain in effect until September 9, 2020 unless terminated earlier by the governor. Declaration of Civil Preparedness and Public Health Emergencies (“Emergency Declaration”), available at https://portal.ct.gov/Coronavirus/Pages/Emergency-Orders-issued-by-the-Governor-and-StateAgencies. The declaration itself did not impose any restrictions. Id. Since that date, Governor Lamont has issued numerous executive orders to protect the health of the state’s residents based upon guidance from public health experts including the CDC. Admittedly, to decrease virus spread, some of the orders seek to curtail activities that would not permit safe social distancing, as recommended by the CDC and other public health experts. See, e.g. Executive Order 7, Mar. 12, 2020 (prohibiting social gatherings larger than 250 people). Other orders, however, seek to permit time-sensitive or ongoing matters to safely proceed within the social distancing guidelines by eliminating or modifying certain statutory requirements. See, e.g. Executive Order 7K, Mar. 23, 2020 (authorizing remote notarization).
As previously noted, for the 2020 election cycle, the major parties held their nominating conventions between May 5 and May 26, 2020. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-382, 9-383. Party endorsements and certifications that candidates received at least 15% of the delegate votes were required to be filed within 14 days of each nominating convention. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-388. The first day the Secretary of the State could issue nominating petition forms for major party candidates was May 26, 2020. Bromley Decl. ¶12. The original deadline for submitting petitions for this election cycle was June 9, 2020. Id. at ¶14.
11

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 12 of 33
On May 11, 2020, prior to the first possible day a major party candidate could request a petitioning form, Governor Lamont issued Executive Order 7LL, Bromley Decl. ¶31, Exhibit F, which altered the petitioning process and associated deadlines. As it relates to major party candidates, the order reduced the number of signatures required by 30% - from 2% of enrolled party members to 1.4% for United States Congress and from 5% of enrolled party members to 3.5% for all other offices. Bromley Decl. ¶33. The order extended the deadline to submit petitions from June 9th to June 11th, also moving the deadline for the registrars of voters to submit verified signature pages to the Secretary of the State by two days, from June 16th to June 18th. Id. at ¶¶32, 59. The order also amended the signature collection process by eliminating the in person signature requirement, permitting a registered voter to mail a signed petition form to the candidate, and also permitting a registered voter to scan or otherwise photograph a signed petition form and email it to a candidate. Id. at ¶38.
The petitioning requirements set forth in the Executive Order afford many more avenues of circulation than previously permitted by statute. Bromley Decl. ¶¶38-45. Although the statute governing nominating petition forms has not been amended, as made clear in guidance issued by the Secretary of the State, Bromley Decl. ¶40, Exhibit H, candidates may submit the petition application by mail or electronically by email to the Secretary or registrar of voters. Id. at ¶41. The Secretary of registrar of voters will promptly review the application received and send the petitioning forms to the candidate directly by mail or electronically. Id. Guidance also makes clear that a candidate may distribute petition forms to voters in a variety of ways that were previously not permitted: mailing petition forms to voters, emailing petition forms to voters, posting the petition form on a campaign website where voters can print the form, and posting the petition form on social media sites such as Facebook. Id. at ¶42. The candidate is not required
12

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 13 of 33
to personally distribute the petition forms—other individuals may do so on the candidate’s behalf. Id. at ¶43. Candidates are also able to seek signatures in person consistent with current social distancing requirements. Id. at ¶42.
Thanks to the social distancing measures taken by Connecticut residents, and where necessary mandated by state executive order, the rate of infection and the number of hospitalizations due to COVID-19 has declined for the past several weeks. Executive Order 7PP, May 18, 2020 (noting decline in hospitalizations). Therefore, the State has begun the steps necessary to reduce the restrictions imposed to enforce social distancing measures. On May 20, 2020, prior to the earliest possible date to begin primary petitioning, many nonessential businesses were permitted to reopen with certain restrictions. Id. For example, in addition to delivery and take-away service, restaurants may now offer outside dining and nonessential retail businesses may open with reductions in maximum occupancy consistent with those already in place for essential retail. Id. If hospitalization rates and other measures related to the virus continue to track favorably, the State anticipates further reducing restrictions imposed to prevent spread of COVID-19.
In contrast to minor party and unaffiliated candidates, some of whom had begun the petitioning process prior to or during the peak of the COVID-19 public health crisis, the petitioning process for major party candidates began after the State had already begun the process of “reopening.” Further, major party candidates seeking to petition on to the primary ballot have had the benefit of being aware of and able to prepare in advance to utilize the additional signature gathering methods permitted by Executive Order 7LL. Kozin Decl. ¶15.
According to their affidavits, Mr. Bartlett intends to seek ballot access as the Democratic candidate for the 10th State Senate District and Mr. Lacourciere intends to seek ballot access as
13

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 14 of 33
the Democratic candidate for the 24th State Assembly District. ECF No. 9-3, Bartlett Aff., ¶2; ECF No. 9-4, Lacourciere Aff. ¶3. It is unclear from Mr. Gottlieb’s affidavit whether he intends to run for any office at all. Although he previously attempted to attain primary ballot access for an unidentified state senate district in 2018, he does not aver that he intends to seek ballot access this year. ECF No. 9-2, Gottlieb Aff. ¶5. As of June 1, of the Plaintiffs only Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Lacourciere have taken out petitioning papers, for the 10th State Senate District and the 24th State Senate District. Bromley Decl. ¶¶25, 26, Exhibit C (Table 1- 2020 Primary Petition Candidates). As a result of Executive Order 7LL, the number of signatures necessary to secure primary ballot access for Mr. Bartlett is 1,028 and for Mr. Lacourciere is 192. Id. at ¶¶25, 26, Exhibit C. In addition to Mr. Barlett and Mr. Lacourciere, 6 candidates have taken out primary petitioning papers—2 Republicans and 4 Democrats—including Plaintiffs’ lawyer, Alex Taubes, for the 11th State Senate District. Id., Exhibit C. Their signature requirements range from as few as 89 signatures for a state assembly district to a high of 3,546 for United States Congress. Id. As of June 1, 2020, seven candidates—4 Democrats and 3 Republicans—have also submitted certifications that they received at least 15% of the delegate votes at a nominating convention. Id.
Given the multiple avenues for major party candidates to attain ballot access provided by Connecticut’s overall electoral scheme, the substantial modifications to the petitioning requirements made by the State in response to COVID-19, and the ability of candidates to take steps to prepare to use the new methods of signature gathering now permitted, the facts, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, do not satisfy the high burden required for the type of extraordinary mandatory injunctive relief they seek.
14

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 15 of 33
III. STANDARD A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy.” UBS Fin. Servs. v. W. Va. Univ.
Hosps., Inc., 660 F.3d 643, 648 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008)); see also Sussman v. Crawford, 488 F.3d 136, 139 (2d Cir. 2007) (describing preliminary injunction as “extraordinary and drastic remedy”). A movant must show, beyond “irreparable” harm or injury, a “likelihood of [ultimate] success” where, as here, the preliminary injunction would affect “governmental action taken in the public interest pursuant to a statutory or regulatory scheme.” Red Earth LLC v. United States, 657 F.3d 138, 143 (2d Cir. 2011). That “likelihood of success” standard is heightened further to a “clear” or “substantial” showing of such a likelihood of ultimate success where, as here, plaintiffs seek a mandatory preliminary injunction that would “alter, rather than maintain, the status quo.” Almontaser v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 519 F.3d at 508. And that heightened standard of likelihood of ultimate success becomes even higher where, again, as here, the preliminary injunction “(1) would provide the plaintiff with ‘all the relief that is sought and (2) could not be undone by a judgment favorable to defendants on the merits at trial.” Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30, 35 (2d Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Finally, the preliminary injunction movant must also show “that the public’s interest weighs in favor of granting an injunction.” Red Earth LLC, 657 F.3d at 143. The decision to either grant or withhold equitable relief “rests in the sound discretion of the court.” Petrol. Expl., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Ky., 304 U.S. 209, 218 (1938).
Plaintiffs’ request for mandatory preliminary injunctive relief is based on a flawed understanding of the law and an entirely inadequate factual record. Plaintiffs fundamentally
15

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 16 of 33
misunderstanding the role of the State in the determination of a party’s standard bearer, asserting that the State has a duty to guarantee them a fair shot at becoming their party’s candidate where no such duty exists. Plaintiffs factual record is pure speculation. At the time of their affidavits, it was still speculation whether Plaintiff Candidates would fail to achieve endorsement by their party and that they would not even be able to attain the support of 15% of party delegates. Although those events have since come to pass, on the basis of the affidavits provided by Plaintiffs in support of their motion, it is still speculation as to how difficult it will be to gather signatures under the relaxed petitioning requirements of Executive Order 7LL. Such speculation falls far short of the heightened showing necessary for mandatory preliminary injunctive relief— a clear or substantial likelihood of ultimate success and proof that the public’s interest requires the injunction. Nor is it even clear that denial of a preliminary injunction at this point will result in irreparable injury, with more than half of the window remaining for candidates to gather signatures. Further, in the absence of even a single attempt to gather a signature, it is remarkable that the Plaintiffs come to this Court and claim that they have suffered an injury that is actual and imminent, and not remote. They clearly have failed to demonstrate anything beyond their own self-serving and carefully tailored conjecture and speculation of what is likely to occur if they were to diligently attempt to comply with the relaxed petitioning requirements. See Rodriguez ex. Rel. Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 175 F.3d 227, 234 (2d Cir. 1999). IV. DISCUSSION
A. THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED TO REGULATE THE MAJOR PARTIES’ INTERNAL CANDIDATE SELECTION TO IMPROVE THE PROSPECTS OF PARTY CHALLENGERS, EVEN DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.
The State of Connecticut may regulate the candidate selection process of Connecticut political parties to the extent necessary to ensure “fair and honest” elections. Eu v. San
16

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 17 of 33
Francisco Democratic Comm., 489 U.S. at 231 (noting that a state’s interest in “fair and honest” elections is a subset of the state’s interest in electoral integrity) (citing Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. at 724, 730). To achieve this goal, it is permitted to regulate access to the ballot and to require political parties to hold primary elections so as to permit enrolled party members—and not just convention delegates—to have a say in selecting the party’s nominee. Eu v. San Francisco Democratic Comm., 489 U.S. at 231. However, while a state may structure and monitor the methods of political parties to select their candidates by, for example, requiring primary elections, Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581, 586 (2005) (upholding state ban on cross-party primary voting), it may not unduly encroach upon the party’s control of its own internal operations and candidate selection process. Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 572 (2000) (striking down a blanket primary—an election permitting unaffiliated voters to cast a vote in a party’s primary— as unconstitutional because it violated political parties’ right to “not associate” with members of other political parties). In light of the State interest in maintaining party stability, Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. at 736, it need not effectively promote intra-party challengers, such as Plaintiffs, which the party may properly seek to regulate internally. Eu v. San Francisco Democratic Comm., 489 U.S. at 227; see Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 368 (1997) (states have an interest in preventing “splintered parties and unrestrained factionalism” to avoid “significant damage to the fabric of government” by undermining the stability of their political systems and the integrity of the ballot). Kozin Decl. ¶¶ 2, 9, 12, 16, 17.
Recent Supreme Court decisions make increasingly clear, and with growing force, that a state may not encroach upon the parties’ candidate selection process. Although a state may require parties to conduct primary elections or conventions, Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530
17

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 18 of 33
U.S. at 572, American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 779- 781 (1974), it cannot dictate all facets of the nomination process. Eu v. San Francisco Democratic Comm., 489 U.S. at 229. States may not regulate the manner in which parties select nominating convention delegates and presidential electors. Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. at 359 (citing Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975)). States may not require political parties to associate with unaffiliated voters by opening their primaries to all registered voters. Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567. States also may not prohibit political parties from associating with unaffiliated voters in the party’s primary election if the party wishes to do so. Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986) (finding an unconstitutional violation of the state Republican Party’s right of political association by a state law that prohibited the party from allowing independent voters to participate in the party primary). In short, Connecticut’s political parties have a First Amendment right to limit their membership as they wish and to establish a candidate-selection process that best achieves their parties’ participation and policy goals. Democratic Party of U.S. v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107, 122 (1981); Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. at 574–575; Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. at 202–03. The First Amendment does not give party members lacking a base of support within the party itself the right to compel the State to do their bidding and encroach further upon the party’s rights so as to provide them with a more hospitable political environment.
In the context of these well-established party rights and limitations on state regulation of the party candidate selection process, it is unsurprising that the Supreme Court rejected an analogous claim in Lopez Torres, namely, that a state must impose upon the parties a candidate selection process “more favorable to insurgents.” Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. at 205. “To be sure, [the Supreme Court has] permitted States to set their faces against ‘party bosses’ by requiring
18

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 19 of 33
party-candidate selection through processes more favorable to insurgents, such as primaries.” Id. But permitting states to do so “is a far cry from saying that the Constitution demands it.” Id. Courts should refrain from imposing their judgment as to whether a party challenger has a “‘fair shot’ at winning the party’s nomination.” Id. 552 U.S. at 206. The determination of what constitutes a ‘fair shot’ is a legislative one, which courts should “accept so long as it does not too much infringe upon the party’s associational rights.” Id. Indeed, in the context of general election ballot access, the Supreme Court has noted that there is no “constitutional imperative [for states] to . . . ‘handicap’ an unpopular candidate to increase the likelihood that the candidate will gain access to the general election ballot.” Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189, 198 (1986). The same logic applies with equal, if not greater, force to the state’s role in determining the process for a political party to select its chosen candidate.
Plaintiffs entirely ignore Lopez Torres, instead relying almost exclusively on an older District of Connecticut case, Campbell v. Byziewicz, 213 F.Supp.2d 152 (D. Conn. July 23, 2002). Campbell is not binding on this Court nor is it even clear that it is the correct application of the law in light of the Supreme Court’s subsequent holding in Lopez Torres. Further, even if this Court were to look to Campbell, it is not “essentially indistinguishable” from this case, as Plaintiffs contend. Pl. Br., p. 2. In the years since Campbell, numerous candidates have attained primary ballot access each election through both the 15% delegate requirement that was deemed insufficient by the court in Campbell and the subsequently enacted petitioning requirement, including for state offices like governor and attorney general. Bromley Decl. ¶17, Exhibits D, E. This is far from the record before the court in Campbell. Campbell v. Byziewicz, at 156 (noting that only one person had successfully navigated the primary ballot access system against an incumbent for U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senate, Governor, or Secretary of the State in
19

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 20 of 33
47 years); see also LaRouche v. Kezer, 990 F.2d at 39 (where state affords more than one method to attain ballot access, under “the totality approach if either alternative would be constitutional standing alone, the other must be viewed as broadening the opportunities for ballot access and is fortiori constitutional.”). So even if Campbell were entitled to the heavy weight Plaintiffs accord it, which is doubtful in light of Lopez Torres, Connecticut’s current electoral scheme compares favorably with the holdings of Campbell.
By ignoring Lopez Torres, Plaintiffs also ignore the Supreme Court’s admonition that when a state regulates the manner in which a political party selects its candidates, it is “the party’s associational rights [that] are at issue (if at all).” Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. at 203. Individuals, such as Plaintiffs, who wish to be their party’s chosen candidate may only assert “their own claimed associational right” and there is no basis in law to conclude that their individual associational right requires the State to ensure that they can “not only join, but to have a certain degree of influence in, the party.” Id. at 203-204 (emphasis in original). Nor do Plaintiffs have a right as voters to see a candidate appear on the ballot in a primary under the banner of a particular political party. See, e.g. Maslow v. Bd. of Elections in City of New York, 658 F.3d 291, 297–98 (2d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 1275 (2012). Looking at the entire ballot access scheme, Plaintiffs, and the voters they purport to represent as a class, “still retain[] their right to express their political views by supporting other Democratic nominees, even if they could not nominate [a specific candidate]” nor was there anything to prevent any of the Plaintiffs from timely changing their party affiliation and following the ballot access requirements to attain ballot access under another party’s banner, or as an unaffiliated candidate, whereby voters could still vote for them on the ballot.” LaRouche v. Fowler, 152 F.3d 974, 993-94 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
20

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 21 of 33
The changes to Connecticut’s primary process enacted in Executive Order 7LL do not alter the conclusion that Connecticut’s primary ballot access requirements are permissible and constitutional. The order was a rational response to the COVID-19 crisis and preserved the ability of challenger candidates to seek ballot access for the primary. Kozin Decl. ¶15. Mindful of the limitations social distancing impose on the way people interact, the order affords candidates additional avenues to secure petition signatures by eliminating the need for in person circulation of petitions, permitting candidates to distribute petitions through mail, email, and other electronic medium, and permitting voters to return signed petitions by mail or email to candidates. Bromley Decl. ¶¶38-40. The order also reduces the signature requirements by 30%, from 2% to 1.4% for United States Congress and from 5% to 3.5% for all other state and district offices. Id. at ¶33. Further, the order provided two additional days for candidates to secure signatures. Id. at ¶32. Although this does not seem like a significant amount of time, each additional day shortens the period of time available to the registrars of voters to validate petition signatures, return the results to the Secretary of the State, and for the town clerks to then print and mail overseas ballots. Id. at ¶¶58-59. Moreover, the new electronic process means candidates are not required to travel to government buildings and spend time submitting and verifying petition pages during regular business hours. Id. at ¶46. That time can now be spent gathering petition signatures in person and online, with people available to be online 24 hours a day.
Plaintiffs’ argument that a few states have made it even easier for candidates to attain primary ballot access in response to COVID-19, Pl. Br., p.10, is unavailing. Even if this Court were to consider other state’s responses to COVID-19, which is unnecessary in the context of major party primary ballot access, Plaintiffs provide no meaningful analysis of other state’s
21

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 22 of 33
responses, ignoring entirely the states, such as Massachusetts, that have not permitted the online collection of digital signatures, and failing to consider whether the states that do permit such a process, such as “docu-sign,” during the COVID-19 crisis already had those systems in place, making the transition for ballot access petitioning a “minimal burden” for them. See Goldstein v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 484 Mass. 516 (Sup. Jud. Ct. Apr. 17, 2020) (permitting a signature gathering process almost identical to Connecticut).
Although Lopez Torres demonstrates that the state and parties need not accord a “fair shot” to candidates, Connecticut does so and the Executive Order continues to afford a candidate more than a fair shot. In the election years from 2006 to 2018, no fewer than 17 primaries were held in any election year, with fewer primaries typically held in years with fewer state offices on the ballot. Bromley Decl. ¶¶17-18, Ex. D, E. In 2018, 49 candidates successfully attained primary ballot access by garnering 15% of the delegate votes or petitioning, including five gubernatorial candidates, three attorney general candidates, one United States Senate candidate, and three United States Congressional candidates, all of which have far greater signature requirements than the offices for which Plaintiffs seek ballot access. Id. at ¶18, Ex. D. Indeed, candidates also have attained primary ballot access for the office of governor in 2006, 2010, and 2014; for United States Senate in 2006, 2010, and 2012; for United States Congress in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014. Id., Ex. E. For the 2020 election, there are no state offices or United States Senate offices on the ballot. Nonetheless, 7 candidates – 4 Democrats and 3 Republicans – have already attained primary ballot access by garnering 15% of the delegates votes for the relevant office at a nominating convention. Id., Ex. C. Because the last date on which a primary could beheld was May 26, 2020, and candidates have 14 days to file certification of having attained 15% of delegate votes, it is too soon to know whether any
22

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 23 of 33
additional candidates attained primary ballot access with 15% of delegate votes. Further, with the deadline for submitting petition signatures to the registrars of voters still 9 days away, and the deadline for the registrars of voters to submit the certified petitions to the Secretary of the State 16 days away, it is far too soon to know how many candidates seeking to attain primary ballot access by petitioning will succeed.
The Tenth Circuit recently applied the reasoning of Lopez Torres and found that Utah could permissibly require its two minor parties to hold primaries for their candidates, a requirement Connecticut does not have, and that petitioning thresholds for those primaries were not unduly burdensome. Utah Republican Party v. Cox, 892 F.3d 1066, 1079 (10th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1290 (2019). Similarly, the Ninth Circuit applied Lopez Torres and upheld Alaska’s mandatory direct primary system, noting that while the state could require a primary system, rather than nominating conventions, the political parties had “considerable freedom” under Alaskan law “to determine who may vote to select their nominee.” Alaskan Independence Party v. Alaska, 545 F.3d 1173, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008). Utah Republican Party and Alaskan Independence Party demonstrate that while a state may have latitude to exert even greater control over a party’s nomination process than Connecticut does, it is not constitutionally mandated to do so.
B. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO PROVIDE THIS COURT WITH ANY EVIDENCE OF THE BURDEN IMPOSED ON THEM BY APPLICATION OF CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES §§ 9-400 & 9-404B, AS MODIFIED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 7LL
Even if this Court were to consider whether §§ 9-400 & 9-404b, as modified by Executive Order 7LL, give Plaintiffs a “fair shot” at primary ballot access, which it is not required to do, Plaintiffs cannot establish that candidates, such as Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Lacourciere, would be unable to attain ballot access in 2020. It is not yet determined whether
23

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 24 of 33
Plaintiffs, or any other major party candidates, will succeed in availing themselves of the opportunities Connecticut’s overall electoral scheme provides to them. Prestia v. O’Connor, 178 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1999). In the absence of this showing, they can hardly demonstrate a constitutional harm warranting injunctive relief. Person v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 467 F.3d 141, 144 (2d Cir. 2006) (affirming denial of preliminary injunction and noting an array of constitutional ballot access restrictions).
At its core, Plaintiffs’ argument is that the ballot access requirements for major party candidates in Connecticut are difficult in the best of times, and even more so now. The former finds no support outside of Plaintiff Candidates’ own subjective experience with campaigning. The latter is pure speculation.
Plaintiffs would like this Court to assume that their own experience is representative of all major party candidates, going so far as to seek class certification, and suggest that the primary ballot access statutes are unconstitutional even absent the current public health crisis, Pl. Br., p.3, and that they place “severe burdens on the rights of candidates and voters.” Gottlieb Aff. ¶3. Mr. Lacourciere does not attest to any previous political experience, providing no basis for his opinions on the difficultly of attaining primary ballot access.4 Lacourciere Aff. ¶¶9-10. Mr. Bartlett served as campaign manager for numerous candidates, dating as far back as 1999, and has run many successful petition campaigns. Bartlett Aff. ¶9. Plaintiffs even go so far as to tout him as “one of the most sophisticated political operatives” in Connecticut. Pl. Br. p.4, Bromley Decl. ¶19. Mr. Gottlieb attempted to attain primary ballot access for a state senate seat by
4 Plaintiffs title all three Plaintiff Candidates’ affidavits as “Verified Affidavit and/or Expert Report.” Bartlett Aff. p.1, Gottlieb Aff. p.1, Lacourciere Aff. p.1. Absent any mention of prior political or petitioning experience, it is unclear what subject Plaintiffs believe Mr. Lacourciere is an expert of or his qualifications. Averring to one prior unsuccessful primary petition campaign, Gottlieb Aff. ¶5, it is also unclear what subject Mr. Gottlieb is offered as an expert on.
24

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 25 of 33
petitioning in 2018, but “fell just short of the signatures required.” Gottlieb Aff. ¶5. In 2018 there were Democratic primaries for 26 offices and Republican primaries for 15 offices, with a combined total of 49 candidates qualifying for primary ballot access without receiving their party’s endorsement. Bromley Decl. ¶18, Ex. D. Of those candidates, 18 attained ballot access through the petitioning process. Id. at ¶18, Ex. D. The 2018 primary election included primaries for, among other offices, governor, attorney general, and United States senate, all of which have petition signature requirement far greater than for a state senate seat. Id., Exhibits D, G (2020 Primary Signature Requirements). From 2006 to 2016, there were no fewer than 17 primaries in any election year. Id. at ¶17, Ex. D, E. Far from an insurmountable hurdle to ballot access, the history of Connecticut primaries and Mr. Bartlett’s own experience show that the major party petitioning requirements are routinely satisfied by candidates.
Plaintiffs’ contention that as a result of the COVID-19 public health crisis the petitioning requirements, as modified by Executive Order 7LL, are impossible to satisfy is pure speculation. When they filed their motion, Plaintiff Candidates did not even know if they would need to petition to attain ballot access and the first date to request petitioning papers had not passed. They were poised to concede failure before their conventions even opened. Therefore, Plaintiffs had not attempted to gather a single signature when they sought this Court’s intervention.
Even now, almost half-way through the petitioning period, of the Plaintiffs only Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Lacourciere have taken out petitioning papers. Bromley Decl. ¶¶25-27. Mr. Bartlett is an experienced political operator having both successfully run for office and served as campaign manager to numerous Democratic candidates who sought ballot access through petitioning. Bartlett Aff. ¶¶4, 9. Indeed, Mr. Bartlett is the elected Democratic state central committee member representing New Haven and West Haven for the 10th State Senate District.
25

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 26 of 33
Id. at ¶4, see Kozin Decl. ¶3 (noting that state central committee is “the governing body of the Connecticut Democratic Party”). Nonetheless, because Mr. Bartlett worked for former New Haven Mayor Toni Harp and local party leadership supported her opponent, Mr. Bartlett now believes that his only path to primary ballot access is petitioning. Bartlett Aff. ¶¶6-8. Although Mr. Lacourciere has no prior political experience, his petitioning threshold is also much lower; to successfully petition he only must secure 192 signatures. Bromley Decl. ¶26, Exhibit C.
Plaintiffs essentially wish for this Court to take their word that petitioning will be too difficult without providing any evidence that anyone has attempted to attain a single signature using the additional signature gathering methods now permitted. Mr. Lacourciere does not attest to having ever worked on a candidate’s petitioning campaign. Lacourciere Aff. ¶¶7-8. Mr. Gottlieb’s affidavit is no better. He speculates, without any evidence, that requiring voters to sign a petition and then either mail the signed petition or scan and email it “puts the process out of reach for all but the most determined and well-resourced voters.” Gottlieb Aff. ¶28.
Although Mr. Bartlett has far more political experience than the other Plaintiffs, his affidavit too is nothing more than speculation and flawed assumptions. First, Mr. Bartlett incorrectly assumes that in person petitioning is “impossible” at this time. Bartlett Aff. ¶10. This is simply incorrect. Although in person petitioning may require different measures than in prior election cycles, none of the executive orders issued in response to COVID-19 prohibit in person petitioning. As of May 20, 2020, Connecticut has begun “reopening.” Individuals should still maintain a safe distance from one another, and wear a mask, but there is nothing prohibiting candidates or volunteers from holding an in person conversation with voters. So long as a single petitioner signs their name to a petition form, the normal requirements for circulators to personally witness the signature and attest to that fact do not apply. Bromley Decl. ¶¶38-39.
26

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 27 of 33
Thus, a candidate or volunteer is no longer required to be in close proximity to the voter when he or she signs a petition form. Id. at ¶39. Presumably, there are any number of ways in which an individual could make available petition forms to voters and the voter could return the form, without physically passing the form back and forth. Id. at ¶48. For example, forms could be available at a table with a box with a slot in the lid to place the completed form in, with the circulator sanitizing the table and pens after each signature. The mere fact that the in person interaction would look different than in prior years is not evidence that it would be ineffective. Moreover, it is undisputable that political action and civil engagement never ceased in Connecticut. See, e.g. https://ctmirror.org/2020/04/06/a-noisy-protest-then-prison-chiefconfirms-he-has-been-reducing-inmate-population/ (last viewed June 1, 2020). In recent days, thousands of people have come together to in cities across Connecticut to speak out on important matters of public concern. See https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-georgefloyd-connecticut-protest-84-20200531-20200531-iqrb2lcypvewddnaqgg6wysxmustory.html#nt=oft-Double%20Chain~Flex%20Feature~homepage-mainchain~centerpiece~~1~yes-art~curated~curatedpage (last viewed June 1, 2020).
Even if this Court were to conclude that in person signature gathering is too burdensome due to COVID-19, candidates are not limited to in person signature gathering. Bromley Decl. ¶¶42, 44. Mr. Bartlett devotes a single paragraph to his explanation of the burden imposed by the additional signature gathering methods now permitted by Executive Order 7LL. Bartlett Aff. ¶17. In doing so, he avers that “[t]he supposed alternative to an in-person paper petition drive requires the voter to be either mailed a petition or requires candidates to email the petition to the voter, which is unlikely because voters’ email addresses are rarely provided in applications to register to vote and are therefore not public information,” Id. Mr. Bartlett’s interpretation of the
27

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 28 of 33
petitioning requirements is far narrower than the language in the Executive Order, as evidenced by the guidance offered by the Secretary of the State. Bromley Decl., Exhibit H. In addition to mail and email, a candidate may also make their petitioning form available to voters on a campaign website or through social media. Bromley Decl. ¶42, Exhibit H. A candidate serious about attaining primary ballot access would use as many options as possible to secure signatures. Particularly for offices with low petitioning thresholds, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that a diligent candidate would attempt to contact enrolled party members in the relevant district in as many ways as possible. Id. at ¶51-52. Candidates, and volunteers on their behalf, may send mail, email, or engage in online outreach during at any hour of the day or night from any location. Id. at ¶¶43-43, 51-52. Concededly, electronic circulation and collection of signatures has not been common within the context of ballot access petitions prior to 2020. However, the use of mail, email, websites, and social media by political parties is far from novel. Even the United States Census may be completed online. See my2020census.gov. Households may also respond to the Census by mailing back the questionnaire sent to each home or by phone. See https://www.2020census.gov/en/ways-to-respond/responding-by-mail.html.
Mr. Bartlett also assumes that candidates will be unable to learn the email addresses of enrolled party members. Bartlett Aff. ¶17. In making this assumption, Mr. Bartlett ignores the ability of candidates and volunteers to reach out to voters personally known to them to solicit support. Bromley Decl. ¶¶51-52. A candidate or volunteer could provide the petition form to the voter in a number of ways after speaking with them: directing them to a website where they might download the petition, mailing the form to them, or even leaving the form at the voter’s door. The volunteer could also follow up if the form is not returned. There is no limit on the number of volunteers a candidate may use and without the in person requirement volunteers do
28

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 29 of 33
not even need to be in Connecticut to reach out to voters. Id. at ¶52. Even for offices with higher signature thresholds, a small number of volunteers could easily divide the labor and attain sufficient signatures. Id. at ¶¶54-57. For a candidate like Mr. Bartlett, who has a long history of participation with the Democratic Party in Connecticut, including having worked for the previous mayor of New Haven, and who is currently an elected Democratic state central committee member, it strains credulity that he would have no support in his petition campaign and no means of contacting party members in his district.
Mr. Bartlett also incorrectly concludes that a candidate may only submit hard copies of petition pages to his or her registrar of voters, which would require a candidate to print each signed petition received electronically, along with the associated email. Bartlett Aff. ¶17. This is simply incorrect. The Secretary’s guidance on this has been posted since May 14, 2020 and could not be clearer on this point. Bromley Decl.¶40, Exhibit H. A candidate may submit signed petitions received via email to the registrar of voters in an email; the candidate is only required to submit original hard copies of petition pages that were returned to the candidate in hard copy. Bromley Decl. ¶46. That Plaintiff Bartlett would so willfully ignore this guidance in order to assert a hardship is revealing of the likely contrived nature of his purported “irreparable” harm. In light of the numerous incorrect assumptions made by Mr. Bartlett, this Court should accord no weight to the vague statement that the “new process is cumbersome and costly.” Bartlett Aff. ¶17.
Plaintiffs also contend that they are harmed because “a ballot access method takes time to plan for and organize.” Pl. Br., p.8. The need to plan, however, does not establish irreparable harm. Kozin Decl. ¶¶9, 15. Indeed, just the opposite is true because Plaintiffs have had adequate time to plan for the additional methods of signature gathering permitted by Executive
29

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 30 of 33
Order 7LL. Plaintiffs had over two weeks to plan and organize for an electronic petitioning drive from when Executive Order 7LL was issued. The order was issued on May 11, 2020; petitions became available for primary candidates on May 26, 2020. That was more than a twoweek period to begin gathering email and physical addresses for registered Democrats in their districts, training campaign volunteers and any paid campaign workers, and doing outreach to inform the community of the new process. Plaintiffs could have used that time to line up supporters so that they were ready to sign the petition or help with petitioning on the very first day. Indeed, Plaintiffs likely knew well before May 11, 2020 that the additional petitioning methods were a real possibility in Connecticut in 2020. Massachusetts had gone a similar route for primary petitions on April 17, 2020. See Goldstein v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 484 Mass. 516 (Sup. Jud. Ct. Apr. 17, 2020). Plaintiffs also should have been aware as early as March 10, 2020 when the governor declared a public health emergency, that signature gathering would require a different approach for the 2020 election due to COVID-19. With that awareness they could have begun planning for a petitioning campaign months before the petitioning period began while, at the same time, doing their upmost to attain ballot access through either of the methods that would avoid the need for signature gathering at all- party endorsement or 15% of the delegate votes. Kozin Decl. ¶9. Their evidence does not address whether they undertook these reasonable and diligent efforts to adapt to the new “normal” that everyone is experiencing right now.
In essence, Plaintiffs cannot meet their high burden to demonstrate that the reduced number of petition signatures using the additional circulation methods authorized by Executive Order 7LL, combined with the existing methods of attaining ballot access through endorsement or delegate support, are so burdensome at this time as to prevent a candidate from attaining ballot
30

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 31 of 33
access because they have not even attempted to comply with the requirements. In their speculative opinion, any attempt to comply with the requirements would simply divert their resources from “being able to plan for a meaningful alternative form of ballot access,” Bartlett Aff. ¶21, or, in other words, the form of ballot access that they believe is better for them.
Plaintiffs’ claim of a First Amendment harm to voters, including themselves, resulting from Executive Order 7LL is equally speculative and attenuated. Voters’ First Amendment right to associate with a “field of candidates” typically refers to a right at the general election, and not a right implicated by the “field vying for a party’s nomination.” Maslow v. Bd. of Elections in City of New York, 658 F.3d at 297–98 (citing Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. at 207); Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992); Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 782 (1983); American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968). Here, there is no evidence that enrolled party members did not have the ability to associate with these candidates at the nominating conventions, either as delegates or supporters to assist them in achieving the endorsement or at least 15% of the delegate votes. Nor is there any evidence that a single enrolled party member interested in supporting one of the candidates was prevented from signing a petition using any of the many methods now permitted by Executive Order 7LL.
It is beyond dispute that although states may regulate to some extent the manner in which parties select their candidates, including requiring primaries, a state is not constitutionally required to impose upon the parties a candidate selection process “more favorable to insurgents,” or even one that affords candidates a “fair shot.” Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. at 205. Nonetheless, in response to the COVID-19 public health crisis, Connecticut has both reduced the threshold necessary to gain ballot access for petitioning primary candidates and afforded candidates their
31

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 32 of 33 “fair shot” through additional avenues to seek petition signatures. Plaintiffs entirely ignore Lopez Torres, and instead wish for this Court to supplant both the Democratic Party’s determination of how it wishes to select its candidates and the State’s reasoned determination of the modifications necessary due to COVID-19 with Plaintiffs’ self-serving opinion as to what primary access method would be optimal for them. Plaintiffs must do more than speculate about the effectiveness of the available paths to ballot access in order to justify the removal of Connecticut from the regulation of its own elections and of the Democratic Party from the determination of its own candidates. They do not even aver that they have attempted to collect a single signature using the methods permitted by Executive Order 7LL. As such, they fall far short of meeting their burden to establish that they are substantially likely to prevail on the merits of their claims. Almontaser v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 519 F.3d at 508.
32

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28 Filed 06/02/20 Page 33 of 33
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary or permanent
injunction enjoining the application of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-400, and related statutes, as
modified by Executive Order 7LL, should be denied.
Respectfully Submitted, DEFENDANTS NED LAMONT, GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT DENISE MERRILL, SECRETARY OF THE STATE WILLIAM TONG ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: /s/ Maura Murphy Osborne Maura Murphy Osborne(ct19987) Alma R. Nunley (ct30610) Michael K. Skold (ct28407) Assistant Attorneys General 165 Capitol Ave., 5th Floor Hartford, CT 06106 Tel: (860) 808-5020 Fax: (860) 808-5347 Maura.MurphyOsborne@ct.gov Alma.Nunley@ct.gov Michael.Skold@ct.gov
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on June 2, 2020, a copy of the foregoing Memorandum in Opposition
was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of
the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.
/s/ Maura Murphy Osborne Assistant Attorney General
33

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 116
EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 116

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al.

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

NED LAMONT, GOVERNOR OF THE :

STATE OF CONNECTICUT, and

:

DENISE MERRILL, SECRETARY OF :

THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

:

Defendants

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-00623(JCH) JUNE 2, 2020

DECLARATION OF THEODORE E. BROMLEY

I, Theodore E. Bromley, hereby declare as follows:

1. I submit this Declaration in support of Defendants Secretary of the State Denise

Merrill (“the Secretary”) and Governor Ned Lamont (“the Governor”) in Gottlieb v. Lamont, No.

3:20-cv-00623 (JCH). I have compiled the information in the statements below through personal

knowledge, the Connecticut Secretary of the State (“SOTS”) personnel who assisted me in

gathering the information from our agency, or on the basis of documents I have reviewed. I also

have familiarized myself with the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and Motions for

Preliminary Injunction as to Count 1 in this case in order to understand them and how the relief

sought by Plaintiffs will impact SOTS, voters, candidates and other election officials in the

administration of the 2020 elections. See ECF Nos. 8 and 9

2. I am the Director of Elections at SOTS. The Secretary is the chief election

official for the State of Connecticut. SOTS is the lead agency for administering and overseeing

elections in Connecticut. I have worked at SOTS since 2001 in the Legislative, Elections

-1-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 3 of 116
Administration Division, which administers statewide elections in Connecticut and advises local election officials on election matters. I was promoted to Director of Elections in August 2019, in which capacity I manage a staff of thirteen.
I. Overview of Connecticut’s System of Ballot Access for Major Party Primary Candidates During Ordinary Times
3. The endorsement and nomination of Major Party candidates in Connecticut is governed by both the State or Local Party rules of the respective Party and the Connecticut General Statutes.
A. The Major Party Rules 4. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that “a political party has a First Amendment right to limit its membership as it wishes, and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform.” New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 202 (2008). The two Major Parties in Connecticut, the Democratic and Republican Parties, have exercised that right and adopted party rules that govern the manner in which they will choose their candidates for public office. The Democratic Party’s Rules are attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Republican Party’s Rules are attached hereto as Exhibit B. The rules also are available online: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/SOTS/ElectionServices/Party-Rules/CT-Democratic-State-PartyRules.pdf?la=en and https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/SOTS/ElectionServices/tcrules/RSCC-Rulesand-Bylaws-5-22-18.pdf?la=en. 5. As reflected in the rules, both of the Major Parties initially endorse their preferred candidate at a State or District convention, depending on the office. See, e.g., Exh. A, Art. III, sections 13-15; Exh. B., Art. II and III. The Democratic Party’s rules provide that the candidate
-2-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 4 of 116

endorsed at the convention shall run as the “party-endorsed” candidate in any primary that may be held.
6. The Democratic Party’s rules also specifically address the procedures that apply for somebody to primary the party-endorsed candidate.1 They provide that a challenger is eligible to primary the party-endorsed candidate only if: (1) he or she receives at least 15% of the delegate vote at the convention; or (2) obtains valid signatures from at least 5% of the registered party members in the district for the offices of state senate, assembly and judge of probate, and at least 2% for statewide and congressional offices. Exh. A, Art. III, section 13.
7. The Democratic Party rules expressly state that “[t]he nominations of the Democratic Party to all public offices and the election to a town committee and delegates to conventions shall be made in all respects in accordance with the State Party Rules,” and that “no person may contest in a primary for any State or District office unless such person has received at least fifteen percent (15%) of the votes of the convention delegates . . . or such person has received [the required number] of valid signatures” specified in the rules.
8. At least with regard to the Democratic Party, therefore, the Party’s rules themselves independently require candidates to obtain the specified amount of support at the convention or to collect the requisite number of signatures before being eligible to primary. That is a choice that the Democratic Party has made, and it reflects that Party’s exercise of its own First Amendment right to “choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform.” Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. at 202.

1

The Republican Party’s rules do not specifically address primary procedures.

-3-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 5 of 116
B. State Law 9. Connecticut requires Major Parties to hold primaries in accordance with state law and party rules. Because it is the Parties themselves that have a First Amendment right to choose how their candidates will be selected, the State’s main interest in regulating primaries is simply to ensure orderly and fair elections. As a result, the statutes relating to primaries largely track and mirror the rules that the Major Parties have adopted, and in many places specifically identify the party rules as the governing authority on how the process will work. See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9383 (providing that the time and place of conventions “shall be fixed by the state central committee or other authority of the party holding such convention, in accordance with the rules of such party”); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-384 (providing that conventions “shall originate . . . in accordance with the rules of such party”); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-386 (providing that any tie votes for endorsement at a convention “shall be dissolved in the manner prescribed in the applicable state or district rules of the party selecting such candidate”); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-387 (providing that “[t]he state rules of each party shall prescribe the manner in which any dispute as to the endorsement by such party of a candidate . . . shall be resolved”); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-390 (relating to selection of party-endorsed candidates for municipal office); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9393 (regarding selection of town committee members and delegates); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-394 (regarding selection of district delegates). 10. State law provides that Parties must choose their preferred candidates for nomination at a state or district convention, town committee meeting or caucus held in accordance with party rules. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-382 and 9-391. The candidate chosen at those events runs as the party-endorsed candidate in any primary that may be held.
-4-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 6 of 116
11. As with the party rules, state law provides three ways in which a candidate may get on a primary ballot to be nominated as the Party’s candidate at the general election: (1) by becoming the party-endorsed candidate; (2) by submitting a certificate to SOTS attesting that the candidate received at least 15% of the delegate vote at the convention; or (3) by submitting petition forms with valid signatures from at least 5% of enrolled party members in the district for district offices, and at least 2% of the enrolled party members for state offices. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-400, 9-406 and 9415.
12. To obtain a place on a primary ballot by petitioning, the candidate first must obtain petition forms from SOTS or the Registrar of Voters, depending on the office. The date when petition forms become available differs depending on the office. For statewide and congressional office, the forms became available on April 28, 2020. For all other offices the forms became available on May 26, 2020. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-404a and § 9-409. SOTS informs candidates how many signatures they need to obtain and includes the number on the issuance letter that accompanies the primary petition issued to the candidate. Candidates can immediately begin gathering signatures as soon as they receive the forms.
13. Primary petition pages may be circulated to voters only by enrolled party members. Similarly, only enrolled party members from the district in which the candidate seeks office may sign a petition. The circulator must attest to the veracity of the signature of each person signing. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-404b and 9-410. Candidates can obtain a certified copy of the party enrollment list for the municipality or district from the Registrar of Voters. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9413a.
14. Once a candidate has collected the required number of signatures, he or she must submit all signature pages to the Registrar of Voters, who will then review the signatures to
-5-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 7 of 116
determine whether they are valid and submit the valid signatures to SOTS. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9400; 9-404c and 9-412. In 2020, the deadline for candidates seeking the offices of state senator, state representative and judge of probate to submit their primary petition forms to the Registrar ordinarily would have been 63 days prior to the date of the primary, which in 2020 is June 9, 2020. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-400, 9-405 and 9-406. As discussed below, however, the Governor extended that deadline to June 11, 2020, through Executive Order 7LL, attached hereto as Exhibit F. Once SOTS receives the signatures from the Registrars of Voters, staff review and tabulate the number of valid signatures to determine whether the candidate met the requirements. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9404c.
15. The signature verification process can be done on a rolling basis, so there is no need for a candidate to wait until the deadline, or even close to the deadline, to submit their petition pages. Further, SOTS makes the petitioning process easier for candidates by routinely allowing them to cure defects in petition documents they have submitted so long as the deadline has not passed. Once the deadline is past, SOTS does not typically allow curing without a court order because the Secretary interprets her duties to be mostly mandatory and not discretionary. I can think of literally hundreds of times we have allowed a candidate to come back into the office to fix a mistake on a form so long as there was more time left before the deadline.
16. The primary petitioning process described above is a relatively new process when it comes to primaries for Major Parties. Prior to 2003, there were no procedures under state law or party rules for candidates to petition onto the ballot for a primary for multi-town districts, and such candidates could therefore obtain a place on the primary ballot only by becoming the party-endorsed candidate or by obtaining 15% of the delegate vote at the convention. This Court struck that
-6-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 8 of 116
framework down in Campbell v. Bysiewicz, 242 F. Supp. 2d 164 (D. Conn. 2003). The legislature amended state law after Campbell to permit the petitioning process described above.
17. Candidates historically have had success obtaining a place on the primary ballot through these post-Campbell procedures, as there have been between 17 and 49 non-endorsed candidates who participated in primaries during each election cycle since 2006. See Tables 1 through 3, attached hereto as Exhibits C, D and E. By contrast, during the pre-Campbell election cycles in 1998 and 2002 there were only 19 and 13 primaries, respectively.
18. Of the 49 candidates who participated in primaries held in 2018, they enjoyed success at obtaining ballot access through both the 15% requirement (31 candidates) and the petitioning requirement (18 candidates). See Exhibit D. Similarly, of the 17 candidates who participated in primaries held in 2016, there were 10 candidates who petitioned onto the ballot and 7 candidates who obtained ballot access through the 15% requirement. Id.
II. Plaintiff Jason Bartlett’s Prior Ballot Access 19. Plaintiff Jason Bartlett is an experienced political candidate who previously has run for and been elected to public office. 20. Mr. Bartlett ran for the office of State Representative in 2002 and 2004, but narrowly lost to his Republican challenger in both instances. 21. In 2006, Mr. Bartlett was elected as the State Representative for the 2nd Assembly District, defeating his Republican challenger with 4,112 votes, which was 54% of the total vote. Mr. Bartlett was re-elected to a second term for that same office in 2008, obtaining 5,966 votes which was again 54% of the total vote. 22. In 2012, Mr. Bartlett ran for the office of State Senator for the 24th Senate District, but again lost by a very small margin to his Republican challenger. During that election
-7-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 9 of 116
Mr. Bartlett participated in the Citizens’ Election Program (“CEP”), which is Connecticut’s public campaign financing program. To qualify for a CEP grant, candidates must raise qualifying contributions of less than $100 from individual donors, with the amount of required contributions varying by office. It is my understanding, based on records of the State Elections Enforcement Commission, that in the 2012 election cycle, Mr. Bartlett raised a total of 408 contributions from different individuals, which included 332 contributions from individuals who resided in the district. Of those 332 contributions, 300 were qualifying contributions for purposes of obtaining a CEP grant. The fact that Mr. Bartlett was able to raise that many contributions from individual donors within his district—which is more of an imposition on the individual than simply signing a petition page—illustrates that Mr. Bartlett has been able to garner political support in the past and could do so again for any primary petition drive.
23. In addition to running for these offices, to the best of my knowledge Mr. Bartlett also has past political experience in Connecticut serving as the campaign manager for New Haven Mayor Toni Harp, and also for Mary Jane Foster in Bridgeport. He also states in his declaration that he is the elected State Central Committee member representing the Cities of New Haven & West Haven for State 10th State Senate District within the Connecticut Democratic Party. ECF No. 93, ¶ 4. In addition, Mr. Bartlett admits that he has “years of experience obtaining ballot petition signatures” as the campaign manager for numerous candidates, including “successful petition access campaigns for James Newton, Democratic candidate for Mayor of New Haven in 1999, State Senator Martin Looney, Democratic candidate for Mayor of New Haven in 2001, Mary Jane Foster, Democratic candidate for Mayor of Bridgeport in 2011, and then-Sen. Toni Harp, Democratic candidate for Mayor of New Haven 2013.” It is therefore apparent that Mr. Bartlett
-8-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 10 of 116
has significant experience with, support from and contacts within the Democratic Party, both as a candidate and in other political capacities.
24. In the current election cycle, Mr. Bartlett sought the Democratic Party’s endorsement for the office of State Senator in the 10th Senate District, but my understanding from his counsel in this case is that he only received 11% of the delegate vote at the convention. Although that was not enough to secure the Party’s endorsement or to obtain ballot access with 15% of the vote, it shows that Mr. Bartlett still has support among members of the Party.
25. Because he did not qualify for the primary ballot at the convention, Mr. Bartlett took out primary petition forms on or about May 26, 2020. He ordinarily would have been required to collect 1,469 signatures to qualify for the ballot. As discussed below, however, that number has now been reduced to 1,028 as a result of Executive Order 7LL.
III. Plaintiff Richard Lacourciere’s Ballot Access 26. Plaintiff Richard Lacourciere currently is seeking ballot access for a primary for the office of State Representative in the 24th Assembly District. Because he did not obtain a place on the ballot at the convention, Mr. Lacourciere also took out primary petition forms on May 27, 20202. Mr. Lacourciere ordinarily would have been required to collect 273 signatures to qualify for the primary ballot. That number has now been reduced to just 192 as a result of Executive Order 7LL. IV. Plaintiff Andy Gottlieb’s Ballot Access 27. Plaintiff Andy Gottlieb suggests in his declaration that he is considering running for office during the 2020 election cycle, but does not identify which office and does not indicate that he has decided to run for any office. ECF No. 9-2. As of the date of this declaration, Mr. Gottlieb has not taken out any primary petition forms, the Party did not endorse him for any
-9-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 11 of 116
office, and he did not receive 15% of the delegate vote for any office. Regardless of what he potentially may decide to do in the future, therefore, at this time he is not formally seeking ballot access for any office during the August primary.
V. The COVID-19 Pandemic and its Impact on the 2020 Elections 28. The Governor declared a public health emergency to combat the COVID-19 pandemic on March 10, 2020. Since that time, the Governor, the Secretary and other government officials involved in the election process have taken a number of steps to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19 and ensure that the 2020 elections are conducted in a proper and fair manner that maximizes the ability of voters and candidates to participate in the electoral process. 29. For example, in an effort “to protect the health and safety of voters, poll workers, and the most vulnerable members of our population,” the Governor modified General Statutes § 9-464 and postponed the Presidential primary until August 11, 2020. He also modified General Statutes § 9-135 and other statutes to permit voters to vote by absentee ballot if they are unable to appear at a polling place because of the COVID-19 sickness. See Executive Orders 7G, 7BB and 7QQ, available at https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/GovernorsActions/Executive-Orders/Governor-Lamonts-Executive-Orders (last viewed May 21, 2020); see also ECF No. 19-1. 30. The Secretary similarly has taken steps to protect the electoral process during the pandemic. For example, the Secretary released and is implementing a comprehensive plan to ensure that the 2020 elections will be conducted in a manner that is safe, secure and accessible for all voters. See https://authoring.ct.gov/-/media/SOTS/ElectionServices/2020-Voting-Plan-FINALDRAFT-May-2-715-PM.pdf?la=en (last visited May 20, 2020). She also recently issued an opinion about the meaning of General Statutes § 9-135 that will ensure that those individuals with a
-10-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 12 of 116
preexisting illness that may be adversely impacted by COVID-19 can vote by absentee ballot. See https://portal.ct.gov/SOTS/Press-Releases/2020-Press-Releases/Secretary-of-the-State-DeniseMerrill-on-her-Official-Interpretation-of-Absentee-Ballot-Statute (last visited May 20, 2020).
31. In addition to all of these steps, the Governor recently issued Executive Order 7LL (“the Order”), Exhibit F, which substantially modifies the petitioning process described above. In doing so, the Governor acknowledged that COVID-19—and some of the social distancing measures that have been implemented to combat it—will adversely impact the ability of some candidates to collect the number of signatures that ordinarily would be required. At the same time, the Governor also recognized that “the process of qualifying for ballot access through in-person petitioning as required under Title 9 of the General Statutes is a basic and vital requirement of our state constitution and our election laws, the purpose of which is to ensure that voters have the opportunity to choose among viable candidates who have qualified for the ballot based on a minimum threshold of support, and to promote an election that is orderly, fair and transparent.” The Order seeks to achieve that state interest while at the same time making it easier for candidates to comply with the petitioning requirements. It does so primarily in three ways.
32. First, the Order extends the deadline for candidates to submit the required signatures by two days, until June 11, 2020.
33. Second, the Order reduces by 30% the number of signatures a petitioning candidate must collect to obtain ballot access. Exhibit G to this declaration identifies the number of signatures a candidate must collect for certain federal and state offices, both before and after this 30% reduction is taken into account.
-11-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 13 of 116
34. The highest number of signatures that a candidate will have to collect to appear on the August primary ballot are for the Congressional Districts, which require between 6,591 and 2,597 signatures.
35. For the office of State Senator, the number of required signatures is significantly lower, ranging from only 72 for a Republican primary in Senate District 10 to at most 1,233 for a Democratic primary in Senate District 2. There are 5 Senate Districts that require 200 or fewer signatures; 8 more that require less than 400 signatures; and 10 more that require less than 500 signatures.
36. The required number of signatures for the office of State Representative is even less, ranging from between just 9 signatures for a Republican primary in Assembly District 7 to a high of 352 in the 15th Assembly District. There are 8 Assembly District primaries that require less than 20 signatures, 20 more that require 50 signatures or less, and 31 more that only require a total of less than 100 signatures.
37. As discussed above, the modified number of signatures that Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Lacourciere now must collect is 1,028 and 192, respectively. I do not know how many of these required signatures Mr. Bartlett or Mr. Lacourciere already have collected for these offices. However, Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Lacourciere already have obtained primary petition forms. If they have been diligent, therefore, it is entirely possible that they already have collected a substantial number of the required signatures.
38. Third, in addition to reducing the number of required signatures, the Order also makes it significantly easier for candidates to obtain those signatures. It does so first by eliminating the requirement that petitions must be circulated, and that signatures must be collected, submitted and attested to, by an eligible circulator under General Statutes §§ 9-400 and 9-410. Under the
-12-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 14 of 116
Order, enrolled party members may now send the signed petition forms directly to the candidate without the need for a circulator, and the candidate can then compile all signatures and send them directly to the Registrar of Voters by the June 11 deadline.
39. The Order also provides that “a petitioning signature shall be accepted as valid” if it: (1) is mailed to the candidate and then to the Registrar of Voters by the applicable deadline; or (2) it is “scanned or photographed electronically, and returned to the candidate by electronic mail and later to the Registrar of Voters by the applicable deadline along with a copy of the email demonstrating the electronic transmission of the petition by the registered voter.” This latter change is significant, as it permits electronic signature gathering that does not require any in person interaction whatsoever, and makes it much easier for candidates to gather the required signatures. The Order further provides that these changes are in addition to, and not in lieu of, the procedures that already exist, which candidates may continue to use in accordance with any social distancing measures that may exist between now and the June 11 petitioning deadline.
40. The Secretary has issued Guidance about how the petitioning process will work after the Order, which is attached hereto as Exhibit H; and available online at https://portal.ct.gov/SOTS/Election-Services/Nominating-Petitions/Nominating-Petitions (last visited June 1, 2020).
41. As reflected in the Guidance, each candidate can obtain the application for petition forms online, fill it out and sign electronically, and return it electronically or by mail to SOTS or the Registrar of Voters. The contact information for both SOTS and the Registrars is specifically identified in the Guidance. SOTS or the Registrars will promptly review all applications received and send the petition forms directly to the candidate, also by mail or electronically.
-13-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 15 of 116
42. Once candidates receive the petition forms, they no longer need to rely on circulators to send the forms to prospective registered voters, or to collect and verify the signatures. Rather, candidates can send the forms directly to enrolled party members through a variety of means, including by: (1) regular mail; (2) email; (3) online through the campaign’s website; (4) online through social media websites such as Facebook, Twitter or other such social media services; or (5) in person consistent with whatever social distancing protocols may be in place at the time.
43. Candidates can still rely on supporters to help with this electronic outreach to voters, and need not do it all themselves.
44. Once a registered voter receives the petition form through any of the methods described above, he or she has numerous options for signing and returning it to the candidate. For example, the voter may:
a. Sign the petition in ink and return the signed original signature to the candidate via regular mail;
b. Sign the petition by printing the petition page, signing in ink and re-scanning to return to the candidate by electronic mail;
c. Sign the petition by inserting an electronic image of the voter’s actual signature on an electronic copy of the petition page where a voter signature is intended to be placed and return to the candidate, either by mail or electronically; or
d. Sign the petition by using a stylus or other similar device to insert an electronic image of a voter’s actual signature on an electronic copy of the petition page where a voter signature is intended to be placed and return to the candidate, again either by mail or electronically.
-14-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 16 of 116
45. Remote notarizations also can now be used to the extent a petition must be notarized because it is signed by more than one registered voter.
46. Once a candidate has collected the required number of signatures in the manner described above, the candidate then compiles all signatures received via electronic or regular mail and can submit them directly to the Registrar of Voters, either by regular or electronic mail.
47. Given all of the above, it should not be difficult for any candidate to obtain the required number of signatures. Again, the signature requirements are extremely modest, ranging from between just 9 and 352 for State Representative, between 72 and 1,233 for State Senate, and between 2,597 and 6,591 for Representative in Congress.
48. Candidates have just under two and a half weeks to collect their required signatures using the procedures authorized by the Order. Those procedures do not require candidates or circulators to stand outside of public places or go knocking on doors, although candidates still may do so as long as they comply with the social distancing requirements in place at the time. For example, candidates could, if they so choose, go door to door with an IPad with cellular service, knock and stand an appropriate distance back, and ask the person to sign a petition form that the candidate will leave at the residence without any in person contact. Or if such an approach concerns some voters, the candidate could ask to email the voter a petition form to be signed and returned later. The candidate would then have the voter’s email address and could follow up with the voter if they do not send in a signed petition page. Even if it is not as efficient as before, gathering signatures through traditional methods should still be possible for diligent candidates as long as they are careful and take appropriate precautions.
49. That is especially true given that candidates can procure a list of eligible party members from SOTS or the Registrar of Voters and specifically target those voters. This greatly
-15-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 17 of 116
reduces the number of extra signatures that a candidate must obtain. In my experience, using existing lists of enrolled party members that are readily available from local Registrars of Voters can make a petition drive much more efficient.
50. Plaintiffs speculate that voters will not be willing to participate in these traditional petitioning methods given the COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing measures in place. However, I have reviewed Plaintiffs’ declarations in this case, ECF Nos. 9-2 through 9-4, and there is nothing in those declarations to suggest that any Plaintiff has even attempted to collect signatures during this election cycle using traditional methods. As a result, their fears are based on nothing more than speculation and conjecture. Nobody knows how voters will respond to traditional petition gathering methods in these times if candidates are careful and take appropriate precautions.
51. Even if Plaintiffs are correct that in person signature gathering will not be possible in the current climate, that is not their only option. Rather, candidates can now quickly and easily reach a much larger number of prospective registered voters—in a much shorter amount of time and with significantly less effort, funding and volunteer resources—by skipping the door knocking and simply posting the petition forms on the candidate’s or the Party’s website, posting them on the candidate’s or the Party’s various social media pages, by sending emails to the Party’s own list of enrolled members, or by emailing a broader distribution list of registered voters that the Party or candidate may obtain from other sources. Reasonably diligent candidates can obtain both a list of enrolled party members as well as email addresses of those party members. Lists of enrolled party members for the district and towns for which a candidate is seeking office are available from a variety of sources, including SOTS, the Registrars of Voters, and private companies. Using these lists will virtually eliminate the need to gather excess signatures on any petition drive. A perfect
-16-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 18 of 116
example of this is the David Stemmerman Campaign for Governor in 2018. His competitors collected in excess of 12,000 signatures, but Mr. Stemmerman collect just 7,000 because he targeted his efforts at voters on the Party’s enrolled member list.
52. Further, candidates can enlist unlimited volunteers to assist with all of these activities, including volunteers or paid consultants with experience on social media and other electronic platforms. Those volunteers can be of any age and can come from any location within or outside the State. These are significantly easier methods of petitioning than existed before, and there is no reason why a reasonably diligent candidate with a modicum of support could not collect the small number of signatures required for the offices for which they seek ballot access.
53. Plaintiffs also complain in their papers that the more generous signature gathering mechanisms provided by the Order still are not workable. But they again base that complaint on nothing more than abstract speculation and conjecture about how they personally think the procedures will be costly and cumbersome. They provide no indication about how much it will cost to conduct a petition drive using these methods, and provide no evidence about how successful online or mail-in petition drives are generally, much less in the particular context of a grassroots election campaign. Moreover, they once again give no indication that they have even thought about how an effective electronic or mailing petition drive could be conducted, much less attempted to implement one. I do not understand how Plaintiffs can credibly claim that the procedures impose too severe a burden on their rights when they have not even attempted or planned to comply with them.
54. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ unsubstantiated fears, I would fully expect that a grassroots effort with engaged campaign volunteers emailing petition forms to friends, family and other personal contacts in the district, which contacts could then pass on the petition forms to their
-17-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 19 of 116
own friends, family and contacts at no additional cost or effort to the candidate, would be an effective way to gather signatures in a short amount of time. And that does not even begin to account for other grassroots petition efforts that candidates can now engage in through social media and direct mailing.
55. This is especially true for candidates, like Mr. Bartlett, who have a history of running for and being elected to public office. Indeed, Mr. Bartlett himself claims that he “is one of the most sophisticated political operatives in the state.” ECF No. 9-1 at 4. Mr. Bartlett’s history of electoral success as a candidate, and also with gathering signatures as a campaign manager for numerous campaigns, illustrates that he has long term support, experience and relationships with both voters and officials within the Democratic Party. Presumably he could leverage those relationships and connections to conduct an effective signature drive even in these difficult times.
56. For example, Mr. Bartlett has 16 days to collect the required 1,028 signatures through any of the methods authorized by the Order, including by direct mail, electronically or in person. If you divide the 1,028 signatures by 16, that means that he would have to collect on average 64 signatures a day. If Mr. Bartlett has just 10 volunteers helping him get signatures— whether in person, by emailing friends, family and other contacts, or through any of the other electronic and social media methods discussed above—that would mean that each volunteer would only have to acquire 6.4 signatures a day. For somebody who claims to be “one of the most sophisticated political operatives in the state” and who presumably has a wide base of potential supporters to call upon to help gather signatures, ECF No. 9-1, at 4, if he is diligent he should be able to acquire that many signatures with the assistance of 10 or more volunteers.
-18-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 20 of 116
57. In fact, I am aware of testimony in prior litigation challenging Connecticut’s election laws in which a candidate and experienced signature gatherer testified that individuals with experience circulating petitions can collect about 8 to 10 signatures per hour using the more burdensome and time consuming in person collection methods. That being the case, there is no reason why a reasonably diligent candidate should not be able to collect at least that many signatures using all of the various methods authorized by the Order and the Secretary’s Guidance, even under current conditions.
VI. The State’s Interest In Requiring Petition Forms To Be Submitted By June 11, 2020
58. Finally, in addition to challenging the new signature gathering procedures authorized by the Order, I am aware that Plaintiffs also challenge the 16 day window that the Order provides to collect those signatures. The State has a strong interest in maintaining that window in order to ensure orderly elections, and extending it beyond the two days it already has been extended could significantly interfere with the broader election calendar.
59. Specifically, the state election calendar is defined by state statute and is developed by providing a series of date certains that are calculated using dates for both the general and primary elections. Built into these deadlines and dates are necessary windows of time that allow SOTS and local election officials to complete the necessary tasks that allow for the verification and placement of candidates on the ballot. For example, using August 11, 2020 as the state primary date, the following statutorily imposed deadlines are necessary to allow sufficient time for the processing of primary petitions and placing candidates on the ballot:
a. June 11, 2020 is the deadline for submission of primary petitions pursuant to Executive Order 7LL.
-19-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 21 of 116
b. Local Registrars of Voters must submit verified signature pages to SOTS by June 18, 2020. By statute, therefore, this means that the local Registrars of Voters only have 7 days to check any signatures that are filed with them by June 11, 2020. It is important to remember that these dates are not set to accommodate the smallest of the offices on the ballot, but are set to accommodate the largest offices such as statewide offices where candidates collect tens of thousands of signatures. The Registrars require sufficient time to review all of those signatures by the statutory deadline.
c. Military and overseas ballots become available on June 27, 2020. This date is set by both state statute and federal law. Because SOTS does not receive the verified signatures from the Registrars until June 18, this means that SOTS only has 9 days to receive, review and calculate the signature totals of all statewide and district offices contested by primary petition and to report back to each municipality those candidates who have successfully obtained ballot access. This also must be done in enough time to allow the local officials to prepare the military and overseas ballots that will be issued to those applicants.
d. Regular absentee ballots become available on July 21, 2020. Once military and overseas ballots are sent by the local officials, they must immediately begin the preparation of regular absentee ballots. This means that they must design and prepare the absentee ballot consistent with the requirements of state law and also provide the selected printer enough time to print the appropriate number of absentee ballots for each municipality and then package and deliver such ballots back to each municipality. This step is important because absentee ballots must -20-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 22 of 116

be identical to the bnllots used at the polling places on August 11, 2020. This means that the entire bnllot to be used in the August primary must be essentially set in stone by July 21, 2020. 60. SOTS and local election officials use and require all of the available time in the election calendar discussed above. Further, it bears emphasis that not only do state and local election officials use this time, but they have to build enough time into the election calendar to ensure that all of the paper ballots can be printed early enough to be used in the State's paper ballot voting system, and that there is enough time to program and test each voting machine to read any printed ballot. Extending the deadline for candidates to submit signatures beyond the 2 days it already has been extended could have a significant impact on election officials' ability to meet the rest of statutory deadlines in the election calendar.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Theodore Bromley, state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing declaration is true and accurate to the best ofmy knowledge, information and belief.

L Executed: June 2020

Thei:£.~
Director of Elections, Office of Secretary of the State

-21-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 23 of 116
EXHIBIT A

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 24 of 116
AMENDMENT Section 2: Composition of State Central Committee Members
B. In addition to the above paragraph, the State Chair, in consultation with the Connecticut Young Democrats, shall nominate two representatives, one man and one woman. for election to the State Central Committee. Additional nominations of Young Democrats may be made from the floor at the State Central meeting and the two representatives shall then be chosen by a majority of the members present and voting. Members chosen under this paragraph, shall be elected after the State Central Committee meeting to elect the State Chair and shall serve for a te1m to expire with the term of the State Chair. Members must be residents of the State of Connecticut. If a member moves from Connecticut or a vacancy, however ruTived at, occurs, the seat shall be filled by the process set forth in this paragraph and the member shall serve for the balance of the te1m.
.r:::
1J

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 25 of 116

STATE CHMR NANCY]. D1NARDO
STATE VICE CHAIR DoM I N 1c F. BALLETTO, JR .

SECRETARY BAR13AllA C . GORDON
TREASURER EMMA W. PIERCE

Office of the Secretary of the State State of Connecticut P.O. Box 150470 Hartford, CT 06115-0470
TO
May 4, 2013
Dear Madam Secretary, Attached you will find an executed copy of the Connecticut Democratic State Party Rules. These rules were last visited in May of 2012.

330 MAIN STREET, 3RD FLooR • HARTFORD, CT o6rn6 • (860) 560-1 775 • FAx (860) 560-1522
PAID FOR UY CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATI C STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE, WWW.CTDEMS.ORG AND NOT AUTHOR I ZED BY ANY FEDERAL • CANDTDATE OR CANll lDATE1S COMMITTEE.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONNECTICUT DEMOCRAT I C STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE AS CHAR ITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER THE lNTEitNAL REVENUE CoDE.
-~@1;->519L

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 26 of 116
CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PARTY RULES

330 Main tr e Hartford, T 0 (860) 560-1775 (860) 560-1522 (Fax) www.ctdems.org

r..°::,.,r,.::u:>Pr,,l :-c-i,>m:"J
t,~~> ~
_,--.:.....,.)

-c;:::::»;
:c -> <

....... _, ,#

;;·.~-o
( ::,! o ..:,,

.r::

1J : f': ffl.-;
~ I• :l rri

.. ::.:~.:.n

I.I •

.••""-:l·:-t 1

! ~:.:_:..1

O? ~'1P1

t

f-
Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 27 of 116
·(
CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PARTY RULES

PREAMBLE

1. All public meetings at all levels of the Democratic Party in Connecticut should be open to all members of

the Democratic Party regardless of race, sex, age, color, creed, national origin, religion, ethnic identity, sexual orientation, economic status, philosophical persuasion or physical disability (hereinafter collectively referred to as "status").

I
•··

2. No test for membership in, nor any oaths of loyalty to, the Democratic Party in Connecticut should be

required or used which has the effect of requiring prospective or current members of the Democratic Party to acquiesce in, condone or support discrimination based on "status11•

I

3. The time and place for all public meetings of the Democratic Party in Connecticut on all levels should be

I

publicized fully and in such a manner as to assure timely notice to all interested persons. Such meetings
must be held in places accessible to all Party members and large enough to accommodate all interested

l

persons.

t

I

4. The Democratic Party in Connecticut, on all levels, should support the broadest possible registration without discrimination based on "status".

I

I

5. The Democratic Party in Connecticut should publicize fully and in such manner as to assure notice to all interested parties a full desc1iption of the legal and practical procedures for selection of Democratic Party

i
!

officers and representatives on all levels. Publication of these procedures should be done in such fashion that all prospective and CU1Tent members of this State Democratic Party will be fully and adequately

I
I

informed of the pertinent procedures in time to participate in each selection procedure at all levels of the Democratic Party organization.

I

6. The Democratic Party in Connecticut should publicize fully and in such manner as to assure notice to all interested parties, a complete description of the legal and practical qualifications of all positions as officers and representatives of the State Democratic Party. Such publication should be done in timely fashion so

Ii•
tt .

that all prospective candidates or applicants for any elected or appointed position within this State

I

Democratic Party will have full and adequate opportunity to compete for office.

i

7. The Democratic Party in Connecticut in electing its delegates to the National Convention, at both the

II" ..

disttict and state levels, shall attempt to reasonably reflect the apportionment of women, young people, and

I

minority group members ofthe registered Democrats in each district and the state.

I

8. The Democratic Party in Connecticut shall adopt an affirmative action plan designed to encourage full

I

participation by all Democrats in the delegate selection process and in all Party affairs, with particular

I '

concern for Afiican Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian/Pacific Americans, women and youths.

I '

I

9. Any person, who is an enrolled Democratic elector, may participate in any and all party meetings, caucuses and conventions and may be elected to any Party office except where specifically prohibited by law.

I

I
I
I
f

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 28 of 116
CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PARTY RULES
ARTICLE I STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE
Section 1: Duties and Responsibilities
The State Central Committee shall be the governing body of the Connecticut Democratic Party between conventions. It is authorized and empowered to take such action and render such decisions as may be necessary to carry out fully and adequately the decisions and instructions of the convention and to promote the aims and p1inciples of the Democratic Party at the national, state and local levels. State Central Committee members shall (a) be the liaison between state and local party officials, (b) establish communications with the town committee or committees within their district, (c) assist within their local Democratic Party organizations in the election of their candidates and education of their voters, (d) disseminate statements of national and state party policy, (e) participate in other activities as the membership deems appropriate and (f) be automatic delegates, without the need for any further action, to the State Convention from the towns in which they reside and they will serve in addition to the regularly allocated number of delegates from that town. Members of the Democratic State Central Committee shall work to promote harmony among all people, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, language. religion or sexual orientation.
Section 2: Composition of State Central Committee Members
A. The Democratic State Central Committee shall be composed of two representatives, one man and one woman. elected from each senatorial district in the state for a term oftwo years in the manner prescribed by Article I. Section 3. Members of the State Central Committee shall hold office :from the first session of the State Convention following their election, until the beginning of the next state convention, or until they otherwise vacate their office. State Central Committee Members must reside in the district from which they were elected for their entire tenn. If the State Central Committee Member moves from the district from which he or she was elected during the elected term. his or her seat will be declared vacant by the State
Chair and shall be filled under Article I. Section 4.
B. In addition to the above paragraph. the State Chair, in consultation with the Connecticut Young Democrats, shall nominate two representatives, one man and one woman, for election to the State Central Committee. Additional nominations of Young Democrats may be made from the floor at the State Central meeting and the two representatives shall then be chosen by a majority of the members present and voting. Members chosen under this paragraph, shall be elected after the State Central Committee meeting to elect the State Chair and shall serve for a te1m to expire with the term of the State Chair. Members must be residents of the State of Connecticut. If a member moves from Connecticut or a vacancy. however arrived at. occurs, the seat shall be filled by the process set forth in this paragraph and the member shall serve for the balance of the term.
Section 3: Election of State Central Committee Members & State Convention Committees
The State Convention delegates from each senatorial district shall meet at least fifteen (15) days but not more than twenty-five (25) days prior to the first session of each State Convention, at a time and place to be designated by the State Central Committee members from the district. One of the State Central Committee members from the district shall act as a temporary chair of the meeting. Upon due notice, the delegates to the State Convention :from each
2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 29 of 116
CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PARTY RULES
senatorial district, who shall not exceed the number of delegates representing each town or portion of a town at the state senatorial convention in that senatorial district, shall meet and select by a majority vote of those present and voting, a man and woman member of the State Central Committee, who may or may not be delegates to said convention. These delegates will also select from their numbers a vice-president and secretary for the State Convention, and shall also select one member for each ofthe following convention Committees:
1. Committee on Credentials; 2. Committee on Permanent Organization; 3. Committee for Rules and Resolutions; 4. Committee on Platform (when one is necessary in accordance with Article III, Section 11 ); and 4. Such other committees as shall have been determined by the State Central Committee. Such elections shall be certified by the secretary of such meeting to the Secretary of the State Central Committee within five (5) days subsequent to such meeting.
If said meeting has not been held in the period prescribed above, it shall be called by the Chair of the State Central Committee, to be held prior to the opening of the State convention, at a place and time to be designated by the State Chair. All elections made by such meeting shall be certified by the secretary of the meeting to the Secretary of the State Central Committee prior to the first session ofsuch convention.
Section 4: Vacancies in State Central Committee Membership
Vacancies, however arrived at, in the membership of the State Central Committee shall be filled by a majority vote of those present and voting at a special meeting of state convention delegates from the preceding state convention from the senatorial district in which the vacancy has occurred. This special meeting shall be held within sixty (60) days after a vacancy mises. The remaining representative on the State Central Committee from said senatorial district shall set a time and place for said meeting and written notice of said meeting shall be sent to each state convention delegate, in good standing, from said senatorial district and the vacancy shall be filled by a majority vote of those present and voting at said meeting.
In order to be eligible to be a participant in the special meeting, the State Convention delegates must be in good standing, which is defined as being a valid Democratic elector, residing in the district at the time the special meeting occurs. A delegate in good standing may appoint an alternate for such special meeting, subject to the provisions of Article I, Section 9. If a delegate is not in good standing, his or her altemate to the prior State Convention, if in good standing and if appointed prior to the adjournment of the State Convention, shall participate in his or her place. If neither the delegate nor the alternate is in good standing, no new appointment shall be made.
Section 5: Election and Composition of State Central Committee Officers
Not earlier than the tenth (I 0th> day, nor later than the twenty-fourth (24th) day of January, in every oddnumbered year, the State Central Committee shall meet and shall elect a Chair and Vice Chair, one of whom shall be a male and the other a female. The Committee at the same meeting shall elect a Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer and any other Officers the Committee deems necessary. Beginning on the first day of February of the same year, officers shall commence their two year term. Officers need not be
3

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 30 of 116
CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PARTY RULES
members of the State Central Committee. Each officer shall have the duties usually incident to the office of that name, and such other duties as the Committee may prescribe from time to time.
Section 6: Vacancies in State Central Committee Officer Positions
When a vacancy occurs in any of the aforementioned offices, the State Central Committee shall within sixty (60) days elect a successor to fill the unexpired term, by a majority vote of those present and voting at a meeting duly noticed and held for such purpose,
Section 7: Meetings
Meetings of the State Central Committee shall be held at least six (6) times yearly and may be held at any time upon call of the State Chair, or by vote of the Committee, or within ten (10) days of the receipt by the State Chair of a written request signed by not less than twenty (20) members of the Committee and stating the purpose for which such meeting is to be called. The announcement of the meeting shall contain a statement of the business to come before such meeting and will be sentto all Town Chairs at the same time and in the same manner as it is sent to the members of the Committee. Minutes of all meetings of this committee will be sent by email or regular mail to all members of this committee and, upon request, to all Town Chairs.
Section 8: Quorum
Two-fifths (2/5) of the membership in good standing of the State Central Committee shall constitute a quorum at any meeting.
Section 9: Proxies
Any member ofthe State Central Committee who is unable to attend any meeting of said committee may in writing select any enrolled Democratic elector of either gender within his or her senatorial district as their proxy. The selection of a proxy shall be filed with the secretary ofthe meeting, and the proxy may participate as a full member ofthe Committee until the meeting is adjourned.
Section 10: Procedure of Meeting
Each meeting shall be convened and presided over by the Chair of the Party, or, in their absence the Vice Chair. After general orders of business, acts and/or resolutions may be brought up. In order to bring an act or resolution to the floor at a State Central Committee Meeting, it must first be brought to the Chair ofthe Party, who may refer the act or resolution to the appropriate committee. If there is not an appropriate committee, the Chair has the power to convene a special committee to hear the act or resolution. In committee, it can be amended. Ifpassed in committee by a majority of members present, the Chair must bring the act and/or resolution to the floor of the next State Central Committee Meeting.
Section 11: Financial Report
The Treasurer of the Committee shall send an annual financial rep01t to all members of the State Central Committee and all Town Chairs within sixty (60) days ofthe close ofthe fiscal year.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 31 of 116 CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PARTY RULES
ARTICLE II
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COl\lMITTRR
Section 1: Selection of Members and Terms
There shall be elected to the Democratic National Committee, in the year of the election of President of the United States, such number of Nalional Committee members as have been apportioned to the State of Connecticut pursuant to the By-Laws of the Democratic Party of the United States. With exceptions noted elsewhere, each such member shall serve for a term of four (4) years or until a successor has been duly selected.
Section 2: Membership
Of the National C01mnittee members to be elected, two (2) shall be the Chair and Vice Chair of the Democratic
State Central Committee. The remaining members of the National Committee, Vv'ho shall be registered Democrats
in the State of Connecticut but need nol be elected delegates to the National Convention, shall each be elected individually by a majority vote of the delegates to the Democratic State Convention to be held in the year of the Presidential election.
Section 3: !Vlcmbership in the State Central Commillee
Individuals elected to represent Connecticut on the Democratic National Committee, without the need for further action, shall be automatically delegates to the State Convention from the towns in which they reside, in addition to the regularly allocated number of delegalcs from that tow11.
Section 4: Change in Office
In the event that the Chair or Vice Chair of the State Central Committee is succeeded in office prior to the expiration of his or her National Commtttcc term, his or her successor in office at the State Central Committee shall fill the remainder of such National Comrnittce term.
Section 5: Vacancy in Membership
Except as provided in Section 3 of this Article, \Vhen a vacancy occurs in the office or National Committee
Member, the State Central Committee shall within sixty (60) days elect a successor to Jill the unexpired tenn, by a majority vote of those present and voting at a meeting duly noticed and held for such purpose,
ARTICLE III
CONVENTIONS
Section l: Convention Calls
The State Central Committee, at a meeting called for such purpose, shall lix: A. The date, time, and place of meeting of the state convention;
5

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 32 of 116
CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PAR1Y RULES
B. The date, time, and place of meeting of the congressional distiict conventions; and C. The date of the senatorial, assembly and probate district conventions in senatorial, assembly and probate
districts that cross one or more town lines. Only the State Central Committee members representing any part of a senatorial, assembly or probate district shall fix the time and place of conventions in such districts. Fach such convention shall originate by call of the Chair ofthe State Central Cmnmittee or his or her designcc.
Section 2: Convention Dates
Each convention held to endorse candidates for congressional districts or state or district office to be voted upon at a state election shall be convened in the even numbered years, no later than the ninety-eighth day and closed not later than the seventy-seventh day preceding the day of the primary for such office. All congressional district conventions shall be held on the same day. All senatorial district conventions shall be held on the same day. All multi-town assembly district conventions shall be held on the same day. All multi-tmvn probate district conventions shall be held on the same day. No congressional, senatorial, assembly, or probate district convention shall begin later than the twenty~first (21 st) day follmving the close of the state convention.
Section 3: Delegate Representation
At each congressional, senalorial, assembly, and probate district convention, each town or portion of the tcn.vn to be represented at that convention shall be entitled to one (1) delegate for each five-hundred (500) or fraction thereof derived fi_·om the average of the following factors: (a) Democratic registration as shown on the last list published by the Office or the Secretary of the State, and (b) votes cast for the Democratic candidate for President in the last preceding presidential election. At each State Convention, each tmvn shall be entitled to the sum of the delegates representing each such town at the several senatorial district conventions whereat each sucl1 town is represented, and each town's delegation shall include a number of delegates residing in each of said senatorial districts equal to the number of delegates representing said town at each of such senat01ial district conventions.
Section 4: Delegate List
It shall be the duty of the Chair of each town committee to send to the Secretary of the State Central Committee, on fomis furnished by the Stale Central Committee, a list of'the delegates to each convention duly chosen from his or her town, properly attested by the Democratic Registrar of Voters or, in the event of his or absence, by the Town Chair only with the express approval of the State Chair. Such list shall be delivered, whether by paper or electronically, no later than the one hundred thirty-second day proceeding the day of the primary for such state or district office.
Section 5: Convention Roll
The temporary roll of each convention shall be comprised of the duly chosen delegates to such convention as filed
with the Secretary of the State Central Committee by the Town Chair.
Section 6: Temporary Chairs
6

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 33 of 116
CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PARTY RULES
The State Central Committee shall elect a Temporary Chair for each State Convention at least sixty (60) days prior to such convention. The Temporary Chairs of all congressional, senatorial, assembly, and probate district conventions shall be chosen by the State Central Committee members representing all or part of such a district, and shall be chosen at least thirty (30) days prior to such convention. The Temporary Chair shall assume the administrative duties to call and arrange for each district convention, but, in the event that he or she fails timely to do so, such duties shall forthwith be assumed by the State Chair or his or her designee. The Temporary Chair need not be a delegate to the convention he or she chairs. A Temporary Chair while serving as such shall have the additional tight to cast a vote dissolving a tie, but this provision shall not affect his or her right to vote as a delegate in the first place. He or she shall serve until the election by the convention of a Permanent Chair.
Section 7: Sessions
The times, length and agenda of the State Convention shall be determined by the State Chair, with the approval of the State Central Committee.
Section 8: Qualification of Delegates
Each delegate or alternate shall be an enrolled Democratic elector residing in the district which he or she represents.
Section 9: Alternates
Each delegate to a convention elected in conformity with law and with these rules may, if in good standing, designate in writing an alternate delegate to act for him or her in his or her absence at any convention or other
meeting .of delegates held under these rules. Such appointment of an alternate shall cease to be effective upon
adjournment of the respective convention or meeting, except as otherwise provided in Article I, Section 4. In the
absence of such alternate delegate, the Town Chair shall have the right to fill vacancies in delegations to conventions during conventions and until the respective convention adjourns. This right to fill vacancies shall cease upon adjournment ofthe convention.
Section 10: Challenges to Delegates
A. Prior to the opening of the State Convention, five percent (5%) of the enrolled Democrats or five hundred (500) emolled Democrats in any town (whichever is less) may challenge any delegate or delegates elected from their town.
B. The challenge shall be provided to the State Chair by registered or certified mail, and must be
received at least seven days before the opening of the State Convention. A copy of the challenge shall be sent to all delegates challenged and to the Town Chair from the municipality from which each challenged delegate was elected.
C. The State Chair shall notify the Committee on Credentials and a meeting of said committee shall be called to order at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the first session of the Convention, and both sides shall be allowed equal time to present their case.
D. The Committee on Credentials shall issue a decision prior to the convening of said convention. No
challenged delegate may vote on the report of the committee involving his or her respective
7

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 34 of 116
CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATJ•: PARTY RULES
challenge, nor shall a challenged delegate participate as a committee member with respect to his or her respective challenge.
Section 11 : Pre-Convention Platfonn Conunittee and Rules Committee
A. When, in accordance with these mles, a Platform Committee is to be formed, then the State Clmir, not less than ten (10) \Veeks prior to the opening of the State Convention, shall appoint l\vo (2) persons from each state senatorial district to a Pre-Convention Platform Committee which shall conduct hearings on the platfonn and recommend a platfonn to the Platform Committee of the Convention.
B. Not less than ten (10) weeks prior to the opening of each State Convention, the State Chair shall appoint a Pre-Convention Rules Committee to recommend changes in the State Party Rules and to recommend convention rules to the Rules Committee of the Convention.
Section 12: State Convention Committees
The committees of the State Convention shall include a Committee on Credentials; a Committee on Pennanent Organization, a Committee on Rules and Resolutions, and such other committees as shall be detennined by the State Central Committee. There shall be a Committee on Platfonn at each State Convention wherein a candidate f'or governor shall be nominated. The memberships of each committee shall he elected in accordance with Article I, Section 3. The committees shall fulfill the following functions along with any others designated by the State Central Committee:
A. Cr_edential;:; - Report on all challenges to delegates in accordance \Vith Article TH, Section I 0, above.
B. Permanent Organization - To nominate the Permanent Chair and Permanent Secretary of the State Convention and to appoint the Sergeants-at-Am1s and the Pages of the State Convention.
C, Rules and Resolutions - To propose changes deerned necessary in these rules and to propose procedures for the State Convention and such resolutions as shall be deemed necessaiy or appropriate by the committee.
D. fl<-ttform - To present to the State Convention a platform and such resolutions deemed appropriate by the committee. A draft of the platf01m shall be prepared by a Preliminary Platfonn Committee appointed by the Chair of the State Central Committee which Preliminary Platform Committee shall hold public hearings throughout the state and prepare its draft at least two weeks prior to the opening ofthe State Convention.
Any member of a11y committee shall be allowed to make a minority repmt to the convention on any matter decided by his or her committee. The f1.mction of each committee shall end with adjournment of the State Convention.
Section 13: Endorsement of Candidates
A. The State or Congressional District Convention shall endorse a candidate for nomination to each of the statewide offices or congressional district office, as the case may be. Candidates so chosen shall
8

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 35 of 116
CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PARTY RULES
run in the primary as party-endorsed candidates. Any candidate that receives fifteen percent (15%) on any announced, final or accepted roll call vote" shall be eligible to primary. A candidate shall be the nominee of the Democratic Party if no other person has received at least fifteen percent (15%) of the votes of the convention delegates present and voting on any roll call vote taken for endorsement or proposed endorsement of a candidate for such office, or if no other person receives two percent (2%) of the valid signatures of registered Democrats in the state or congressional distTict, or if no valid opposing candidacy has been filed for nomination to such office by four o'clock (4:00) p.m. on the fourteenth (14th) day following the close ofthe convention.
B. The State Senatorial, Assembly or Judge of Probate District Convention shall endorse a candidate for nomination to each of the state senate, assembly, or judge of probate offices, as the case may be.
. The only requirement to paiticipate in a caucus shall be that the candidate is a registered Democrat in the applicable district. Candidates so chosen shall run in the primary as party-endorsed candidates. Any candidate that receives 15% on any announced, final or accepted roll call vote" shall be eligible to primary. A such candidate shall be the nominee of the Democratic Party if no other person has received at least fifteen percent (15%) of the votes of the convention delegates present and voting on any roll call vote taken for endorsement or ·proposed endorsement of a candidate for such office, or if no other person receives five percent (5%) of the valid signatures of registered Democrats in the district, or if no valid opposing candidacy has been filed for nomination to such office by fow- o'clock (4:00) p.m. on the fourteenth (14th) day following the close of the convention.
Section 14: Nomination and Selection of Patty Endorsed Candidates
A. Candidates for nomination may be proposed from the floor of the convention by any delegate. Whenever two (2) or more candidates for nomination to any office are proposed, the vote as between them shall be taken by roll call.
B. The secretary of the convention shall call the roll and keep a true record, in writing, of the vote of each delegate entitled to vote and voting at the convention, and shall, at the conclusion of the roll call, announce the result of the vote. The secretary shall file such record at the headquarters of the State Central Committee where it shall be preserved for a period of six (6) months after the adjow-nment of the convention and such record shall be open to public inspection at all reasonable times.
C. To obtain the endorsement of a convention, a candidate must receive a majority of the votes of the convention delegates present and voting. In the event that a vote taken on the selection of a party endorsed candidate results in a tie, such tie shall be dissolved by the vote of the permanent chairperson of the convention, but this provision shall not affect his or her right to vote as a delegate in the first place.
Section 15: Certification of List.
The secretary of each convention shall prepare an accurate list, printed by hand or typewritten, of the candidates endorsed by the convention, and also of any candidates receiving at least fifteen percent (15%) of the votes of the convention delegates present and voting on any roll call vote taken on the endorsement or proposed endorsement of
9

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 36 of 116 CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PAR'IY RULES

a candidate, whether or not the party endorsed candidate received a unanimous vote on the last ballot, with the names, street addresses and towns of the person so endorsed or receiving fifteen percent (15%) of the votes and the title of the office for which each person is a candidate. This list shall be certified by the permanent chairperson and the secretary of the convention and shall be delivered to the Secretary of the State by the chairperson of the convention not later than forty-eight (48) hours after the close of the convention. Together with such list, said chairperson shall also file with the Secretary of the State the names, street addresses and towns of persons selected as the nominees for Presidential Electors. Copies of such lists shall be delivered to the Secretary of the State Central Committee.

Section 16: Plurality Vote Determinative ofNomination.

Whenever a primary for nomination to a state or district office is to be held under the provision of the State Primary Law, as the same may be amended from time to time, the nominee of the Democratic Party for such office shall be the person receiving a plurality of the votes cast.

Section 17: Presidential Electors.

In the year of a presidential election, Presidential Electors shall be nominated at the State Convention by a majority
vote of the delegates present and voting.

Section 18: National Convention Delegates.

Delegates to National Conventions shall be elected in accordance with Democratic National Party Rules. The delegate selection process should be completed early enough to enable delegates to participate fully in National Convention Committees.

Section 19: Unit Rule.

The unit rule shall not be permitted at any convention.

Section I: In Nomination

ARTICLE IV VACANCIES

A. Ifa nomination has been made for an office and the nominee thereafter but prior to twenty-four (24) days before the opening of the polls on the day of the election for which such nomination has been made, withdraws his or her name, or for any reason becomes disqualified to hold the office for which he or she has been nominated, the vacancy shall be filled as prescribed in Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-460, except as otherwise pl'Ovided herein. If a nominee dies prior to twenty-four (24) hours before the opening of the polls on the day ofthe election for which such nomination has been made, the vacancy shall be filled as prescribed by Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-460, except as otherwise provided herein.
B. In the case of an office for which all the electors of the state may vote, the vacancy shall be filled by
the State Central Committee, meeting upon no less than five (5) days notice.

10

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 37 of 116
CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PARTY RULES

C. D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Section 2:

In the case of the office of congressman, the vacancy shall be filled by the members of the State Central Committee representing tc1Titory within the congressional district, meeting upon no less than five (5) days' notice.
In the case of the office of judge of probate, state senator, state representative, convention
delegate, or any other office not otherwise specifically provided for herein, the vacancy shall be filled by reconvening the body \vhich pl'eviously decided the party endorsement fr1r the office, meeting upon no less than five (5) days' notice, except that where the previous endorsing body \Vas a caucus the tO\vn committee shc:ill be convened to fill the vacancy. The provisions of this section shall also apply in the case of a town's State Convention delegation not properly apportioned as required by Art. llI, Section 3. In the event of such improper apportionment, the endorsing body shall fill any vacancies for under-represented senatorial districts and shall correspondingly reduce the number of delegates from over-represented senatorial districts.
Tr a vacancy in a nornination under subsection (c) or (d) of this section shall occur in a multitown district less than sixty (60) but prior to ten (10) days before the opening of the polls on the day of the election for which such nomination has been made or, in the case of the death of a nominee, prior to twenty-four (24) hours before said opening of the polls, in such case the vacancy shall be fi !led by the State Central Committee members and Town Chairs for the district within which the vacancy has occurred meeting upon no less than three (3) days, notice. If such vacancy shall occur less than eight (8) days prior to the opening of the polls, reasonable notice shall suffice. In filling a vacancy under the provisions of this subsection (e), each participating Town Chair shall be entitled to cast the number of votes to which his or her town was entitled in the body which previously decided the party endorsement.
lf a vacancy in a nomination under subsection (d) of this section shall occur in a single-town district less than sixty (60) but prior to ten (clays) before the opening of the polls on the day oC the election for which such nomination has been made or, in the case of the death of a nominee, prior to twenty-four (24) hours before said opening of the polls, in such case the vacancy shall be filled, meeting upon no less than tlu·ee (3) days' notice, by the town committee of the town within which the vacancy has occurred or as the local party rules may othenvise provide. ff such vacancy shall occur less than eight (8) days prior to the opening of the polls, reasonable notice shall sufiice.
Vlhere a State Central Cornmittee meml1er or Town Chair who is called upon under subsection (e) of this section to fill a vacancy does not reside -.vithin the district for which a vacancy is to be filled, he or she shall appoint a representative who is a voter in said district to act in his or her
place for the purpose or filling such vc:icancy.
No candidate shall be deemed to have withdrawn until a letter of' withdrawal signed by such
candidate is filed as prescribed by statute, except as otherwise provided herein.
Tie Vote in Filling Vacancy.

l l

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 38 of 116
CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PARTY RULES
A The State Chair shall have the right to cast a vote to dissolve a tie when a vacancy m an endorsement or nomination is to be filled by the State Central Committee.
B. When a tie vote occurs among members of the State Central Committee or Town Committee Chairs in filling a vacancy under lhc provisions of this Article, the State Central Committee member who is senior in te1ms of cumulative service as a State Central Committee member representing the district within \Vhich the vacancy occurs, or a pot1ion thereof: shall have the right to cast a vote to dissolve the tie.
C. lf seniority o I' two or more State Central Committee members is identical for the purposes of dissolving a tie under this Article, the member who shall dissolve the tie shall be dete1mined by random process. ·
Section 3: Certification of Filled Vacancy.
A Vv'henever a vacancy in a nomination for a state or district office, is filled, pursuant to this Article, the action shall immediately be communicated to the State Chair, who shall certify the same as prescribed by statulc, except as othenvise provided herein. In the absence of the Chair, such certification shall be made by the Secretary of the State Central Committee.
13. \Vhenever a vacancy in a nomination to an office for which only the electors of' a single town may vote is filled, the Chair or Secretary of the town committee shall immediately certify the same as prescribed by statute, except otherwise provided herein. Certification of such nomination to fill a vacancy due to death or disqualification shall include a statement setting forth the reason kir such vacancy.
Section 4: Vacancy, Presidential Elector, Delegate, Alternate Delegate to National Convention
Any vacancy in the position of delegate or alternate delegate to the Democratic National Convention shall be filled
in accordance with the Connecticul Delegate Selection Plan. /\ vacancy in the position of presidential elector shall be filled by the State Central Committee, meeting upon no less than five (5) days' notice, if such vacancy occurs prior to the election at which presidential electors are to be chosen.
ARTICLEV
FINAL COMMITTEE TO RESOLVE ENDORSEMENT DISPUTE
A. Any dispute concerning endorsements for any office, or for delegate or for town committee member or officer, and any dispute concerning the interpretation and effect of party rules and procedw-es must first be reforred to the State Central Committee members in the applicable district for local resolution. In order to expedile any such disputes, State Central Tvfembers may seek legal opinions from Counsel for State Central. lf the paities involved cannot bring about a resolution to Lheir differences, then the issue may be refened to the State Chair in writing asking that the issue be resolved through a Dispute Resolution Committee. Ifthc dispute is brought before a Dispute Resolution Committee, the issuing of a previous legal opinion by State Central Counsel concerning the dispute shall not prohibit said Counsel from advising Lhe Dispute Resolution Committee.
12

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 39 of 116
CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PARTY RULES
B. A Dispute Resolution Committee shall be composed ofno less than three (3) nor more than five (5) members of the State Central Committee, appointed by the chairperson thereof, none of whom shall be present the district or districts concerned. The decision ofthe committee shall be conclusive and binding upon all patties.
C. The committee shall be appointed no later than five (5) business days after the State Chair receives a written request for the resolution of a dispute pursuant to this article. The committee shall set a time and place for a hearing of said dispute within five (5) business days of its appointment. The parties to the dispute shall receive notice at least seven (7) business days prior to the hearing unless exigent circumstances wan·ant less notice. The Committee shall issue its decision within five (5) days ofthe close of the hearing, and a written copy of such decision shall be filed with the State Central Committee, and provided to each party to the dispute. However, when exigent circumstances arise, the State Chairman shall have the authority to modify these requirements.
ARTICLE VI PRIMARY LAW
The nominations ofthe Democratic Party to all public offices and the election to a town committee and delegates to conventions shall be made in all respects in accordance with the State Party Rules, as may be amended from time to time, provided that no person may contest in a primary for any State or District office unless such person has received at least fifteen percent (15%) of the votes of the convention delegates present and voting in at least one roll call vote at a duly called and conducted convention for the endorsement of candidates for such offices, in accordance with the provisions of Article III of these mies, or such person has received two percent (2%) of the valid signatures of registered Democrats in the State or congressional district, or five percent (5%) of the valid signatures ofregistered Democrats in the State Senatorial, Assembly or Judge of Probate district.
ARTICLE VII RULES GOVERNING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN ALL TOWNS
The following mies shall govem the activities of the Democratic Patty in each town of the state, whether or not the local party has adopted its own rules, notwithstanding any local party mle to the contrary.
Section 1: Election ofTown Committees
A. Party endorsed candidates of any local party for town committee members shall be selected by the enrolled members of such paity in caucus. At caucus meetings, any eligible person may be nominated from the floor, notwithstanding any notice or pre"registration requirements in the local rules. Notice of the time, place and purpose of said caucus shall be given to all enrolled Democratic voters of the municipality at least five (5) days, but not more than fifteen (15) days, in advance of the caucus by publication of the same in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality.
B. The payment of dues shall not be a requirement for the endorsement or election of a candidate for any local party or town committee position. A town committee may be endorsed and elected on a
13

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 40 of 116 CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PARTY RULES
district basis as such rules may prescribe. At any caucus duly called for the endorsement of
members of a town committee, nominations for such town committee members may be made by (1)
presentation to the caucus of a full slate composed of a number of persons equal to the number of town committee members prescribed by local party rules or (2) by nomination of individual candidates. Voting by slate is only permissible when the election is between two or more full slates. In the endorsement of such candidates, voting shall be in accordance with the local party rules, but in no event shall a member of the caucus vote for a greater number of candidates than those to be elected In the event no endorsement is made by the above stated method, then there shall be no endorsement and election to such town committee shall be made by direct primary as provided by law. No person shall be eligible to serve on the town committee unless he or she is a registered member of the Democratic Party.
Section 2: Primary Date
On the first Tuesday in March in each even-numbered year, each town committee, if needed, shall hold a primary for the election oftown committee members.
Section 3: Terms ofMembers
Unless otherwise provided in this Article, members of the town committee shall serve for a term of two (2) years, commencing on the Wednesday after the first Tuesday in March in each even-numbered year and ending on the first Tuesday in March ofthe next even-numbered year.
Section 4: Election and Call of Organizational Meeting
A. Not more than thirty (30) days following the day fixed for the holding of a primary for the election of town committee members, the chair of the town committee in office at the time of said primary shall call a meeting of the newly elected town committee for the purpose of electing such officers of
the town committee pursuant to the local party rules. If such Town Chair fails, for any reason, to
call such meeting by the end of the prescribed thirty (30) day period, the Vice Chair in office at the time of the primary shall call the meeting within forty-eight (48) hours.
B. If, for any reason, the Vice Chair does not call the meeting within the prescribed forty-eight (48)
hour period, the State Central Committee membeis in the district shall call the meeting within the next forty-eight (48) hours. When the meeting must be called by the Vice Chair or a State Central
Committee member, the call of the meeting will be valid notwithstanding any otherwise applicable rule concerning time and notification of town committee meetings.
Section 5: Quorum
Two fifths (2/5) ofthe membership of the town committee shall constitute a quorum at any meeting.
Section 6: Slate Endorsement
14

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 41 of 116
CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PARTY RULES
A Al any caucus or town committee meeting duly called for the election of delegates to any
convention, nominations for said delegates may be made (1) by presentation to the caucus or town
committee or a slate composed or a number of persons not exceeding the number of such delegates
to which the town is entitled under the state rules of the Democratic Party or (2) by nomination of individual candidates. Voting by slate is only permissible \Vhen the election is between two or more
full slates.
I3. Tn the selection of such delegates, each member of the caucus or town committee member present and voting shall vote for a number of delegates not to exceed the number of a full slate as defined above.
C The voting for delegates to each convention shall be done by individual convention.
Section 7: Increased Membership.
The town committee, al a rneeting called for the purpose, may, by majority vote of those present and voting,
increase its membership, provided that all new members shall be duly elected by the time of the next primary date
in the state election calendar, shall begin in office the next day, and shall continue in office only until the next date for election oftown conunittee members.
Section 8: Town Committee Meetings
In accordance with the Charter of the Democratic National Committee, all meetings of Democratic town committees, subcommittees and all other Democratic Party committees shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot.
ARTICLE VIII RCLES G0v7ERNING THE DEIVIOCRATIC PARTY IN 'fO\VNS NOT HAVING LOCAL PARTY RUT,ES
The following rules shall govern the activities of the Democratic Party in each town of the state in which no rules
have been adopted by the local Democratic Party or have not been filed in accordance with Article VIII. The following rules also shall govern the activities of the Democratic Party in each town for circumstances where the
local rules are silent or otherwise void. Where alternate sections bearing the same number are given, the applicable
one, as indicated in the margin, shall govern.
Section 1: Town Conrn1ittec Composition
A. For Towns Not Divided Into Voting Districts
The town committee shall consist of not less than ten (10) members, who shall be elected at large. Representalion should be given to each section of the town.
R. For Towns Divided Into Votit,g Districts
15

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 42 of 116 CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PARTY RULES
The town comm iLtee shall consist of not less than three members from each of the voting districts of the town. The members of the town committee shall be elected to vote :from their respective voting districts. In the vote in a primary for the election of town committee members from a voting
district, only persons currently registered as members ofthe Democratic Party in such voting district
shall be eligible to vote.
16

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 43 of 116
CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATlC STATE PARTY RULES

Section 2: Terms of Members

Members of the town committee shall serve for a term of two (2) years, commencing on the day following the day established for holding a primary for the election of said town committee members and ending with the day established for tbc holding ol' ,L prir:1ary for the election of the members 01· the succeeding town committee. The provisions of this section shall apply notwithstanding the lack of cause for a primary to elect said members.

Section 3: Vacancy

Any vacancy on the town committee, arising from any cause including failm-e to elect, may be filled by the town committee by a majority vote ol' those present and voting at a meeting called for that purpose.

Section 4: Election and Cal I of Organizational Meeting

Not more than thirty (30) day:; following the day fixed for the holding of a primary for the election of town committee members, the chair ol' the row11 committee in office on the day of said primary shall call a meeting of the newly elected town committee i'i.ff the purpose or electing such officers of the town committee as are prescribed in local party rules. If such Town Chair fails, for any reason, to call such meeting by the end of the prescribed thirty (30) day period, the Vice Chair in office at the time of the primary shall call the meeting within fortyeight (48) hours. If, for any reason, the Vice Chair does not call the meeting within the prescribed forty-eight (48)
hour period, the State Central Comniittee rnembcrs in the district shall call the meeting within the next forty-eight
(48) hours. When the meeting n1ust be called by the Vice Chair or a State Central Committee member, the call of
the meeting will be valid not\vithstrn1ding any otherwise applicable rule concerning time and notification of town
committee meetings.

Section 5: Qualifications

The officers of the tmvn committee need not be members of the committee.

Section 6: Term

Officers so elected shall hold o !lice until their successors have been elected.

Section 7:

Duties

Each of such of'flcers shall ha\ c the duties usually incident to his or her office and such other duties as the town committee may from time to 1in1c pr,:scribc. In the event that a vote is taken that shall result in a tie, such tie vote shall be dissolved by the vote or the chair of the town committee, but this provision shall not affect his or her right to cast any vote, as a member ol' the tov,rn committee, to which he or she is otherwise entitled.

Section 8: Filing List 01· Oflicers and Members

Within one ,.veek aner organi1:1Lion 01· the town committee, the Secretary shall file a list of the names and addressees of the officers and rncn1bers of the town committee with the Secretary of the Democratic State Central Comrniltee.

17

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 44 of 116 CONNECTICUT DEMOCRAT] C STATE PARTY RULES
Section 9: Vacancy in Town C01mnittee Office
If there shall be a vacancy in any omce of the town committee, arising from any cause, the town committee may fill the same by a majority vote of those present and voting, at a meeting called for that purpose.
Section 10: Meetings, Minimum Meetings
The town committee shall meet at least four times a year.
Section 11: Special Meetings
Special meetings of the town committee may be called upon written request, signed by twenty percent (20%) ofthe members of the committee, presented to the Chair. Upon receipt of such request, the Chair shall instruct the Secretary to give reasonable notice of the time and place and pm-pose of such meeting to all members of the committee.
Section 12: Selection of Party Endorsed Candidates
A. For Towns of Five Thousand (5,000) or More Population Under the Last Federal Census
The enrolled members of the Democratic Party in the municipality, at a caucus called for the purpose, shall, by 1m~jority vote of those present and voting, select party endorsed candidates for the town committee. The town committee, at a meeting called for the purpose, shall, by a majority vote of those present and voting, elect delegates to conventions and select party endorsed candidates for all other offices. In the endorsement of any person for an office, or election of a delegate, for whom only the elect01-s of a political subdivision of the municipality may vote, only the members of the town committee elected from said political subdivision may participate.
B. For Towns of Less Than Five Thousand (5,000) Population Under the Last Federal Census
The enrolled mcmbet's of the Democratic Party in the municipality, at a caucus called for the purpose, shall, by a majority vote of those present and voting, select party. endorsed candidates for each municipal office and for town committee members, and shall elect delegates to conventions. In the endorsement of any person for an office or for a position as committee member, or election of a delegate, for whom only the electors of a political subdivision of the municipality may vote, only the enrolled members of the Democratic Party in such political subdivision may participate. The time and place of holding all such caucuses shall be determined by the town committee, and notice of the time, place and purpose of any such caucus shall be given to all enrolled Democratic voters of
the municipality at least five (5) days, but not more than fifteen (15) days, in advance of the caucus
by publication of the same in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality and by posting the same on the public sign post in said municipality. The time of any such caucus shall be fixed so as to comply with the provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes. The chair of the town committee shall be the temporary chairperson of all such caucuses and shall preside until the meeting has selected its pe1ma11ent chairperson. In like manner, the Secretary of the town committee shall act as secretary at all such caucuses until the meeting has selected its pennanent secretary.
18

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 45 of 116 CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PAR1Y RULES
Section 13: Slate Endorsement
At any caucus or town committee meeting duly called for the election of delegates to any conventio~ nominations for said delegates may be made by (1) presentation to the caucus or town committee of a slate composed of a number of persons not exceeding the number of such delegates to which the town is entitled under the state rules of
the Democratic Pa1ty or (2) by nomination of individual candidates. In the election of such delegates, each member
of the caucus or town committee member present and voting shall vote for a number ofcandidates not to exceed the number of a full slate as defined above. The voting for delegates to each convention shall be done separately for each convention.
Section 14: Party Endorsed Candidates for Municipal Office
Candidates for municipal office chosen as provided in Section 12 above shall run in the primary for such office as party endorsed candidates. Any candidate shall be the nominee of the Democratic Party for the office for which he or she is a candidate if no valid opposing candidacy has been filed for nomination to such office by four o' clock (4:00) p.m. on the twenty-first (21st) day preceding the day of the Democratic primary for such office.
Section 15: Party Endorsed Candidates for Town Committee
Candidates for town committee members chosen as provided in Section 12 above shall run in the primary for town committee members as pruty endorsed candidates. Any candidates shall be deemed elected as members of the town committee if no valid opposing candidacies have been filed for town committee members by fow· o' clock (4:00) p.m. on the twenty-first (21st) day preceding the Democratic primary for town committee members.
Section 16: Insufficient Endorsements
If, for any reason, sufficient endorsements of candidates for municipal office or town committee members are not
made, any eligible person may seek to become a candidate in accordance with Conn. Gen. Stat. §§9-405, 9-406, and 9-372 et seq.
Section 17: Certification of Party Endorsed Candidates and Elected Delegates
The Secretary and the Chair or presiding officer of the town committee, caucus or convention, as the case may be, shall certify to the municipal clerk the names and street addresses of the party endorsed candidates selected, and delegates elected, as provided in Sections 12 and 13 above. Such certification shall include the title of the office or position as committee member for which each person is endorsed and the date upon which the primary is to be
held, or the convention for which the delegate has been elected. In the case of the endorsement of a person for an
office or for a position as committee member, or election of a delegate, for whom only the electors of a political subdivision of the municipality or for a senat01ial district located entirely within the municipality may vote, the Secretary of the town committee shall certify to the municipal clerk the name or number of such political subdivision or senatorial district.
19

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 46 of 116
CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PAR1Y RULES
Section 18: Date of Party Endorsement of Candidates
Each party endorsement of a candidate to nm in a primary for the nomination of candidates for municipal office or for election as town committee members shall be made within the time frame established by the Connecticut General Statutes. Said endorsement shall be certified to the clerk of the municipality by the following two officials: the Chair and Secretary of the town committee, the permanent chair and secretary of the caucus or the permanent chair and secretary of the convention.
Section 19: Tie vote
A. For Towns of Five-Thousand (5,000) or More Population Under the Last Federal Census
In the event that a vote taken on selection of a party endorsed candidate results in a tie, such tie vote shall be dissolved by the vote of the chair of the town committee, but this provision shall not affect his or her right to cast any vote as a member of the town committee in the first place.
B. For Towns of Less Than Five-Thousm1d (5,000) Population Under the Last Federal Census
In the event that a vote on the selection of a party endorsed candidate results in a tie, such tie vote shall be dissolved by the vote of the permanent chairperson of the caucus, but this provision shall not affect his or her right to cast any vote as a member of the caucus in the first place.
Section 20: Vacancies in Party Endorsed Candidacy
A. If a party endorsed candidate for nomination to a municipal office or for election as Town Committee member, prior to twenty-four (24) hours before the opening for the polls at the primary, dies, or prior to ten (10) days before the day of the primary withdraws his or her name from nomination, or for any reason becomes disqualified to hold office or position for which her or she is a candidate, an endorsement may be made to fill such vacancy by the town committee, by a majority vote of those present and voting, at a meeting called for that purpose; provided if the original endorsement was made by the members of the town committee elected from only one political subdivision of the municipality, only such members shall participate in the endorsement to fill such vacancy,
B. The chair of the town committee may cast a vote on such endorsement to break a tie, but this provision shall not affect his or her right to cast any vote, as a member of the town committee, to which he or she is otherwise entitled. The Secretary of the town committee shall immediately certify the endorsement to fill such vacancy to the Democratic Registrar ofVoters.
C. No candidate shall be deemed to have withdrawn until a letter of withdrawal signed by such candidate is filed :with the municipal clerk.
Section 21: Plurality Vote Determinative ofNomination
The nominations of the Democratic Party to all offices and the election of members of the town committee and delegates to conventions shall be made in all respects as provided in the State Primary Law, as the same may be
20

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 47 of 116
CONNECTICUT DEMOCIZATIC STATE PARTY RULl·~S
amended from time to time. At a primary for nomination to a municipal ofiice or for election of town committee members the \.Vinner shall be determined hy a plurality of votes cast.
Section 22: Vacancy in Nomination.
If a nomination has been made for a municipal office and the nominee thereafter, but prior to twenty-four (24) hours before the opening of the polls 011 the day of the election for \vhich such nomination has been made, dies, \Vithdraws his or her name, or lor any reason becomes disqualified to hold the orllce for which he or she has been nominated, a nomination to fill such vacancy may be made by the town conunittee, by a majority vote of the town committee members present and voling at a meeting called for that purpose. The chair of the Town Committee may cast a vote on such nomination to b1 cak a tie, but this provision shall not affect his or her right to cast any vote,
or or as a member the town connnittee, in tbc first place. Tn the case a withclrmval, said nomination shall not be
valid until the candidate who has withdrawn has filed a letter of withdrawal, signed by such candidate, with the Secretmy of the State, and also has filed a copy with the municipal clerk. The Chair of the town committee shall certify the nomination to fill such vacancy to the Secretary of the State, and shall file a copy with the munidpal clerk. Such cc1iification of a nominati1 m to fill a vacancy due to death or disqualification shall include a statement setting forth the reason for slich vacancy.
Section 23: Definitions
As used in these rules, "municipal office" means any elective ol'flce of a town, city or borough and the onices of
justice of the peace, state representative in an assembly district composed of a single town or part of a single town, state senator in a senatorial district composed of a single town or part of a single town, and judge of probate in a probate district composed of a single tO\vn. The other terms used in these rules shall have the same meanings as in the State Primary I,aw, as the same may be amended fhJm time to time.
Section 24: Special Caucuses.
Special caucuses may be called for any ld ,.vli_il purpose by a majority of the town committee or by not less than ten percent (10%)) of the registered Democralic voters in the town. The call for any such special caucus shall be in writing and signed by each of the persons issuing the same, and notice of the time, place and purpose of said special caucus shall be given to all registered Democratic voters in the town, at least five (5) day in advance of such caucus, by publication in a 11e\v:,paper !W\ing circulation in said tovm and by posting on the public sign post.
ARTICLE IX FILING OF LOCAL RULES
Within seven (7) days after party rules 01· any amendmenls to party rules arc adopted by the Democratic Party in any town, a copy of the same shall be filed with the Sccretm·y of the State Central Committee. Any amendments so filed shall set forth in full the section to be amended. Matter to be omitted or repealed shall be surrounded by brackets, and new rnattcr shall be indicated by capitalization. Adopted party rules or amendments shall not be effective until sixty ((,OJ days after the filing with the Secretary of the State Central Committee.
21

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 48 of 116 CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PARTY RULES
ARTICLEX AMENDMENTS TO LOCAL PARTY RULES
Local party rules may be amended by one of the three following methods:
1. By a caucus of the enrolled Democratic electors of the municipality called in the same manner as a caucus for selecting party endorsed candidates as provided in Section 12 of Article VIII of these rules.
2. By a convention of delegates chosen by the enrolled Democratic electors of the municipality in a manner prescribed in the local party rules ofeach municipality.
3. By the Democratic town committee at a meeting called in the same manner as a town committee meeting for selecting party endorsed candidates as provided in Section 12 of Article VIII of these rules, or as provided in local party rules.
In any municipality in which the town committee has not so adopted and filed such rules or amendments, the chair of the town committee in any municipality consisting of one voting district, or in the event of his or her failure to act, the Vice Chair, shall call a caucus within twenty (20) days upon filing with the Registrar of Voters of such party in such municipality a petition signed by at least five percent (5%}, but no more than five hundred (500), ofits enrolled party members, to take action on such petition.
In all other municipalities, the chair of the town committee, or, in the event of his or her failure to act, the Vice Chair, shall call a convention within twenty (20) days upon the filing with the Registrar of Voters of such party in such municipality of a petition signed by at least five percent (5%), or at least five hundred (500) (whichever is less), of its enrolled party members, to take action on such petition.
Such convention shall consist of three (3) delegates from each voting district elected at a caucus of the enrolled party members of that district. It shall be the duty of the Town Chair, or, in the event of his or her failure to act, the Vice Chair, to call such caucuses, which shall be held on the same day, designating the time, place and day by publishing said call in a newspaper having a circulation in such municipality, at least five (5) days before the day of such caucuses.
In the event the enrolled Democratic electors or the town committee in any town shall fail to adopt a method for amending the local patty rules, then the method of amending said local party rules of said municipality shall be the same method used to select party endorsed candidates until such time as a method of amendment is lawfully adopted and filed by the proper authority,
ARTICLE XI COVERAGE
A copy of these rules shall be available on the State Patty website and shall be deemed to cover the operations of the Democratic Party in each municipality until such time as the party within such municipality adopts a rule or
22

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 49 of 116
_,,
CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PARTY RULES
amendment on the same subject matter, consistent with these rules and files the same with Secretary of the State Party.
ARTICLE XII AMENJ)MENTS TO STATE PARTY RULES
Section 1:
These Rules may be amended by any State Convention. The State Central Committee, at a meeting duly called for such purpose, by a vote of at least two-thirds (2/3) of its entire membership, may make such amendments and only such amendments, as may be made necessary by changes in the laws of the United States or the State of Connecticut or by the National Democratic Party Rules. Any changes or amendments made by the State Central Committee shall be in force on! y until the next succeeding State Convention, at which they must be submitted for ratification or rejection.
Section 2:
Nothing herein shall be construed to pennit the State Central Committee to alter the basis of representation at
conventions as provided in Section 3 of Article III of these rules unless such alteration be required by change in the
laws of the United States or of the State of Connecticut or by the National Democratic Party Rules. ARTICLE XIII
ROBERT'S RULES GOVERNING
Robert's Rules of Order (newly revised) shall be construed as applicable, controlling and conclusive on parliamentary issues, except as herein otherwise provided.
Amended July, 1986 Amended July, 1994 Amended July, 1996 Amended July, 2000 Amended May, 2004 Amended May, 2008 Amended May, 2010 Amended May, 2012
23

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 50 of 116
EXHIBIT B

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 51 of 116

.... r .;. ,..__,

. . I

) ',

f-...)

, , ·1,, - •

N

. ,' .-~, -o

.,

0 ~ .·, .i::-

Connecticut Republican

State Central Committee

Rules and Bylaws

Index Article I: State Central Committee Article II: Town Committee Article III: State Conventions Ai·ticle IV: District Conventions Article V: Primaries and Special Elections Article VI: Coverage Ai·ticle VII: History

Page 2
14 21 28 32 34 35

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 52 of 116
ARTICLE I
STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE
Section 1. Definitions
As used in these rules and bylaws:
(a) "state committee" means the Connecticut Republican State Central Committee;
(b) "state party chair" means the Chair of the Connecticut Republican State Central Committee;
(c) "state party vice-chair" means the Vice-chair of the Connecticut Republican State Central Committee;
(d) "state party secretary" means the Secretary of the Connecticut Republican State Central Committee;
(e) "senatorial district" means a district established by law for the election of members of the Connecticut State Senate, as amended from time to time;
(f) "general statutes" means (1) the latest revision of the General Statutes of Connecticut and (2) the Public Acts of the Connecticut General Assembly not included in the General Statutes of Connecticut;
(g) "town committee" means the Republican Town Committee of any town established in accordance with these rules and bylaws and the general statutes;
(h) 11elector11 means a person registered to vote within the state of Connecticut in accordance with the general statutes, and;
(i) "ex-officio" means an office held by virtue of status or position with all rights of such office except the right to vote unless otherwise specified herein.
(i) "notice" means a legal notice.
(k) "publish" means place a legal notice in a newspaper having a circulation in the municipality:

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 53 of 116

Section 2. State Committee Members

(a) The state committee shall consist of seventy-four (74) members who shall be enrolled Republican electors in the senatorial district they represent. Two (2) persons shall be elected as members of said committee from each senatorial district as provided in Section 3 of this article. In addition, by virtue of their office the Chairperson(s) of the Connecticut Federation of Young Republicans and the College Republican Organization shall be voting members of the committee with a single vote; provided they are enrolled Republican electors in the state of Connecticut

(b) Each member of the state committee shall have voting power on the state committee based on the number of enrolled Republicans in the senatorial district such member represents, to be determined as follows:

Number of Enrolled Republicans in District

Number of votes for each member

Less than 15,000

1

15,000 to 25,000 inclusive

1.5

Over 25,000

2

(c) The number of enrolled Republicans in each senatorial district shall be determined by the state party chair on or before April first in each oddnumbered year and shall be computed from the enrollment lists printed and certified in each town in January or February of such odd-numbered year, as required by Section 9-55 of the general statutes. The voting power of members of the state committee, as determined in accordance with subsection (c) of this section, shall apply to all instances in which-members of the state committee have the right to vote. Revised voting power determined in accordance with subsection (b) of this section shall be distributed on or before Mayl of each odd-numbered year and shall be effective commencing at the organization meeting ofthe state committee in such year.

Section S. Election of State Committee Members

(a) At meetings of town committees in each town, held not earlier than March first (1st) nor later than April fifteenth (15th) in each odd-numbered year, the town committee members residing in each senatorial district shall select delegates to a state committee district convention to be held on the second Tuesday of May in each odd-numbered year at a time and place designated jointly by the incumbent state committee members to elect two persons to represent such senatorial district on the state committee. In the event that no town committee members reside within such senatorial district, the town committee as a whole shall select such delegates.

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

3

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 54 of 116

Notice of the time and place of the convention shall be mailed or delivered in writing to each delegate by the state chair. Such notice shall include the current te1·m attendance record, including attendance by proxy, of the incumbent state committee membe1·s from such district.
(b) The number of delegates so selected shall be equal to the number of delegates which that town or that part of a town is entitled to send to such district's convention held for the purpose of nominating candidates for the state senate. Any delegate so selected shall be an enrolled Republican elector residing within such town or part of a town. The names and addresses of each delegate shall be filed with state committee headquarters not later than May ffrst (1) in each odd-numbered year. Each delegate may designate, in writing, an alternate to act in such delegate's place and stead, if; for any reason, such delegate is unable to be p1·esent at the convention. Vacancies in any delegation shall be filled in the manner in Article III, Section 6, subsection (b) of these rules.
(c) In any senatorial district where the number of delegates to such convention from one town in such senatorial district exceeds fifty (50) percent but does not exceed seventy-five (75) percent of the total number of delegates to such convention, such town's delegates shall be entitled to elect first, by a majority vote of the delegates from such town, one of the two members of the state committee to represent such senatorial district. The delegates to such convention from the remaining town or towns in such district shall then be entitled to elect, by a majority vote of the delegates from such remaining town or towns, the other member of the state committee to represent such senatorial district.
(d) If the number of delegates to such convention from any one town exceeds seventy-five (75) percent of the total number of delegates to such convention, or if no town in such district is entitled to send more than fifty (50) percent of the total number of delegates to such convention, both members of the state committee representing such senatorial district shall be elected by majority vote of all of the delegates to such convention.
(e) Nothing herein contained shall preclude both of such members of the state committee from residing within the same town in such senatorial district.
(f) In those senatorial districts located wholly within one town, the members of the town committee residing within such district shall meet, on the second Tuesday in May at a time and place designated by the town chair, and elect two persons to rep1·esent such senatorial district on the state committee. (g) Each state committee member shall be elected by a majority vote of all persons authorized to vote for such member and all voting shall be by roll

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

4

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 55 of 116
call. Where there are two or more candidates for election for eithe1· position, voting shall continue until one person obtains more than fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast, and that person shall be declared elected. Nominations and voting shall then take place again and voting shall continue until any one pe1·son of the second group of nominees shall obtain more than fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast. Nothing herein contained shall prohibit a person nominated but not elected in the first group from being nominated and elected in the second group and nothing herein contained shall prohibit someone not nominated in the first group from being nominated in the second group. Each person voting shall only be entitled to vote for one person per ballot, provided that when five ballots have been taken and no candidate has been declared elected, the chair of such convention shall cast an additional vote for the purpose of breaking a tie vote.
(h) State committee members so elected shall immediately assume office. The terms of the state committee members shall be for two (2) years and until their successors have been duly elected and qualified. The members representing the Connecticut Federation of College Republicans and Connecticut Young Republicans shall take office immediately following their election as Chairman of their respective organizations and their terms shall run concurrently with their term of office.
Section 4. Officers
(a) The newly elected state committee shall be called into an organizational meeting on the fourth (4th) Tuesday of June in each odd-numbered year by the state party chair, or if the chair fails to act, then by the state party vicechair, or if the state party vice-chair fails to act, then by the state party secretary, and shall thereupon elect a state party chair, a state party vicechair, a state party secretary, a state treasurer and such other officers as it may deem necessary. Proxy voting shall be permitted.
(b) The officers, who shall be enrolled Republican electors, may be chosen from among the members of the committee, or otherwise, and shall be without voting privileges unless they are elected as members of the committee representing a senatorial district. Officers shall serve for a term of two years from the date of their election, and until their successors are duly elected and qualified. When a vacancy, however arising, shall occur among any of the officers, the state committee shall, within sixty (60) days after the occurrence of such vacancy, elect a successor to fill the unexpired portion of the term, at a meeting duly warned and held for such purpose. In all voting by the state committee, the state party chair shall cast a vote to break a tie vote, in addition to any regular voting rights such state party chair may have.

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

5

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 56 of 116
Section 5. Vacancies
(a) Vacancies occurring for any reason in the membership of the state committee shall be filled in the manner provided in Section 3 of Article I of these rules and bylaws, except that the delegates selected for said convention shall be chosen by the town committee members residing in the applicable senatorial district at a meeting called for that purpose by the state party chair at least ten (10) but not more than fifteen (15) days prior to the convention called to fill such vacancy.
(b) When any member of the state committee is not longer listed as an elector in the senatorial district which such member represents, such member shall be deemed to have resigned from the state committee as of the date on which the member's rights as an elector were extinguished.
Section 6. Meetings
(a) Meetings of the state committee shall be held upon call of the chair or by majority vote of the Committee. Upon delivery of a written petition of twenty (20) or more members of the state committee that a meeting of the whole committee be held, the chair shall call such a meeting within ten (10) days of the receipt of such petition. (b) The presence of thirty-seven (37) voting members shall constitute a quorum at any meeting. (c) The rules of parliamentary practice comprised in the latest edition of Robert's Rules of Order shall govern the state committee whenever they are applicable and whenever they are not inconsistent with these rules and bylaws. [d] The State Central Committee Shall Meet at a minimum of once per quarter.
Section 7. Notices
All notices required to be given by the members of the state committee in any senatorial district shall be issued and signed by both members therein, but if the members in any district shall be in disagreement with respect to their duties, or if any member shall be absent or unable to perform such duties, the state party chair shall designate a member from said district who shall act in such case.

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

6

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 57 of 116

Section 8. Committees

The state committee shall maintain the committees required by this section, and may, in addition, from time to time, provide for the appointments of such committees, as it deems necessary. The state party chair and the state party vice chair shall be ex-officio members of all such committees without power to vote. Except as otherwise provided in the case of the method of appointment and the term of office of the members of all committees shall be p_rescribed by resolution of the state committee.
Board of Advisors: (a) The chair of the Board ofAdvisors may be appointed by the state party
chairman and the membe1·s of the Board of Advisors shall be appointed by said committee chair, with the appmval of the state committee. Both with the approval of the state committee. (b) The term of office shall fo1· the Chairman of the Board of Advisors shall be two (2) years or until their successors have been approved by the state committee (c) The purpose of the Board of Advisors is to advise the Chairman of the state party on all matters relating to the state party committee including, without limitation to fundraising, public policy, media relations, and any other matters that promote the principals of the Republican Party.
Finance Committee
(a) The state party chair may establish a finance committee for the sole purpose of raising funds fo1· the state party. (h) The chair of the finance committee shall be appointed by the state party chair, and the members of the finance committee by the chair of the finance committee, both with the approval of the state committee. (m The term of office for the chair of the finance committee and members of the finance committee shall be two (2) years or until their successors have been approved by the state committee.
Budget and Control Committee (a) The budget and control committee shall consist of the chair of the finance committee, the state party treasurer, and not less than five (5) nor more than nine (9) additional members who shall be appointed by the chair of the budget and control committee with the appmval of the state committee, provided that not less than three (3) members of the budget and control committee shall be members of the state committee. The chair of the budget and control committee shall be a member of the finance committee ex-officio. (b) The chair of the budget and control committee shall be appointed by the

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

7

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 58 of 116
state party chair, with the approval of the state committee. (c) The term of office of the chair of the budget and control committee and members of the budget and control committee shall be for two years or until their successors have been approved by the state party committee (d) In addition to any other duties prescribed by the state committee, the budget and control committee shall: (i) submit the annual budget for the state committee's expenses and control expenditures in relation to said budget; (ii) submit Election Campaign Budgets and control expenditures contained within such budgets; (iii) cause an annual audit of the accounts of the state committee to be made, and, (iv) shall cause a quarterly financial report to be rendered to the state committee, the budget and control committee and the finance committee by the state party treasurer or by the chair of the budget and control committee. In the event budget excesses occur in any budgetary category, such excesses shall be detailed in the regular quarterly reports required by this section or by a special report, and shall cause recommendations for elimination of such excesses to be made and explanations to be given. (e) The state committee shall not assume any expense or obligation, of any candidate for statewide office incurred prior to nomination as the official candidate of the party. (f) The state committee may assume any deficit incurred by the party's nominee for statewide office, only if the budget and control committee is consulted and approved the expenditures prior to same being incurred.
Section 9. Proxy
(a) Any member of the state committee who is unable to attend any meeting of such committee may give his proxy in writing to any enrolled Republican elector with such member's senatorial district. Such proxy shall be filed with the state party secretary. Proxy voting shall be in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(b) Wherever proxy voting is permitted by these rules and bylaws, proxies shall be written, dated and signed by the principal and shall be valid only for the meeting specified therein, or any adjournment thereof. Such proxies shall be voted in person only by the individual named in the proxy. Such individual shall be an enrolled Republican elector of the same district, town or political subdivision as the principal is required to be. No individual who is entitled to vote as a principal shall cast a proxy vote, and no individual shall cast a vote as a proxy for more than one (1) principal.
Section 10. Disputes
Any disputes which cannot be settled locally as to the endorsement of a

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

8

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 59 of 116
candidate for any office or for delegate or town committee member or membe1· of the state committee, including conflicting claims to such endorsement or any dispute with respect to any political problem of any nature, may be submitted in writing by any affected party to the state party chair. Matters so submitted shall be referred to the state committee or to a subcommittee thereof; consisting of not less than five (5) members appointed by the state party chair, none of whom shall be members rep1·esenting the district or districts concerned. Such dispute shall be resolved within fifteen (15) days after submission. Decisions made on disputes submitted hereunder shall be final and binding upon the parties.
Section 11. Removal of State Committee Members or Officers
(a) The state party chair; state party vice-chair; or officers elected by the state committee may be removed from office by the affirmative vote of twothirds (2/3) of the entire membership of the state committee at a duly warned meeting called for that purpose.
(b) A member of the state committee representing a multi-town senatorial district may be removed by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all of the town chair and town vice chairs of all towns within the senatorial district such member represents at a duly warned meeting called by one-third (113rd) of such town chairs and vice-chairs for that purpose.
(c) Not less than five (5) days advance written notice· shall be given of any meeting called under subsection (a) or (b) of this section.
(d) Proxy voting shall not be permitted in any meeting called under subsection (a) 01· (b) of this section.
Section. 12. Seating of State Committee Members at District Conventions
Members of the state committee who are not delegates to a district convention shall be entitled to sit with the delegates but may not make motions or vote.
Section 13. Congressional District Organizations
It shall be the responsibility of each member of the state committee to see to it that a Republican congressional district organization is established and functioning in each of their respective congressional districts. The purpose of this organization shall be to coordinate the efforts of all Republican organizations within such districts; to promote Republican party principles and candidates; to encourage active participation by Republicans and other

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

9

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 60 of 116
voters in election campaigns; to assist in raising funds for congressional candidates and to assist in every way the Republican candidate for congress from that congressional district. Reports of the activities of the organization shall be given at the request of the state party chair.
Section 14. Senatorial District Organizations
It shall be the responsibility of each state committee member representing two or more towns to see to it that a Republican senatorial district organization is established and functioning in each such senatorial district. The state committee members of each such district shall be the co-chairs of the organization and it shall be their responsibility to coordinate the efforts of Republican organizations within the senatorial district; to promote the Republican party and its candidates; to encourage active participation by Republicans and other voters in Republican campaigns; to disseminate information pertaining to the Republican Party throughout the district in a way most calculated to get the greatest number of Republican supporters and to meet with the chair and vice-chair of each Republican town committee within the district on a regular bimonthly basis. The state committee member shall report to the state party chair the doings of their senatorial district organization at his request.
Section. 15. Meetings with Town Chairs
It shall be the responsibility of the state party chair to meet with the town chairs. Such meetings shall be called by the state party chair, who shall designate the time, place and agenda.
Section 16. Selection of National Committee Members
The state committee, by a majority vote of its members present and voting, at the meeting held to select delegates to the National Convention in a presidential year shall select two individuals to represent the Connecticut Republican party as members of the Republican National Committee. The state committee shall fill vacancies for the balance of the term vacated.
Section 17. Delegates to National Convention
(a) All the state's At Large delegates to the Republican National Convention shall be allocated to the candidate receiving a majority of votes in the Presidential Preference Primary. [the greatest number] Where no candidate receives a majority of the votes statewide, the at large delegates shall be allocated to the candidates receiving 20 per cent or more of the statewide vote in proportion to the votes each candidate received in said primary after removing from the calculation all the votes

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

10

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 61 of 116
received by the candidates who received fewer than 20 percent of the statewide votes. Where said calculation results in a candidate being entitled to a fraction of a delegate the number of delegates allocated to that candidate shall be rounded up or down to the nearest whole number, with one-half being rounded up.[Notwithstanding such candidate's percentage of the total votes cast for all candidates.] The delegate and alternates shall be committed to that candidate, and unless released by the candidate, shall vote for the candidate on the first ballot, and shall not change their vote during the course of that ballot.
(b) The winner of the Presidential Primary in each Congressional District by a plurality vote shall be awarded all the_delegates and alternates of said congressional district. A majority vote shall not be required of a candidate to be awarded all the Congressional District delegates.
(c) The state party chair shall provide to the Secretary of the State, pursuant to Section 9-473 of the Connecticut General Statutes, that the state's delegates will be selected on that basis.
(d) The candidate receiving the requisite_number of votes shall submit to the state party chairman, a slate of registered Republicans to serve as delegates and a slate of registered Republicans to serve as alternate delegates to the Republican National Convention. The State Party Chairman shall submit the list to the state committee for review and approval on or before its meeting in May of the year of the presidential election.
(e) In the event that a vacancy occurs among the slate of delegates or alternates, the state party chairman, in consultation with the candidate, or candidate's representatives, to whom the delegates and alternates are committed, shall fill any vacancy. The selection of the person or persons to fill such vacancy shall be ratified by the state committee. In the event that the vacancy shall occur less than (30) days prior to the convening of the Republican National Convention, then the State Party Chairman shall, in consultation with the candidate or the candidate's representatives, to whom the delegates and alternates are committed, fill any such vacancy.
(f) If the Secretary of the State certifies to the state party chairman that the number of the Republican Party's at-large and district delegates and alternates includes an allocation of uncommitted delegates and alternates, the State Party Chairman shall submit a slate ofregistered Republicans to serve as both at large and district uncommitted delegates and a slate of registered Republicans to serve as both at large

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

11

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 62 of 116
and district uncommitted alternate delegates to the Republican National Convention to the state committee on or before its meeting in
(g) In the event that the rounding of delegates called for herein results in one fewer delegate being allocated than the number of delegates to which Connecticut is entitled, the candidate receiving the most votes in the Presidential Preference P1·imary shall be awarded that delegate.
(h) (New) In the event that any delegates are awarded to the uncommitted spot on the Presidential Preference Primary Ballot, said delegate positions shall be filled by the state party chairman, and submitted in the same manner as prescribed in subsection (d).
Section 18. Redistricting Changes and Term Length
If, because of redistricting, the boundaries of the senatorial districts, or any of them, are changed, the state committee-members shall serve for the balance of the terms for which they were elected. Thereafter, state committee members shall be elected in accordance with the new districts.
Section 19. Presidential Electors
In the Month of May in each presidential election year the State Party Chairman shall submit a list of proposed Presidential electors for nomination by the members of the State Central Committee. The State Party Chair shall certify that each member of the slate is qualified under the provisions of the United States Constitution and the Connecticut General Statutes.

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

12

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 63 of 116
ARTICLE II
TOWN COMMITTEES
Section 1. Local Rules
The number of membership positions and the basis of representation on each town committee shall be set by local rules. No town committee in any municipality shall be elected both at large and from political subdivisions.
Section 2. Elections
(a) The date for primaries for the election of town committee membership shall be the first (1st) Tuesday of March in the even-numbered years. (Section 9-425).
(b) Party endorsed candidates for town committee membership shall be selected in accordance with the general statutes. No proxy voting shall be permitted for such endorsement.
(1) At-large endorsements shall be made by town-wide caucus. In towns where local rules provide that membership on the town committee shall be apportioned by districts, and selected by district caucuses, such endo1·sement shall be made by district caucuses No proxy voting shall be permitted for such endorsements. Whether town committee candidates are selected by town-wide caucus or district caucuses, it shall be the duty of the town chair or, in the event of the chair's failure to act, the vice-chair, in each town to call such caucus or caucuses designating the time, place and day, by publishing such call in a newspaper having a circulation in such town, at least five (5) days before theday of such caucus or caucuses. But if the town chair or vice chair shall fail to act, a member of the state central committee for the district in which such town chafr resides shall call the caucus or caucuses.
(2) The names of party-endorsed candidates for town committee membership shall be filed with the clerk of the municipality and the state party chair by the chair or presiding officer and the secretary of the caucus in compliance with the general statutes.
Subsection (b) of these rules does not apply to towns, which by local rule elect members of the Town Committee under Subsection 9-390(g) of the general statutes.

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

13

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 64 of 116
Section 3. Town Committee Member Terms
The terms of town committee members shall start on the first (1st) Monday following the date of the primary set in connection with their election and they shall serve for two (2) years or until their successors shall have been chosen, but not more than twenty-six (26) months, and provided when local rules are amended to increase town committee membership, they shall specify the day upon which the terms of the new positions created by said increase shall begin, and how the new positions shall be filled. The terms of all members shall end on the same day.
Section 4. Town Chair and Other Officers
(a) Town committees shall meet within 30 days after the beginning of their term as specified in Section 3 of this Article, at the call of the previous town chair or in the event of the chair's failure to act, at the call of a member of the state central committee from the district in which said chair resides, and name a chair and vice-chair, a secretary, a treasurer, and such other officers as provided by local rules. The town chair may be chosen from within or without the membership of the town committee, according to local-rules and in either case may cast a vote to break a tie, including a tie-in the vote for the selection of party-endorsed candidates under Section 9-386 of the general statues. This vote, if necessary, shall be in addition to any voting rights said chair may have. Other officers may be chosen from without the membership of the town committee, but if so chosen, they shall be without a vote. The terms of all officers shall be for two years or until their successors have been duly elected and qualified, but no more than twenty-six (26) months.
(b) Duties:
(1) Town Chair (A) Attend senatorial district meetings. (B) Attend congressional district meetings. (C) Attend and conduct town committee meetings. (D) Secure a report at each town committee meeting as to what a state
committee person delivers such a report. (E) Designate the campaign treasurer for local campaigns. (2) Vice Chair (A) Attend senatorial district meetings. (B) Attend congressional district meetings. (C) Attend town committee meetings. (D) Upon the occurrence of a vacancy in the office of town chair, the vice-chair shall be responsible for determining the time, date and place for a meeting to select a new town chair, which meeting shall be called by the vice-chair after the vacancy occurs. If the vice-chair does not issue the call for the meeting

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

14

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 65 of 116
within two weeks of the vacancy, the state committee membe1· shall call such meeting. (3) Treasurer (A) Give a financial report at each town committee meeting. (B) See to it that election finance laws are complied with by the town
committee and instruct and assist various campaign treasurers with compliance. (4) Secretary (A) Notify the town chair, town committee members, and state committee members of time, date and place of each town committee meeting. (B) Keep a record of minutes of each meeting and see that minutes of each meeting are acted upon by the town committee. (C) Keep accurate attendance records of town committee meetings and report upon the same to the town committee biannually as well as indicating absences in the minutes of each town committee meeting. (D) Furnish to the state party chair at least every six months, a list of dates and places of all town committee meetings held during the previous six months. (E) Furnish to the state party chair at least annually, a list of town committee officers and notify the state party chair of changes as they occur. (F) Send true and accurate copies of local party rules and any amendments to such rules to the state party chair, indicating the date on which they were adopted, within fifteen days of such adoption.
Section 5. Notice After Organization
Within one (1) week after the organization of a town committee, the secretary of the town committee shall file with the state party secretary the names and addresses of the officers and members of the town committee and the name and address of the 1·epublican registrar of voters.
Section 6. Qualifications
No person shall be a member or officer of any town committee unless that person is an enrolled Republican elector of the town or political-subdivision, as the case may be, at the time of election and throughout the term of office.
Section 7. Committee Membership and Officers Vacancies
Vacancies occurring for any reason in town committee membership or elected officers shall be filled by majority vote of the remaining members of the committee. In case the vacancy occurs in the representation elected from a political subdivision, only those town committee members representing that

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

15

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 66 of 116
political subdivision may vote. Should there be no remaining members from that political subdivision, or if a vote of the remaining members results in a tie, vacancies shall be filled by a majority vote of the membership of the town committee.
Section 8. Vacancies -Nominations and Candidacies
Any vacancy occurring in the party-endorsed candidacies before a primary or in the party nominations before an election, under the conditions stated in Sections 9-426, 9-428 and 9-430 of the general statues shall be filled by majority vote of the town committee.
Section 9. Meetings
Meetings shall be held in accordance with local rules, and special meetings shall be called by the town chair or by the town chair upon the written request of a majority of the town committee members, unless such rules prescribe a lesser number. Robert's Rules of Order shall apply when not in conflict with local rules and bylaws. Notwithstanding the contrary provisions of any local rule, all town committee meetings shall be open to the public unless the town committee shall, because of unusual circumstances, by a majority vote, elect to go into executive session. Except for special meetings duly called, all meetings shall be regularly scheduled at least twice each quarter for a specific and recurring time, day and place, unless, by a vote of the town committee a sanctioned Republican event is substituted for a regular meeting. Notice of all town committee meetings shall be sent to the state committee members representing the senatorial district in which such town is located. At each town committee meeting a report shall be given, either by a member of the state committee in person or through the town chair or his designee, on the most recent state committee meeting.

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

16

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 67 of 116
Section 10. Disputes
Any disputes which cannot be settled locally as to the endorsement of a candidate for any office or for delegate or town committee member or state committee member, including conflicting claims as to such endorsement or any dispute with respect to any political problem of any nature, may be submitted by any affected party in writing to the state party chair. Matters so submitted shall be referred to the state committee or to a subcommittee thereof, consisting of not less than 5 (five) members appointed by the state chair, none of whom shall be members representing the district or districts concerned. Such dispute shall be resolved within fifteen (15) days after submission. Decisions made on disputes submitted hereunder shall be final and binding on the parties.
Section 11. Party-Endorsed Candidates
The method of choosing party-endorsed candidates shall be:
(a) By the enrolled members of such party in the municipality in a caucus, or (b) By delegates to a convention chosen by enrolled party members as local rules prescribe, provided all delegates to such a convention in any one town shall be chosen on the same day; or (c) By the town committee
Except as provided in Section 9-390(e), in the selection of a party-endorsed candidate for an office or position for which only the electors of a political subdivision or a municipality may vote, only the members of the towncommittee from such political subdivision, or the delegates to a town or city convention elected by such political subdivision, or the enrolled Republican electors within such political subdivision, at a caucus, as the case may be, may participate. All such endorsements in any one (1) town shall be made on the same day in acco1·dance with the general statutes.
Section 12. Tie Votes on Endorsement
Notwithstanding local rules, the presiding officer of any endorsement meeting, whether it is a caucus, a convention or a town committee meeting, shall cast a vote to break ties. This vote, if necessary shall be in addition to any regular voting rights such presiding officer may have. No candidate for endorsement may be the presiding officer of such meeting except in the case of an endorsement meeting for the selection of town committee members.

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

17

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 68 of 116
Section 13. Endorsement Call
(a) Whenever party-endorsed candidates are selected by caucus, it shall be the duty of the town chair or, in the event of such chair's failure to act, the vice-chair, m each town to call such caucus, designating the time, place and day, by publishing said call in a newspaper having a circulation in such town, at least five (5) days before the day of such caucus. If the town chair and vicechair shall fail to act, a member of the state committee representing the district in which such town chair resides shall call the caucus. (b) All meetings of town committee called to choose party-endorsed candidates shall be called by the town chair, or in the event of such chair's failure to act, the vice-chair, by mailing a notice, stating such purpose, to each member of said committee at least five (5) days prior to such meeting. If the town chair and vice-chair shall fail to act, a member of the state committee representing the district in which such Town Chair resides shall call the meeting. (c) Whenever party-endorsed candidates are selected by town or city convention, it shall be the duty of the town chair, or in the event of such chair's failure to act, the vice-chair, to call such town or city convention, designating the time, place and day by publishing said call in a newspaper having a circulation in such town, at least five (5) days before the day of such town or city convention. If the Town Chair and vice-chair shall fail to act, the state party chair shall call such town or city convention.
Section 14. Local Party Rules and Amendments
(a) Each town committee shall adopt local party rules. Local party rules may be amended by one (1) of the three (3) following methods: (1) By a caucus of the enrolled party members called in the same manner as a caucus for selecting party-endorsed candidates as provided in Section 13(a) of this Article; or (2) By a convention of delegates chosen by enrolled party members in a manner prescribed in such local party rules; or (3) By its town committee at a meeting called in the same manner as a town committee meeting to choose party-endorsed candidates as provided in Section 13(b) of this Article.
Whenever the third (3rd) method is used, local party rules may also be amended by the first (1st) or second (2nd) method in accordance with the provisions of Section 9-375 of the general statutes.
Any amendments adopted pursuant to the provisions of this subsection shall be effective sixty (60) days after the date on which they are filed with the Secretary of the State.

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

18

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 69 of 116
(b) In any municipality in which the town committee has not so adopted and of one voting district or in the event of such chair's failure to act, the vicechair, shall call a caucus within twenty (20) days, upon the filing with the Registrar of Voters of such party in such municipality of a petition signed by at least five (5) percent, but not more than five hundred (500) of its enrolled party members, to take action on such petition. (c) In all other municipalities the town chair, or in the event of such chair's failure to act, the vice-chair, shall call a convention within thirty (30) days upon the filing with the Registrar of Vote1·s of such party in such municipality of a petition signed by at least five (5) percent, but not more than five hundred (500) of its enrolled party members, to take action on such petition. A convention shall consist of three (3) delegates from each voting district elected at a caucus of the enrolled party members of that district. It shall be the duty of the town chair, or in the event of such chair's failure to act, the vice-chair, to call such caucuses, which shall be held on the same day, designating the time, place and day by publishing said call in a newspaper having a circulation in such municipality, at least five (5) days before the day of such caucuses. (d) In the event the enrolled Republicans or the town committee in any town shall fail to adopt a method for amending the local party rules as provided by Section 9-375 of the General Statutes, the method of amending said local party rules of said municipality shall be the same as the method used to select party-endorsed candidates until such time as a method of amendment is lawfully adopted and filed by the proper authority.
Section 15. Party Assistance Not To Be Provided in Primaries
No town committee or officer thereof shall expend any party funds, or provide party services of value on behalf of any candidate in a pre-endorsement contest or primary.
Section 16. Removal of Town Committee Officers
(a) A town chair, vice-chair or other elected officer of a town committee may be removed by the affirmative vote of two thirds (2/3rds) of the entire authorized membership for the town committee at a duly warned meeting called for that purpose by one-third (113rd) of the members of the town committee. (b) Not less than five (5) days written notice shall be given of any meeting called under subsection (a) of this section. (c) Proxy voting shall not be permitted in any meeting held under subsection (a) of this section.

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

19

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 70 of 116

ARTICLE III

STATE & CONGRESSIONALCONVENTIONS

Section 1. Time of Convention

(a) Each state and congressional convention (each a 'Convention, together ({Conventions"") shall originate by call of the state party chair, vice chair, or by such person authorized by vote of the state party committee. Such call shall be published, at least thirty (30) days but not more than sixty (60) days before such Convention is to be held, in a newspaper or newspapers published and circulated within the state.
(b) If no call has been published in accordance with subsection (a), notice of the time and place of the Convention shall be mailed or delivered in writing to each delegate by the state party chair.

Section.2 Repres~ntation

(a) Town Representation

(1) Each town shall be entitled to one (1) delegate for each seven hundred and fifty (750) votes or fraction thereof, cast for the Republican candidate for Governor at the most recent election, provided no town shall have fewer than two (2) delegates. (2) In addition to the delegates provided under subdivision (1) of this subsection, each town giving the most recent Republican candidate for Governor a plurality at the most 1·ecent election shall be entitled to one (1) delegate. (3) In those towns split into two or more Congressional districts, the delegates from the respective Congressional districts to the state Convention shall be selected proportionately within towns Congressional district within said towns (4) As used in this subdivision "population" shall mean the population of a town as determined by the last census of the United States. For the purposes of this subsection, Republicans shall be deemed to be in control of a town when: (i) The elected chief executive officer is a Republican; or (ii) If the chief executive officer is not an elected official, Republicans hold a majority of the seats on the governing body of such-town. A town in which Republicans, on January 1 of the even-numbered year, control the government of such town shall be awarded Convention delegates in accordance with the following formula:

POPULATION 0-19,999

DELEGATES 1

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

20

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 71 of 116

20,000-49,999

2

50,000 and over

3

(5) The delegates awarded pursuant to subdivision (4) of this section shall be applicable to state conventions only and shall not affect the number of delegates that each town may send to a district convention. (6) Not later than January 15 of each even-numbered year, the state chair shall certify the number of delegates that each town is entitled to under the provisions of this rule.

(b) The following Republicans may be, by virtue of their offices, delegates to each Republican State Convention: (i) Each Republican United States Senator; (ii) Each Republican United States Representative. (iii) Any Republican serving as Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Treasure1-, Comptroller, or Attorney General, (iv) Each Republican State Senator and State Representative, (v) The officers and members of the Republican State Central Committee; and Each member of the Republican National Committee from Connecticut. No person serving as a delegate pursuant to the provisions of this subsection shall be entitled to appoint a proxy or alternate to act in his place. No person serving as a delegate pursuant to the provisions of this subsection shall serve as a delegate or alternate delegate from any town. No such person shall be entitled to more than one vote regardless of the number of offices that person may hold. In the event that this subsection is invalidated, district delegates shall be selected in the same-manner that they were prior to the adoption of this rule. (c) Any delegate pursuant to the sub-section may opt not to be a delegate by sending a letter to the Secretary of the State Committee prior to the Convention.

Section 3. Qualifications

All delegates and alternates must be enrolled Republican electors in the town or district they represent at the time they act.

Section 4. Selection of Party-Endorsed Delegates
In each town, endorsement of all delegates to the Convention shall be made by the enrolled members of the Republican party present and voting at a caucus, or by the town committee, in accordance with local party rules and the general statutes. Such endorsements shall be made in accordance with the general statutes. The chah- or presiding officer, together with the secretary of the town committee or caucus, as the case may be, shall certify the party-endorsed delegates to the clerk of the municipality in compliance

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

21

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 72 of 116
with the general statutes. No proxy voting shall be permitted for endorsement of delegates to any Convention.
Section 5. Delegates and Alternates
(a) Delegates shall be deemed to be lawfully chosen or elected when: (1) No opposition slate has been qualified; (2) Such delegates are duly elected as a result of a primary, or; (3) otherwise lawfully chosen as delegates. (b) Each delegate after being lawfully chosen or elected may designate in writing an alternate to act for such delegate in the delegate's absence. In the event of the inability of the alternate to act, the elected delegate may designate in writing a substitute alternate. In the event of the inability of an elected delegate to act for any reason, including the provisions of Section 3 of this Article, the designated alternate or the substitute alternate shall have all of the powers and duties of such delegate. In the event of the written resignation of a delegate, the remaining delegate or delegates from the town or district the resigned delegate represented shall designate a new delegate to act in the resigned delegate's place. The new delegate shall then designate an alternate in accordance with the provisions of this subsection. In the event of the inability of both the delegate and the designated alternate to act, including the pmvisions of Section 3 of this Article, the remaining delegate or delegates from the town or district the delegate and alternate represented shall designate a substitute alternate to act if no substitute has been named by the delegate.
Section 6. Slate of Delegates
Delegates to any Convention shall be equal in number to the number of delegates to which the town or district is entitled. Delegates may be voted on individually or by slate as determined by the endorsing authority in accordance with the rules for procedure and election it adopts.
Section 7. Certification of Delegates
It shall be the duty of the chair of each town committee to send a list of the town delegates to the state party secretary at the offices of the state committee immediately after the election of such delegates. Certifications of delegates not filed with the state party secretary within one (1) week of their lawful election as provided in Section 6 of this Article shall be declared delinquent and subject to review by the committee on credentials of the state Convention. Each delegation must select a chair from among its members by majority vote and the town chair must file with the state party secretary at the offices of the state committee the name and address of the delegate that has been chosen as chair of such delegation.

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

22

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 73 of 116

Section 8. Voting
(a) No person shall have more than one vote in the Convention, whethe1· as a delegate or alternate. No action shall be valid unless carried by a majority of all delegates present and voting in person or by alte1·nate, except that the presiding officer shall cast a vote to break a tie. This vote, if necessary, shall be in addition to any other voting rights such presiding officer may have. (b) In all state conventions for the endorsement of candidates held after 1967, all roll call votes at each such Convention shall be conducted by congressional districts, in numerical order, starting with· the first district in the first such Convention held after 1967, the second district in the next such Convention, and continuing such rotation in subsequent Conventions until the highest numbered district has been the first called in a state Convention, after which Convention, the rotation shall recommence with the first district and so continue in perpetuity. Within congressional districts, each such vote shall be taken alphabetically by towns.
Section 9. Convention Organization
(a) The temporary chair and other officers of each such Convention shall be designated by the state committee at a meeting held not more than thirtyfive (35) days prior to such Convention. (b) Each Convention shall have the following committees: a committee on credentials; a committee on pe1·manent organizations; a committee on rules, and; a committee on resolutions, each such committee consisting of eleven members. The members of said committees shall be nominated by the Chairman and elected by the membership of the State Committee. The Chairman shall nominate the Chairman of said committee and ten members with no more than five members being from the state central committee. There shall be no less than two members from each cong1·essional district.
A. The state party chair shall call the members of the committee on credentials to meet on a date at least five (5) days prior to the day on which the state Convention is scheduled to convene Members may waive written notice in writing or by attending such meeting. The staff of the state committee assigned to the committee on credentials shall be designated and announced by the state party chair at or before this first meeting of the committee on credentials. The state party chair shall designate the person in charge of said staff. Each member present shall be given, by the state party chair or by his designee, at the beginning of such meeting, a true and complete roll of the delegates to said Convention as filed with the state party secretary up to that time.

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

23

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 74 of 116
The committee on credentials shall thereafter, in addition to any other meetings, meet at a time and place designated by the state party chair on the evening prior to the day on which the Convention is scheduled to convene. The state party chaii' shall give notice of this meeting by mail to each of the members of the committee and to each town committee chair and state committee member at least five (5) days prior to the date for which such meeting is scheduled. At such meeting the committee on credentials shall hear and decide upon challenges of delegates and alternates presented to it, and shall review such proposed changes in the roll of delegates and alternates as may have been filed, but not heard and decided, by that time. All designations of alternates and substitute alternates must be in writing and filed with the staff of the committee on credentials Convention. The staff shall note on each designation the time and date that it is received and the name of the staff person receiving such change. The staff shall immediately place the name of the designated alternate or substitute alternate on the roll of delegates and alternates. The staff shall keep a 1·ecord of the filed designations. This record shall be available for inspection by delegates and no change shall be official until approved by the committee on credentials. The committee on credentials shall convene one hour prior to the scheduled opening of each session of the Convention at a place designated by the state party chair, who shall give notice thereof to the same people and in the same manner as prescribed in this section. At such meeting, the committee on credentials shall review the pl'Oposed changes to the roll of delegates and alternates, hear and decide any challenges to the list of delegates and alternates not already heard and decided, adopt a roll of delegates and alternates to be presented to the Convention, and transact such other business as may be necessary to fulfill its functions. The state chair shall designate, no later than sixty (60) days preceding the scheduled opening of the Convention, forms for designating alternates and substitute alternates in accordance with these rules and bylaws and shall forthwith furnish an adequate supply of same to each town chair and member of the state committee. (2) The state party chair shall call a meeting of the committee on permanent organizations for a date prior to the day on which the Convention is to convene by mailing to each member notice of such committee meeting at least five days before the scheduled meeting date. Members may waive such notice in writing or by attending such meeting. The committee on permanent organizations shall by majority vote, determine the list of permanent <;:onvention officers that the committee will recommend to the Convention. (3) The state party chair shall call a meeting of the committee on resolutions for a date prior to the day on which the Convention is to convene by mailing to each member notice of such committee meeting at least five days before the scheduled meeting date. Members may waive such notice in writing or by attending such meeting.

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

24

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 75 of 116
The committee on resolutions shall review all resolutions submitted to it in writing. The committee shall dete1·mine, in accordance with Convention rules, those resolutions that shall be in 01·der fo1· consideration by the Convention. If the committee on rules has not yet adopted 1·ules for he current Convention, the applicable rules for the most immediate previous Convention shall govern. The committee on resolutions shall meet once after the Convention convenes to consider any resolutions submitted in writing to the convention secretary. (4) The state party chair shall call a meeting of the committee on rules for a date prior to the day on which the Convention is to convene by mailing to each member notice of such committee meeting at least five days before the scheduled meeting date. Members may waive such notice in writing or by attending such meeting. The committee on rules shall draft the "Rules Governing the State Convention" for the current Convention. Such draft shall contain any items of business not included in Section 11 of this Article III. Such draft shall be the temporary rules of the Convention and shall remain in force until permanent rules are adopted by the Convention.
Section 10. Convention Procedures
Each Convention shall follow these initial procedures:
(a) The state party chair shall: (1) Call the convention to order (2) Announce the names of the committee chairs (3) Introduce the temporary officers (b) The committee on rules shall report (c) The rules governing the convention shall be adopted (d) The committee on permanent organizations shall report (e) The permanent officers of the convention shall be elected.
Section 11. Certification
Each candidate endorsed at the Convention shall file with the Secretary of the State, a certificate, signed by him, stating that he was endorsed by such Convention, together with his name, his full residence address and the title and district, if applicable, of the office for which he was endorsed. Such certificate shall be attested by either (1) the permanent chair or presiding officer of the Convention or (2) the secretary of such Convention and shall be filed in accordance with the general statutes. If applicable, upon the close of such Convention the permanent chair or presiding officer or the secretary of the state convention shall file with the Secreta1'Y of the State, the name and full residence addresses of persons selected by such state convention as the nominees of the Republican party for

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

25

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 76 of 116
electors of President and Vice President of the United States in accordance with the gene1·al statutes.
Within fourteen (14) days following the close of the Convention, a candidacy for nomination by the Republican party to a state office may be filed by or on behalf of any person whose name appears upon the last completed enrollment list of the Republican party in any municipality within the state and who has received at least 15% of the votes of the Convention delegates present and voting on any roll call vote taken on the endorsement or proposed endorsement of such candidate for such state office, whether or not such candidate was endorsed, by the filing with the Secretary of the State, of a certificate, signed by such candidate and attested by either (I) the permanent chair or presiding officer of the Convention; or (2) the secretary of the Convention, that such candidate received at least 15% of such votes and that he consents to be a candidate in a primary of the Republican party for such state office. Such certificates shall specify the name and full residence address of the candidate, and the title of the office for which the candidacy is being filed.
Section 12. Vacancies in Candidacies and Nominations
The state committee shall fill vacancies occurring for any reason among the party endorsed candidates named by a state convention as provided in the general statutes and any vacancy occurring for any reason among the party nominations for state office and shall certify to the Secretary of the State the names of such vacancy endorsements or nominations.

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

26

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 77 of 116

ARTICLE IV
DISTRICT CONVENTIONS
Section 1. Date or Convention
Convention dates to endorse candidates for district offices shall be set by the state committee, and the call shall be issued by the chairman of the state committee, who shall select from among the duly elected delegates to said convention, a delegate to call said convention to order.
Section 2. Hour and Place or Convention
Upon the request of the state party chairman the hour of the day and the place where such conventions are to be held shall be set by a state committee member representing such districts. In the event that such membe1· fails to act by the date specified in the state party chair's request, the hour and place shall be determined by the state party chair. Such time and place shall be included in the call of the respective conventions.
Section 3. Qualifications
All delegates and alternates must be enrolled Republican electors in the town or district they represent at the time they act.
Section 4. Representation at District Conventions
The basis of representation in the respective conventions of districts consisting of two or more towns shall be as follows:
(a) Each town wholly within an assembly district shall be entitled to the same number of delegates at the assembly district convention as it is entitled to have at state conventions under Article III, Section 2(a). Each town partially within an assembly district shall be entitled to the proportionate number of delegates that its active Republican enrollment· within said district bears to the total active Republican enrollment of said town. (b) Each town wholly within a senatorial district shall be entitled to the same number of delegates from such town at the senatorial district convention as it is entitled to have at state conventions, under Article III, Section 2(a). Each town partially within a senatorial district shall be entitled to proportionate number of delegates that its active Republican enrollment within said district bears to the total active Republican enrollment of said town

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

27

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 78 of 116
(c) Each town wholly within the congressional district shall be entitled to the same number of delegates from such town at the congressi(;mal district convention as it is entitled to have at state conventions under Article III, Section 2 (a).
Each town partially within a congressional district shall be entitled to the proportionate number of delegates that its active Republican enrollment within said district bears to the total active Republican enrollment of said town. (d) Each town within the probate district shall be entitled to the same
number of delegates from such town to the probate disti·ict convention as it is entitled to have in. state conventions under Article III, Section 2(a).
Section 5. Selection of Party-Endorsed Delegates
In the several towns and districts composed of a single town or part of a town, endorsement of all delegates to district conventions shall be made by the enrolled members of the Republican Party present and voting at a caucus or by the town committee, pursuant to local rules. Such endorsement shall be made in the several towns in accordance with the general statutes. The chairman or presiding officer and the secretary of the town committee, or caucus, as the case may be, shall certify the party-endorsed delegates to the clerk of the municipality in compliance with the general statutes.. No proxy voting shall be permitted for endorsement of delegates to any convention.
Section 6. Slates of Delegates.
Delegates to any convention shall be equal in number to the number of delegates to which the town or district is entitled. Delegates may be voted on individually or by slate as determined by the endorsing authority in accordance with the 1·ules for procedure and election it adopts.
Section 7. Delegates and Alternates
(a) Each delegate, after being lawfully chosen or elected may designate in writing an alternate to act for such delegate in the delegate's absence. in the event of the inability of any alternate to act, the elected delegate may designate in writing a substitute alternate. (b) In the event of the inability of both the elected delegate and thedesignated alternate to act, or substitute alternate to act, or in the case of the resignation of a delegate, the remaining delegates shall act in the same manner as set forth in Article III, Section 6 (b).

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

28

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 79 of 116

Section 8. Certification of Delegates
It shall be the duty of the chairman of each town committee to send a list of the delegates to the state party secretary immediately after their election.
Section 9. Voting
No person shall have more than one (1) vote in the convention, whether such vote be as a delegate or as an alternate for another, except the permanent chairman shall cast a vote to break a tie. This vote, if necessary, shall be in addition to any other voting 1·ights such permanent chairman may have. No action shall be valid unless carried out by a majority of all delegates present and voting, in person or by alternate.
Section 10. Officers of Convention
Each convention shall elect a permanent chairman and a secretary. If no candidate for permanent chairman has received a majority of the votes cast on five (5) roll calls, no permanent chairman shall be elected, and the delegate selected to call the convention to order pursuant to Section 1 of this Article shall preside over the entire convention but shall have no power to cast a vote to break a tie.
Section 11. Duties of Officers - Certification
The district convention shall choose the party endorsed candidate fo1· nomination to the district office and the certificate of endorsement shall be signed and filed with the Secretary of the State in accordance with the general statutes. In addition, a candidacy for nomination to a district office may be filed by or on behalf of any person whose name appears upon the last completed enrollment list of the Republican Party within any municipality or part of a municipality forming a component pa1·t of such district and who has received at least 16% of the votes of the convention delegates present and voting on any roll call taken on the endorsement or proposed endorsement of a candidate for such district office, whether 01· not the party-endorsed candidate for such office received a unanimous vote on the last ballot, by filing with the Secretary of State a certificate in acc01·dance with general statutes.
Section 12. Vacancy Committee
Each district convention shall elect a "Committee on Vacancy'' consisting of five (5) members. Said committee is authorized to fill any vacancy of any party-endorsed candidate under Sections 9-426, 9-428, 9-429 and 9-430 of the general statutes, or any nomination under Section 9-460 of the general statutes, and shall certify to the Secretary of the State the names of such

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

29

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 80 of 116 vacancy endorsements or nominations.

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

. .r

hl I

I l

- -; ,... '

., .

-0

•
:

.J·:.:'~·../

. .· !

--1
"...../)1 ;'4'

30

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 81 of 116

ARTICLEV
PRIMARIES AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS
Section 1. Eligibility to Vote in Republican Primaries
(a) Any elector enrolled as a member of the Republican party shall be eligible to vote in primaries fo1· nomination of candidates for statewide office and candidates for office in the municipality, county or distl'ict, as the case may be, in which such elector resides and is enrolled. (b) Eligibility to vote at any state, county, district or local Republican primary shall be governed solely by these state party rules.
Section 2. Party Funds Not To Be Spent in Primaries
Neither the state committee nor any committee or officer thereof shall expand any funds of the state committee, unless specifically contributed for such purpose, on behalf of any candidate in a pre-convention contest or in a primary.
Section 3. Rules for Multi-Town District Contest for State Office
(a) If a special election is called by the governor to fill a vacancy in any district office other than that of state senator or state representative in any district consisting of two or more towns 01· portions of two or more towns, the state party chair shall set the date for the primary for the election of delegates to a convention to select the party-endorsed candidate for such vacancy, and shall set the day, hour and place of the convention.
(b) If a special election is called by the governor to fill a vacancy in the office of state senator or state representative in any district consisting of two or more towns or portions of two or more towns, the members of the state committee from that district shall recall the delegates to the senatorial or assembly district convention from the last state election, at a time and place determined by them to select a candidate to fill such vacancy, and in the event the members of the state committee shall fail to act within five (5) days of the warning of the election, the state party chair shall recall such delegates into convention at a time and place to be determined by the state party chair. Whenever it is necessary to reconvene any convention, wl'itten notice of such reconvened convention shall be given to each delegate to the original convention. Such notice shall include the date, time, place and purpose of the reconvened convention and may include such other information as the state party chair considers appropriate.

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

31

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 82 of 116
Whenever a vacancy arises among the delegates to such reconvened convention such vacancy shall be filled in the manner provided in Section 8 of Article IV.
Section 4. Rules for Municipal Offices in State Elections
(a) Any vacancy occurring in the party-endorsed candidates for municipal office in state elections before a primary, or in the party nominations for municipal office in state elections before an election under the conditions stated in Section 9-426, 9-428, 9-430, 9-460 of the general statutes, shall be filled by the town committee or in such other manner as local rules may provide. (b) Whenever a special election is called to fill a vacancy in the office of state senator in a senatorial district composed of a single town or part of a single town or state representative in any assembly district composed of a single town or part of a single town, a meeting shall be called in the manner prescribed by local rules to select a candidate to fill said vacancy. In the event the local rules do not provide for the calling of said meeting, the state party chair shall call the meeting to select a candidate to fill the vacancy, which meeting shall be held at a time and place determined by the state party chair.
Section 5. Rules for Municipal Office Subject to Primary
(a) Unless otherwise provided by local rules the town committee shall set the date for the selection of party endorsed candidates for town, city, and borough offices not earlier than the fifty-sixth (56th) day nor later than the forty-ninth (49th) day preceding the primary. The town chair thereof shall certify the same to the clerk of the municipality not later than the forty-eighth (48th) day preceding the primary. In the selection of a party-endorsed candidate or candidates for an office or position for which only the electors of a political subdivision of a municipality may vote only the members of the town committee the delegates to a town or city convention elected from such political subdivision, or the enrolled-Republican electors within such political subdivision at a caucus, as the case may be, may participate. No proxy voting shall be permitted on any endorsement. (b) Any vacancy occurring in the party-endorsed candidacies for municipal office before a primary or in the party nominations for municipal office before an election, under the conditions stated in Sections 9-426, 9-428, 9-429, 9430, 9-460 of the general statutes, shall be filled by the town committee or in such other manner as local rules may provide.

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

32

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 83 of 116
ARTICLE VI
COVERAGE
Section 1. Filing of the Party Rules
These rules are to be filed with the Secretary of State and shall be deemed to cover the operations of the Republican Party in that municipality until such time as the party within such municipality adopts a rule on the same subject matter not inconsistent with the State Primary Law and these State Rules, and files the same with the clerk of the municipality and the Secretary of the State in accordance with Sections 9-375 and 9-374 of the general statutes.
Section 2. Amendments
These rules may be amended by:
(a) A majority of the delegates or alternates present and voting at a state convention.
(b) A vote of two-thirds of the entire membership of the state central committee at any meeting with respect to changes made necessary by changes in the laws of the United States or of the State of Connecticut or in the National Republican Party rules.
(c) A vote of two-thirds of the entire membership of the state committee at a meeting following the meeting at which the amendment was presented in writing, with respect to any other changes.
Any changes or amendments made by the state central committee shall be in force only until the next succeeding state convention at which convention they must be submitted for ratification or rejection.
Section 3. Local Rules May Not Conflict with Party Rules
Except as expressly provided in these rules, no town committee, caucus or convention shall adopt local rules which conflict with these rules or the statutes of the state of Connecticut.

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

33

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 84 of 116

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 85 of 116

ARTICLE VII

HISTORY

Adopted at Hartford, Connecticut, on June 17, 1958 by the Republican State Convention.

Amended:

June 07, 1960 June 05, 1962 Jan. 15, 1964 June 13, 1964 Dec. 16, 1965 Jan.09, 1966 Fcb.25, 1966 Mar. 29, 1966 June 18, 1966 Aug. 03, 1966 Sept 30, .1967 June 15, 1968 June 20, 1970 Feb. 29, 1972 July 26, 1974 Sept 20, 1975 July 29, 1978 June 07, 1980 July 26, 1980 ,Jan. 14, 1984 July 16, 1988 Sept 07, 1991 July 22, 1994 Sept 16, 1995 July 25, 1998 July 22, 2000 July 12, 2002 May 20, 2006 October 23, 2007 (State Central Committee) July 30, 2009 (State Central Meeting) May 21, 2010 May 18, 2012 May 16, 2014 May 09, 2016

2018 (Revised-May 11, 2018-Convention)

34

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 86 of 116
EXHIBIT C

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 87 of 116

Petitioning Candidates
TJ Elgin Jason W. Bartlett Alex Taubes Lee Samowitz Lawrence O. Jaggon
Danielle Wong Richard Lacourciere Ernestine Holloway

Table 1 2020 Primary Petition Candidates

Office 4th Congressional 10th Senate 11th Senate 22nd Senate 5th Assembly

Party
Republican Democratic Democratic Democratic Democratic

15th Assembly Democratic 24th Assembly Democratic 82nd Assembly Republican

Signature Requirement prior to EO
5066
1469 1451 1309 443 503 273 126

Current Signature Requirement
3546
1028 1016 917 310 352 192 89

15% Candidates

Office

Party

N/A

N/A

Samatha Slade

9th Senate

Republican

609

427

Justin Farmer

17th Senate

Democratic

1117

782

Marilyn Moore

22nd Senate Democratic

1309

917

William Duff

26th Senate

Republican

1043

730

Aili Mckeen

34th Senate

Democratic

892

624

Jim Townsley

30th Assembly Republican

226

158

Pam Patalano

45th Assembly Democratic

211

148

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 88 of 116
EXHIBIT D

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 89 of 116

Primaries 2018
Candidate Name Joe Gamin Eva Bermudez Zimmerman Dita Bhargava Paul Doyle Chris Mattei Jahana Hayes Matt Lesser Alex Tiktinsky Vickie Orsini Nardello Sean Grace Valerie Horsley Aaron Turner Josh Balter Gannon R. Long Brandon McGee Jillian Gilchrest Kerry Szeps Wood Nick Gauthier Patrick Murphy Chris Donahue Kathleen Tracy Charlie Stallworth Colin Anthony Hosten Terry B. Adams

Table 2
Office Governor
Lt. Governor Treasurer Attorney General Attorney General 5th Congressional 9th Senate 13th Senate 16th Senate 17th Senate 17th Senate 23rd Senate 34th Senate 3rd Assembly 5th Assembly 18th Assembly 29th Assembly 38th Assembly 38th Assembly 43rd Assembly 60th Assembly 126th Assembly 140th Assembly 146th Assembly

2016 & 2018 Primary History

Party Dem
Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem

15% or Petition Petitioned
15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Petitioned 15% 15% 15% Petitioned 15% 15% 15% Petitioned 15% Petitioned 15% 15% 15% Petitioned Petitioned Petitioned

Signatures 15458
918
1585
353 241
443 186 275

1

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 90 of 116

Michael J. Cartier Darnell D. Crosland James D. Pape Cheryl A. Roberts Joseph S. Hurley Timothy Herbst Steve Obsitnik Bob Stefanowski David Stemerman Jayme Stevenson Erin Stewart Dominic Rapini Ruby Corby--Oneill Richard DuPont Tyler Flanigan Pam Staneski Casimir Mizera Anthony Gennaro Roman Khondker Ethan Book Marcy Minnick Art Linares Mark Greenberg John Shaban Nancy Valentine

27th JOP 51st JOP Wolcott ROV Preston ROV Greenwich ROV Governor Governor Governor Governor Lt. Governor Lt. Governor US Senate 5th Congressional 5th Congressional 9th Senate 14th Senate 23rd Senate 100th Assembly 116th Assembly 128th Assembly 147th Assembly Treasurer Comptroller Attorney General ROV

Dem

15%

Dem

15%

Dem Petitioned

Dem Petitioned

Dem Petitioned

Rep

15%

Rep

15%

Rep

Petitioned

Rep

Petitioned

Rep

15%

Rep

15%

Rep

15%

Rep

15%

Rep

15%

Rep

15%

Rep

15%

Rep

15%

Rep

Petitioned

Rep

Petitioned

Rep

Petitioned

Rep

Petitioned

Rep

15%

Rep

15%

Rep

15%

Rep

Petitioned

9081 9081
106 37 22 210

2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 91 of 116

Primaries 2016

Candidate Name Sharon Beloin-Saavedra Marilyn Moore Ed Gomes Chris Soto Christy Matthews Joshua Elliott Louis P. Esposito, Jr. Charles Coviello, Jr. Maria Pereira Dan Dauplaise Lucian Pawlak Patricia Horvath Michael Croll David G. LaPointe Ruth Parkins Daniel O'Grady Patrick J. Walsh

Office 6th Senate 22nd Senate 23rd Senate 39th Assembly 77th Assembly 88th Assembly 116th Assembly 124th Assembly 126th Assembly 146th Assembly New Britain ROV West Haven ROV 2nd JOP Vacancy 63rd Assembly 113th Assembly 45th JOP Vacancy 45th JOP Vacancy

Party Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Dem Rep Rep Rep Rep

15% or Petition
15% 15% 15% Petitioned Petitioned Petitioned 15% 15% Petitioned Petitioned Petitioned Petitioned Petitioned Petitioned Petitioned 15% 15%

Signatures
282 265 252
407 196
867 169 169

3

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 92 of 116
EXHIBIT E

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 93 of 116

2014 Governor Lt. Governor Comptroller 2nd Senate 20th Senate 22nd Senate 23rd Senate 7th Assembly 23rd Assembly 32nd Assembly 44th Assembly
47th Assembly
48th Assembly
64th Assembly
122nd Assembly 124th Assembly
128the Assembly
133rd Assembly
137th Assembly
140th Assembly 142nd Assembly

Table 3 Primary History 2006-2014

2012

2010

R US Senate

D US Senate

R US Senate

R CG 1

R CG 2

R CG 2

D CG 5

D CG 5

D CG 5

R Gov

D 19th Senate D Gov

D 23rd Senate D Lt. Gov

D 33rd Senate D Lt. Gov

D 3rd Assembly D Secretary

D 5th Assembly D Comptroller

D 6th Assembly D Attorney General

13th

D Assembly

D 1st Senate

58th

D Assembly

D 22nd Senate

63rd

R Assembly

D 1st Assembly

75th

R Assembly

D 4th Assembly

D 91st Assembly D 6th Assembly

107th

D Assembly

R 7th Assembly

116th

D Assembly

D 15th Assembly

128th

D Assembly

D 19th Assembly

132nd

D Assembly

D 32nd Assembly

R

35th Assembly

2008 R CG4 R 1st Senate R 8th Senate R 22nd Senate R 24th Senate D 5th Assembly R 6th Assembly D 9th Assembly D 17th Assembly D 49th Assembly R 74th Assembly

2006

D Governor

D

D Lt Governor D

R US Senate

D

D CG 1

R

D 3rd Assembly D

D 4th Assembly D

D 41st Assembly D

D 49th Assembly R

R 53rd Assembly D

D 72nd Assembly D

R 73rd Assembly D

D 80th Assembly

D 79th Assembly D

R 94th Assembly

D 89th Assembly R

D 101st Assembly D 127th Assembly D

D 126th Assembly D 128th Assembly

D 128th Assembly D D 140th Assembly D

D 129th Assembly D JOP Bridgeport D

D 130th Assembly D JOP Essex

D

D ROV Hartford

R Shelton ROV D

Wallingford

R ROV Hartford

D ROV

D

R ROV New Britain R

1

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 94 of 116

27th JOP

D

34th JOP

R

Bristol ROV

D

Chaplin ROV

R

Danbury ROV

D

Hampton ROV

D

North Stonington

ROV

D

Norwalk ROV

R

Somers ROV

R

45th Assembly
51st Assembly 60th Assembly 80th Assembly 91st Assembly 92nd Assembly

R ROV Old Lyme D

ROV Old

D Saybrook

D

D ROV West Haven D

R ROV Windham R

D

D

94th Assembly

D

96th Assembly

D

136th Assembly

R

148th Assembly

R

JOP Cheshire -

Southington

R

JOP New Canaan

R

JOP Greater Manchester D

JOP Housatonic

R

JOP North Central

D

JOP Northeast

D

JOP Northeast

R

JOP Northern Fairfield R

JOP Norwich

D

JOP Plainfield Killingly D

JOP Region 14

D

JOP Region 22

R

JOP Region 4

D

JOP Saybrook

D

JOP Wet Haven

D

JOP Windham Colchester D

2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 95 of 116

Year 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Total # of Primaries
20 25 47 20 30

Republicans 3 6 20 4 10

Democratic 17 19 27 16 20

3

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 96 of 116
EXHIBIT F

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 97 of 116
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
BY HIS EXCELLENCY
NED LAMONT
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 7LL
PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND RESPONSE – CHANGES TO PETITIONING PROCESS FOR BALLOT ACCESS
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2020, I issued a declaration of public health and civil preparedness emergencies, proclaiming a state of emergency throughout the State of Connecticut as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in the United States and Connecticut; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to such declaration, I have issued thirty-eight (38) executive orders to suspend or modify statutes and to take other actions necessary to protect public health and safety and to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, COVID-19 is a respiratory disease that spreads easily from person to person and may result in serious illness or death; and
WHEREAS, the World Health Organization has declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic; and
WHEREAS, the risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19 is higher for individuals who are 60 or older and for those who have chronic health conditions; and
WHEREAS, to reduce the spread of COVID-19, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH) recommend implementation of community mitigation strategies to increase slow transmission of the virus, including cancellation of gatherings of ten people or more and social distancing in smaller gatherings; and
WHEREAS, public health experts have determined that it is possible to transmit COVID-19 even before a person shows symptoms and through aerosol transmission; and
WHEREAS, there exists a compelling interest in reducing the risk of transmission of COVID-19 among candidates seeking election, their supporters who are seeking to contact potential voters and the public at large; and
WHEREAS, the process of qualifying for ballot access through in-person petitioning as required under Title 9 of the General Statutes is a basic and vital requirement of our state constitution and our election laws, the purpose of which is to ensure that voters have the opportunity to choose

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 98 of 116
among viable candidates who have qualified for the ballot based on a minimum threshold of support, and to promote an election that is orderly, fair and transparent; and
WHEREAS, the COVID-19 pandemic may make it more difficult for candidates to meet the existing statutory petitioning requirements because fewer people are going outside or to public places and some people may be less willing to have in-person interactions with candidates or their supporters; and
WHEREAS, reducing the number of in-person interactions that might otherwise occur if no modifications were made to the existing petitioning statutes may help further reduce the potential transmission of COVID-19 during the ongoing public health emergency;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, NED LAMONT, Governor of the State of Connecticut, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Connecticut, do hereby ORDER AND DIRECT for purposes of primary and general elections conducted in 2020:
1. Changes to the Petitioning Process for Ballot Access for Petitioning Candidates and Candidates Petitioning Under Party Designation under sections 9-453 to 9453u. For candidates seeking ballot access as a petitioning candidate or a candidate petitioning using a party designation, including a party designation for an existing minor party, the following provisions shall apply:
a. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 9-453d of the General Statutes, the number of signatures required under section 9-453d of the General Statutes shall be reduced by thirty percent.
b. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 9-453i, the deadline for filing such petitions shall be extended by two days.
c. Notwithstanding sections 9-453a to 9-453o of the General Statutes, a petitioning signature shall be accepted as valid without attestation of the circulator or acknowledgment otherwise required if: (i) a registered voter signs a petition containing only his or her signature that is returned by U.S. mail to the candidate and later to the town clerk of the municipality or the Secretary of the State by the applicable deadline, or (ii) a registered voter signs a petition containing only his or her signature, which signature may be scanned or photographed electronically, and returned to the candidate by electronic mail and later to the town clerk of the municipality or the Secretary of the State by the applicable deadline along with a copy of the email demonstrating the electronic transmission of the petition by the registered voter. Any petition submitted in accordance with subdivisions (i) or (ii) of this subsection shall contain the information required under sections 9-453a, 9-453f and 9-453g of the General Statutes and shall include a statement by the registered voter attesting to his or her identity, and qualification as an elector and shall be signed under the penalties of false statement. If more than one signature is on a petition page, all the requirements of 9-453a to 9-

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 99 of 116
453o of the General Statutes must be satisfied, provided that any existing Executive Orders governing remote notarizations may be utilized. Nothing in this Order shall preclude petitioning by any other means set forth in section 9-453a to 9-453o of the General Statutes.
2. Changes to the Petitioning Process for Ballot Access for Major Parties. For a candidate for nomination of a political party to a state, district, or municipal office who has filed a single candidate committee statement under section 9-604(a) of the General Statutes or a certification under 9-604(b) of the General Statutes with the State Elections Enforcement Commission by 4:00 p.m. on May 26, 2020:
a. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 9-400 and 9-406 of the General Statutes, the number of signatures obtained by circulated petition otherwise required of a candidate for nomination by a political party to a state, district or municipal office shall be reduced by thirty percent.
b. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 9-400, 9-404a, and 9-409 of the General Statutes, the deadline for filing such petitions shall be extended by two days.
c. Notwithstanding sections 9-404b and 9-410 of the General Statutes, a petitioning signature shall be accepted as valid without attestation of the circulator or acknowledgment otherwise required by sections 9-404b and 9410 of the General Statutes if: (i) an enrolled party member signs a petition containing only his or her signature that is mailed by U.S. mail to the candidate and later to the registrar of the municipality by the applicable deadline; or (ii) an enrolled party member signs a petition containing only his or her signature, which signature may be scanned or photographed electronically and sent by electronic mail to the candidate and later to the registrar of the municipality by the applicable deadline along with a copy of the email demonstrating the electronic transmission of the petition by the enrolled party member. Any petition submitted in accordance with subdivisions (i) or (ii) of this subsection shall contain the information required under sections 9-404a through 9-404c, and 9-406, 9-409 and 9-410 of the General Statutes and shall include a statement by the enrolled party member attesting to his or her identity, qualification as an elector and enrolled party member and shall be signed under the penalties of false statement. If more than one signature is on a petition page, all the requirements of sections 9-404b and 9-410 of the General Statutes must be satisfied, provided that any existing Executive Orders governing remote notarizations may be utilized. Nothing in this Order shall preclude petitioning by any other means set forth in sections 9-404a through 9-404c of the General Statutes.

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 100 of 116
Unless otherwise specified herein, this order shall take effect immediately and remain in effect for the duration of the public health and civil preparedness emergency, unless earlier modified, extended or terminated. Dated at Hartford, Connecticut, this 11th day of May, 2020.
Ned Lamont Governor
By His Excellency s Command __________________________ Denise W. Merrill Secretary of the State

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 101 of 116
EXHIBIT G

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 102 of 116 State Offices
Primary Petition Signature Requirements 2020

PARTY DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN

ENROLLMENT 816199 458215

5% 40810 22911

3.50% 28567 16038

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 103 of 116 Congressional District
Primary Petition Signature Requirements 2020

DISTRICT 001 001 002 002 003 003 004 004 005 005

PARTY Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican

ENROLLMENT 188299 78130 140785 102050 174136 74198 173141 101308 139840 102527

5% 9415 3907 7040 5103 8707 3710 8658 5066 6992 5127

3.50% 6591 2735 4928 3572 6095 2597 6060 3546 4895 3589

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 104 of 116 State Senate
Primary Petition Signature Requirements 2020

DISTRICT 001 001 002 002 003 003 004 004 005 005 006 006 007 007 008 008 009 009 010 010 011 011 012 012 013 013 014 014 015 015 016 016 017 017 018 018 019 019 020 020 021 021 022 022

PARTY Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican

ENROLLMENT 28419 4305 35210 4158 24677 10488 22929 12805 28201 12561 20640 7842 18447 15541 20962 19251 26070 12172 29366 2051 29010 4501 22029 15904 19595 10459 22652 13444 20667 7831 19105 16390 22337 10408 19241 13955 18006 12846 23040 13101 19004 17364 26176 10337

5% 1421
216 1761
208 1234
525 1147
641 1411
629 1032
393 923 778 1049 963 1304 609 1469 103 1451 226 1102 796 980 523 1133 673 1034 392 956 820 1117 521 963 698 901 643 1152 656 951 869 1309 517

3.50% 995 151
1233 146 864 368 803 449 988 440 723 275 646 544 734 674 913 427
1028 72
1016 158 772 557 686 367 793 471 724 275 669 574 782 365 674 489 631 450 807 459 666 608 917 362

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 105 of 116 State Senate
Primary Petition Signature Requirements 2020

DISTRICT 023 023 024 024 025 025 026 026 027 027 028 028 029 029 030 030 031 031 032 032 033 033 034 034 035 035 036 036

PARTY Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican

ENROLLMENT 33467 2284 18035 13368 23929 13462 25577 20846 23987 10732 21956 18666 19042 10509 18221 17874 20298 14632 16550 21128 22416 17940 17826 13642 19683 15698 19432 19717

5% 1674
115 902 669 1197 674 1279 1043 1200 537 1098 934 953 526 912 894 1015 732 828 1057 1121 897 892 683 985 785 972 986

3.50% 1172
80 632 468 838 472 896 730 840 376 769 654 667 368 638 626 711 513 580 740 785 628 624 478 689 550 681 691

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 106 of 116 State Representative
Primary Petition Signature Requirements 2020

DISTRICT 001 001 002 002 003 003 004 004 005 005 006 006 007 007 008 008 009 009 010 010 011 011 012 012 013 013 014 014 015 015 016 016 017 017 018 018 019 019 020 020 021 021 022 022

PARTY Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican

ENROLLMENT 7837 485 4840 3992 6953 349 6853 610 8852 847 7291 482 7535 232 5150 4163 6284 2028 6762 1391 5407 1332 5810 2136 5648 2821 5640 3355
10048 1645 6254 5120 5392 5105 7467 1915 7751 3728 6211 1982 5890 4360 5271 2839

5%

3.50%

392

275

25

17

242

170

200

140

348

244

18

13

343

240

31

22

443

310

43

30

365

256

25

17

377

264

12

9

258

181

209

146

315

220

102

71

339

237

70

49

271

190

67

47

291

204

107

75

283

198

142

99

282

198

168

118

503

352

83

58

313

219

256

180

270

189

256

179

374

262

96

68

388

272

187

131

311

218

100

70

295

207

218

153

264

185

142

100

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 107 of 116 State Representative
Primary Petition Signature Requirements 2020

DISTRICT 023 023 024 024 025 025 026 026 027 027 028 028 029 029 030 030 031 031 032 032 033 033 034 034 035 035 036 036 037 037 038 038 039 039 040 040 041 041 042 042 043 043 044 044

PARTY Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican

ENROLLMENT 5686 5419 5459 1749 4608 693 4486 1256 6278 2994 6388 3370 5904 3229 5328 4512 5701 4694 5671 3836 6496 2070 4807 4057 4980 4705 5973 4245 5102 3745 5200 3453 6376 1051 3139 2178 5199 2539 3775 3506 5937 4091 4113 3277

5%

3.50%

285

200

271

190

273

192

88

62

231

162

35

25

225

158

63

44

314

220

150

105

320

224

169

118

296

207

162

114

267

187

226

158

286

200

235

165

284

199

192

135

325

228

104

73

241

169

203

142

249

175

236

165

299

210

213

149

256

179

188

132

260

182

173

121

319

224

53

37

157

110

109

77

260

182

127

89

189

133

176

123

297

208

205

144

206

144

164

115

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 108 of 116 State Representative
Primary Petition Signature Requirements 2020

DISTRICT 045 045 046 046 047 047 048 048 049 049 050 050 051 051 052 052 053 053 054 054 055 055 056 056 057 057 058 058 059 059 060 060 061 061 062 062 063 063 064 064 065 065 066 066

PARTY Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican

ENROLLMENT 4204 3717 3906 1497 4616 4279 5049 3668 4285 1437 4111 4285 4272 3155 3661 3832 4683 3756 4967 1257 5145 4586 4580 2540 4444 4168 4579 2769 4130 3113 6268 3081 4361 4083 4624 5495 3755 4022 5854 3845 3751 2816 4803 5811

5%

3.50%

211

148

186

131

196

137

75

53

231

162

214

150

253

177

184

129

215

150

72

51

206

144

215

150

214

150

158

111

184

129

192

135

235

164

188

132

249

174

63

44

258

181

230

161

229

161

127

89

223

156

209

146

229

161

139

97

207

145

156

109

314

220

155

108

219

153

205

143

232

162

275

193

188

132

202

141

293

205

193

135

188

132

141

99

241

169

291

204

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 109 of 116 State Representative
Primary Petition Signature Requirements 2020

DISTRICT 067 067 068 068 069 069 070 070 071 071 072 072 073 073 074 074 075 075 076 076 077 077 078 078 079 079 080 080 081 081 082 082 083 083 084 084 085 085 086 086 087 087 088 088

PARTY Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican

ENROLLMENT 3948 4081 3515 4766 5202 5739 4526 3231 4545 3832 4892 948 5234 1929 5136 1713 4537 746 3875 5007 5488 3048 4353 3964 4856 2506 4050 4749 4617 3804 4577 2520 4493 2863 3537 995 3965 2474 3980 3976 4608 4403 6203 1928

5%

3.50%

198

139

205

143

176

124

239

167

261

183

287

201

227

159

162

114

228

160

192

135

245

172

48

34

262

184

97

68

257

180

86

60

227

159

38

27

194

136

251

176

275

193

153

107

218

153

199

139

243

170

126

88

203

142

238

167

231

162

191

134

229

161

126

89

225

158

144

101

177

124

50

35

199

139

124

87

199

140

199

140

231

162

221

155

311

218

97

68

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 110 of 116 State Representative
Primary Petition Signature Requirements 2020

DISTRICT 089 089 090 090 091 091 092 092 093 093 094 094 095 095 096 096 097 097 098 098 099 099 100 100 101 101 102 102 103 103 104 104 105 105 106 106 107 107 108 108 109 109 110 110

PARTY Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican

ENROLLMENT 4372 4661 4076 3713 8005 1627 8748 465 7541 299 7983 557 5649 295 8839 1038 6639 820 6523 3439 4862 3069 6513 2253 5050 4803 5793 2996 3976 3559 4283 2033 4108 4105 4542 4506 4547 5168 3990 4535 4013 2344 3487 1288

5%

3.50%

219

154

234

164

204

143

186

130

401

281

82

57

438

307

24

17

378

264

15

11

400

280

28

20

283

198

15

11

442

310

52

37

332

233

41

29

327

229

172

121

244

171

154

108

326

228

113

79

253

177

241

169

290

203

150

105

199

140

178

125

215

150

102

72

206

144

206

144

228

159

226

158

228

160

259

181

200

140

227

159

201

141

118

83

175

123

65

46

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 111 of 116 State Representative
Primary Petition Signature Requirements 2020

DISTRICT 111 111 112 112 113 113 114 114 115 115 116 116 117 117 118 118 119 119 120 120 121 121 122 122 123 123 124 124 125 125 126 126 127 127 128 128 129 129 130 130 131 131 132 132

PARTY Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican

ENROLLMENT 5898 5550 3606 4324 3571 4291 5445 3451 6544 1433 5492 730 6280 3200 4934 3224 4639 4193 5359 3598 6445 1877 4303 5011 4876 4428 9457 552 4314 6176 9407 772 6683 1180 7349 495 7085 1115 8308 479 3787 5024 5477 4655

5%

3.50%

295

207

278

195

181

127

217

152

179

125

215

151

273

191

173

121

328

230

72

51

275

193

37

26

314

220

160

112

247

173

162

113

232

163

210

147

268

188

180

126

323

226

94

66

216

151

251

176

244

171

222

155

473

331

28

20

216

151

309

217

471

330

39

28

335

234

59

42

368

258

25

18

355

248

56

40

416

291

24

17

190

133

252

176

274

192

233

163

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 112 of 116 State Representative
Primary Petition Signature Requirements 2020

DISTRICT 133 133 134 134 135 135 136 136 137 137 138 138 139 139 140 140 141 141 142 142 143 143 144 144 145 145 146 146 147 147 148 148 149 149 150 150 151 151

PARTY Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican

ENROLLMENT 5149 3091 4791 4432 5752 4500 7331 3831 6549 2525 4968 4021 4199 2565 5307 1076 4561 5773 5815 4201 5779 4479 5971 3368 5107 1171 6230 2390 5648 4004 5094 1662 4718 5001 4297 3765 4199 5008

5%

3.50%

258

181

155

109

240

168

222

156

288

202

225

158

367

257

192

135

328

230

127

89

249

174

202

141

210

147

129

90

266

186

54

38

229

160

289

203

291

204

211

148

289

203

224

157

299

209

169

118

256

179

59

41

312

219

120

84

283

198

201

141

255

179

84

59

236

166

251

176

215

151

189

132

210

147

251

176

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 113 of 116
EXHIBIT H

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 114 of 116
PRIMARY PETITION BALLOT ACCESS GUIDANCE REGARDING EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 7LL
This guidance by the Secretary of the State (“the Secretary”) is for a candidate seeking the nomination of a major party in the 2020 election cycle under the process established in Executive Order No. 7LL.
I. Applying for Primary Petitions
1. The candidate must complete the Application for Primary Petition (“the application”). The application can be located here: https://portal.ct.gov/SOTS/Election-Services/Nominating-Petitions/ Nominating-Petitions. The application must contain all of the information required by Connecticut General Statutes §9404a, including the following:
• The candidate’s name and address; • The office sought of each candidate for whom the petition is being obtained; • A statement signed by each such candidate that such candidate consents to be a candidate
for such office; and • The candidate's name as the candidate authorizes it to appear on the ballot.
2. The application can be signed electronically.
3. All multi-town district office primary petitions requests shall be submitted to the Secretary of the State. All single town State Representative primary petition requests shall be submitted to the Registrar of Voters of the party and municipality in question.
4. All applications submitted electronically and by mail will be addressed promptly.
5. Applications may be submitted to the Secretary electronically to Election Officer Shirley Surgeon at Shirely.Surgeon@ct.gov. It may also be submitted by mail to the Secretary at: Legislation and Elections Administration Division Attn: Shirley Surgeon 165 Capitol Avenue, Suite 1000 Hartford, CT 06106 Registrars of Voters can be located here:
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/SOTS/ElectionServices/Registrar-of-Voters/Registrar-ofVoters-List.pdf?la=en
1

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 115 of 116
II. Issuance of Primary Petitions
1. The Secretary or Registrar of Voters will issue the Primary Petition Form ED-619 to each candidate either electronically or by mail.
2. The number of signatures required under section 9-400 or 9-406 of the General Statutes is reduced by thirty percent to 3.5% of the total number of enrolled party members in the respective district for the office in question.
III. Circulation of Primary Petitions
1. A petition circulator need not witness the signature of the enrolled party member signed under the process established by Executive Order No. 7LL.
2. Petitions may be circulated by mail. A candidate can make copies of their petition and mail a page of the petition to enrolled party members within their district in an effort to seek support.
3. Petitions may be circulated by electronic mail. 4. Petitions may be circulated on a candidate’s campaign website.
5. Petitions may be circulated by social media websites such as Facebook, Twitter or other such social media services.
6. Petitions may be circulated in person consistent with social distancing protocols.
7. Petitions signed by more than one enrolled party member must continue to comply with section 9-404b and 9-410 of the General Statute, notwithstanding Executive Order No. 7LL. Consistent with existing Executive Orders, remote notarizations may be utilized for petitions signed by more than one registered voter.
IV. Signing Primary Petitions
1. An enrolled party member may sign a petition containing only his or her signature.
2. The enrolled party member must then return the petition to the candidate.
3. The enrolled party member may sign the petition in ink and return the signed original signature to the candidate via mail.
4. The enrolled party member may sign the petition by printing the petition page, signing and re-scanning to return to candidate by electronic mail.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 28-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 116 of 116
5. The enrolled party member may sign the petition by inserting an electronic image of the voter's actual signature on an electronic copy of the petition page where a voter signature is intended to be placed and return to the candidate.
6. The enrolled party member may sign the petition by using a stylus or other similar device to insert an electronic image of a voter's actual signature on an electronic copy of the petition page where a voter signature is intended to be placed and return to the candidate.
7. The candidate must retain a copy the electronic mail received from each voter containing a signed petition page as proof of the validity of the voter’s signature.
V. Submission of Primary Petitions to Election Officials 1. The candidate is responsible for submitting petition pages received electronically that he or she wishes to submit to the Registrar of Voters electronically with information informing the official of the office(s) to which the petition pages relate. 2. The candidate will compile all signatures received via electronic mail or mail and submit a single electronic file of signature pages to each Registrar of Voters. 3. Candidate will compile all signatures received via mail and submit a single packet of pages to each Registrar of Voters. 4. The candidate must submit a copy the electronic mail received from each enrolled party member containing a signed petition page as proof of the validity of the voter’s signature. 5. Information regarding the contact information for electronic submission to Registrars of Voters can be located at: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/SOTS/ElectionServices/Registrarof-Voters/Registrar-of-Voters-List.pdf?la=en 6. All petition pages must be received by the Registrar of Voters by the deadline of 4 p.m. June 11, 2020 set in Executive Order No. 7LL. 7. Nothing within Executive Order No. 7LL precludes petitioning by any other means set forth in the General Statutes.
3

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 43

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al.

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

NED LAMONT, GOVERNOR OF THE :

STATE OF CONNECTICUT, and

:

DENISE MERRILL, SECRETARY OF :

THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

:

Defendants

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-00623(JCH) JUNE 2, 2020

DEMOCRATIC STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Preliminary Statement The Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee (“DSCC”) is the governing body
of the Connecticut Democratic Party. The DSCC has intervened in this case to protect its First Amendment right of association as a political party and oppose the plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary or Permanent Injunction. The plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleges that Executive Order 7LL issued by Governor Ned Lamont on May 11, 2020 violates their First Amendment rights with regard to access to the primary ballot. The amended complaint, in fact, also challenges the DSCC’s primary ballot access process. The DSCC’s primary ballot access process is an essential part of the Connecticut Democratic Party’s core purpose: to select candidates to represent its interests in government.
The DSCC operates in accordance with the Connecticut General Statutes and its State Party Rules (attached hereto as Exhibit A). The State Party Rules are filed with the Secretary of the State and are available online. Declaration of Jacqueline Kozin, Executive Director of the DSCC,
1

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 43
¶13 (attached hereto as Exhibit B). The State Party Rules may be approved and amended only by a majority vote of the delegates at the biannual State Convention. Kozin, Decl. ¶12.
The Connecticut Democratic Party is a democratically run organization with elections held every two years where its members elect representatives to the town committees for each of the 169 towns, 72 representatives to the State Central Committee, and hundreds of representatives to federal and state conventions. Throughout the Connecticut Democratic Party, the leaders volunteer their time to help the party pursue its objectives and support its policies.
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruption to many facets of society and Governor Lamont recognized that this includes gathering signatures to access election ballots. It is our position that the modifications included in Executive Order 7LL properly compensate for the additional burden that the pandemic places on candidates gathering signatures for the August primary.
The primary in August is not an election to determine who represents the voters of Connecticut. It is an election to determine who represents Connecticut Democrats in the November election to determine who represents the voters of Connecticut. As discussed below, the government has a role in regulating and overseeing primaries but that role has limits. Lowering the requirements to access the primary ballot could undermine the work that the party’s members do as part of the candidate-selection process. If the requirements are too low, then candidates could choose to skip the arduous work of working on town committees, dropping literature, making telephone calls, stuffing envelopes, reaching out to town committee members or delegates to ask for support for their candidacies or their candidates. If that becomes the case, one has to wonder why people would volunteer their time and put the effort into working on behalf of the party. This is how the ballot-access requirements are linked inextricably to the
2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 3 of 43
viability of the party. For that reason, we carefully analyze and consider proposed changes to ballot-access
requirements. In this instance, we recognize that the pandemic will alter or otherwise impact the petitioning process. We submit that modifications in Executive Order 7LL fairly compensate for the current conditions. We strenuously oppose any further lowering of the ballot-access requirements and oppose plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction.1 I. ARGUMENT
a. A Political Party Has a First Amendment Right to a Candidate-Selection Process and That Process Is Its Core Function
“[A] political party has a First Amendment right to limit its membership as it wishes, and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform.” New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 202 (2008). The idea behind a political party is that a group of similarly minded people join together to support and elect candidates to represent their interests on the local, state, and federal levels of government. The party structure is the means by which the members become a cohesive group able to achieve this purpose.
The party structure has to ensure, above all else, that it creates and maintains a process to select the candidates that the membership supports. The candidate-selection process is why a party exists and it determines whether the party continues to exist. Therefore, a political party has a right to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform. Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107, 122 (1981); California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 574-
1 The DSCC will defer to Defendants Lamont and Merrill’s argument on discussing the appropriate standard for injunctive relief rather than repeat them in this memorandum.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 4 of 43
575 (2000). The candidates are essential to express the views of the members, to enact the policies that the members support and to oppose the policies its members oppose. Necessarily the process by which the party selects its candidates is of paramount importance.
b. The Connecticut Democratic Party Operates Within a Structure and With an Engaged Membership and in accordance with Democratic Principles
A political party starts with individuals who want to work together to promote their position on public matters and issues. The party grows as others choose to join it. Today if a person eligible to vote wants to join the Democratic Party in Connecticut, that person simply checks a box on the voter registration card filed with the municipality’s Registrar of Voters. There is no barrier to entry: no ideology test, no fee, no obligation to attend meetings, work on campaigns or to contribute money. Each individual decides his or her level of involvement.
For an established party, such as the Connecticut Democratic Party, the challenge is to remain vibrant, unified, and relevant. As more members join, the debate to find consensus becomes more complex and more important. Tension among factions within the party over issues, policies and personalities are inevitable and the only antidote is for the party to adhere to a fair and democratic process. The smoke-filled room of party bosses from the 1900’s could not survive in today’s world. Instead, the Connecticut Democratic Party has to rely on its democratic process that allows individuals and groups a fair chance to participate, campaign and make the case for their positions and candidates. These individuals or their candidates may not prevail but there is a process that gives them a fair opportunity to do so.
It is important to understand what a Connecticut political party actually is in 2020 as opposed to the outdated image of party-bosses sitting back in smoke-filled rooms doling out patronage positions and, through that, asserting their influence. The foundation of the Connecticut Democratic Party today is the town committee. Each of the 169 towns in this state
4

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 5 of 43
has one. Every two years, the Democrats in each town meet to elect people to serve on the town committee. It is known as a caucus. Kozin, Decl. ¶4. The outgoing town committee leadership is required to publish a public notice detailing the date and time of the caucus. The sole eligibility to participate in the caucus or for election to serve on the town committee is that you are a registered voter and member of the party. That is it.
The town committees of the Connecticut Democratic Party have several fundamental responsibilities. These include the following:
• meeting to discuss issues of importance; • determining the committee’s position on those issues; • finding candidates who will support its position on those important issues; and • helping those candidates get elected to office. The town committee’s ultimate objective is the nomination of a candidate for each general election. In the pursuit of that objective, the party’s core role is the endorsement process.
c. The Connecticut Democratic Party Endorsement Process Per Title 9 of the Connecticut General Statutes and the State Party Rules, Connecticut Democrats may endorse their candidates for office in one of the following three ways: 1. Town Committee; 2. Caucus; or 3. Convention Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-309a; Democratic State Party Rules Article III. The first two methods are used for local offices and state legislative districts that comprise only one municipality.2 For a town committee endorsement, the members of the town committee that reside in the district may
2 Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-372(7) defines such offices as “municipal offices” which can cause some confusion.
5

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 6 of 43
vote to endorse.3 Democratic State Party Rules, Article VII. For a caucus endorsement, all Democrats residing in the district, which tend to be smaller municipalities, may vote to endorse. For both town committee and caucus endorsements, the winning candidate must receive a majority of those present and voting.
The third method of endorsement is a convention. Delegates elected either by their town committees or caucuses may vote to endorse at conventions. Democratic State Party Rules, Article III, Section 6.c.; Kozin, Decl. ¶5. The election of delegates by a town committee is determined by a vote of each town committee member who resides in the district that the candidate would represent. Each delegate to the respective conventions also must reside in the district that the candidate would represent. Democratic State Party Rules, Article III, Section 8. A delegate must receive a majority of those town committee members present and voting. Democratic State Party Rules, Article III, Section 14.c. The town committee publishes a list of the delegates to all of the convention. Democratic State Party Rules, Article III, Section 14.b.
The convention endorsement process is fair and accessible. Kozin, Decl. ¶9. Candidates seeking the endorsement will typically network with the delegates before the conventions, working to gain the delegates’ support. Kozin, Decl. ¶9. Any candidate may attempt to win the endorsement and the first step is to simply be nominated and seconded at a convention. Kozin, Decl. ¶9. A candidate wins the endorsement upon gaining a majority vote of all delegates present and voting. Kozin, Decl. ¶7.
3In some towns, there is competition to serve on a town committee and in others there are vacancies that will go unfilled for the two-year term. Some town committees are highly active, others are not. In smaller towns, the town committee often will be the sole entity raising and spending money to support the election of its municipal candidates in odd number years. In some towns, the town committee members put substantial hours volunteering for the candidates in their towns. In other, the town committee members do not participate much in the campaigns. In short, the engagement of town committees differs from town to town.
6

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 7 of 43
In even-numbered years when the state legislature is up for election, the endorsement process begins in March when the town committees meet for the start of their two-year term. Town committee meetings to endorse candidates, caucus meetings to endorse candidates and conventions to endorse candidates are held over a period of time in May of the election year as set forth in statute. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-382, 9-383.
After organizing themselves by electing officers, the town committees’ next order of business is to elect delegates to the conventions. The election of delegates takes place several weeks before the conventions. The town committees publish the names of all delegates. This allows candidates and other advocates the opportunity and the time to ask the delegates for their support in advance of the convention.
The DSCC values its First Amendment rights of free speech and association. Jacqueline Kozin, DSCC Executive Director, Decl. ¶16. The nominating convention process is the means by which the Democratic Party shows support for its candidates. It reflects the will of the people that comprise the Democratic Party’s membership. Kozin, Decl. ¶16. The party exercises its free speech in the endorsement process itself, and upon the nomination of a specific candidate for a particular office, it also exercises its freedom of association by determining which candidates to represent the party and promote the Democratic Party’s platform. Kozin, Decl. ¶16.
There are certain similarities and also notable differences between the town committee or caucus primary ballot access processes and the convention primary ballot access process. One similarity is that all three require that a candidate receive a nomination and a second in order to participate in the endorsement vote. Another similarity is that all three require a majority vote of those present and voting to obtain the endorsement.
A notable difference between the three is that there are two ways to get on a primary
7

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 8 of 43
ballot under the town committee or caucus endorsement process. Democratic State Party Rules, Article III, Section 13. The first is to win the endorsement by receiving a majority of those present and voting. The second is to collect the statutorily required number of signatures on petitions. Democratic State Party Rules, Article III, Section 13. The convention endorsement process adds an additional mechanism. At a convention, a candidate “that receives 15% on any announced, final or accepted roll call vote shall be eligible to primary.” Democratic State Party Rules, Article III, Section 13.4
Per the State Party Rules and the Connecticut General Statutes, a candidate who fails win a convention or to receive at least 15% of the delegates present and voting may still gain access to the primary ballot by collecting the required number of signatures from enrolled party members. Democratic State Party Rules, Article III, Section 13; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-400. The percentage of signatures differs depending on the office the candidate is seeking.5 6 The first day that candidates may seek petition forms coincides with the final day for nominating conventions. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-404a. Candidates have fourteen days to secure signatures and file their petitions with the registrars of voters of the towns in which the petition pages were circulated. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-400. The registrars of voters must then certify the signatures on each petition page against the enrolled party members and file the certification with the Secretary of
4 In N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008) the Court unanimously held that “[s]election by convention has never been thought unconstitutional, even when the delegates were not selected by primary but by party caucuses . . . . Selection by convention has been a traditional means of choosing party nominees. While a State may determine it is not desirable and replace it, it is not unconstitutional.” Id. at 202. In 2003, Connecticut amended its election laws to permit the petitioning process for primary and general ballots after a ruling by the district court concluded that the state’s primary ballot access system was unconstitutional. Campbell v. Bysiewicz, 213 F. Supp.2d 152 (Conn. 2002). 5 For United States Congress, the petition signature requirement is 2% of enrolled party members in the district. For the remaining offices on the 2020 ballot, other than United States President, the petition signature requirement is 5% of the enrolled party members in the district or town. Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-400. For municipal offices there is more flexibility: the signature requirement is 5% or “such lesser number of electors as such party by its rules prescribes.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-406.
8

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 9 of 43
the State. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-404c. The ballot access provisions as modified by Executive Order 7LL in light of the COVID-
19 pandemic are reasonable. Kozin, Decl. ¶15. A state may demand a minimum degree of support for candidate access to a ballot, see Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 442 (1971). The question ultimately before the court is what level of support ought to be required to allow a candidate access to a primary ballot. This necessarily also means protecting the political party’s role in the candidate-selection process which the First Amendment grants it. The plaintiffs’ demand that the First Amendment be used to impose additional competition in the parties' nominee-selection process relies on an implausible reading of the First Amendment that should be rejected.
II. The State Has a Role to Monitor Intraparty Competition to Ensure Fairness but the Role Is Subject to Limits Set by the Constitution
A political party’s First Amendment freedom to gather in association for the purpose of advancing shared beliefs is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by any State. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. at 122, citing Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 57; Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30-31. See also NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460. This freedom to associate necessarily includes the right to identify the people who constitute the association, and to limit the association to those people only. Interference with a political party means interference with the will of its members. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957); Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989).
While it is well settled that states “have a major role to play in structuring and monitoring the election process, including primaries” to assure the intraparty process adheres to democratic principles (California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 572, citing Burdick v. Takushi,
9

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 10 of 43
504 U.S. 428 (1992); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208, 217 (1986); American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974)), “the processes by which political parties select their nominees are not wholly public affairs that states may regulate freely. Id. at 572-573. The government’s “power to prescribe party use of primaries or conventions to select nominees for the general election is not without limits.” N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008); California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 577. Put simply, when a state regulates parties' internal processes, they must act within limits imposed by the Constitution. See, e. g., Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981). When a state regulates the manner in which a political party selects its candidates, it is “the party’s associational rights [that] are at issue . . . .” N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. at 203.
The Connecticut Democratic Party’s constitutional right to association is inextricably linked to the petitioning process for primary ballot access. Lowering the requirements for primary ballot access too much undermines the party because it lessens the importance of acting within the party structure. There is a reason candidates, activists and others dedicate the time and make the effort to participate within the party. This includes attending town committee meetings, making endless phone calls, serving in leadership, working at conventions, raising money, going door to door to hand out campaign literature, and numerous other activities that are necessary for a political party function.
These efforts are also examples of the necessary steps one should take in order to build support within a party to become a town committee member, a delegate, a chair or a candidate.7
7 In contrast to this approach, the lead plaintiff in this case, Andy Gottlieb, in 2018 returned to his hometown at age 24, joined the Guilford Democratic Town Committee and announced in late April that he would seek the party
10

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 11 of 43
If some do not want to contribute to the party structure, it may make more sense for them to run outside the Democratic Party. One may want to have its cake and eat it too but there is no constitutional right to it.
In order to maintain its legitimacy, the Democratic Party must actively discourage party splintering, minimize voter confusion at the ballot box, maintain the integrity of the petition process, and discourage cross party raiding and manipulation. See Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974).
III. Executive Order 7LL Modifies the Petitioning Process for Primary Ballot Access in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Manner That Is Fair
Governor Lamont issued Executive Order 7LL on May 11th, modifying the petitioning process for primary ballot access in three substantive ways. Executive Order 7LL is a recognition and response to the fact that social distancing measures implemented to respond to the pandemic will make collecting signatures more difficult for certain candidates. This Order also acknowledges that “the process of qualifying for ballot access through in-person petitioning as required under Title 9 of the General Statutes is a basic and vital requirement of our state constitution and our election laws, the purpose of which is to ensure that voters have the opportunity to choose among viable candidates who have qualified for the ballot based on a minimum threshold of support, and to promote an election that is orderly, fair and transparent.”
Below are the three modifications to the petitioning process contained within Executive Order 7LL:
1. Extends the deadline for candidates to submit the required signatures by two days, until June 11, 2020;
2. Reduces by 30% the number of signatures a petitioning candidate must collect to obtain ballot access; and
endorsement for State Senate. He received one vote at the 2018 12th State Senate Convention. See April 20, 2018 Press Release from Andy Gottlieb (attached hereto as Exhibit C).
11

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 12 of 43
3. Makes it easier for candidates to obtain those signatures by allowing the option of electronic signature, allows the signature to be sent directly to the candidate (who may compile the signatures and then send them to the Registrar of Voters)8, and eliminates the need for a circulator.9
The modification to permit electronic signatures is especially significant because it eliminates the time and effort necessary to walk streets and climb stairs to knock on doors to solicit signatures – all within the limited time period available to candidates and campaigns (typically daylight hours and later in the day when people are home from work). Per Executive Order 7LL, candidates and campaigns may solicit signatures by email, social media, digital advertising, etc. Done electronically, this may be done at any time of the day, not just during a limited window.
In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, Executive Order 7LL attempts to balance the interests and obligations of the state regarding ballot access with the varied rights of the political actors. The DSCC does not object to Executive Order 7LL because we do not believe that it will unnecessarily reduce the requirements to access the primary ballot. We would also argue that the plaintiffs lack a compelling argument that the Order leaves them with a higher burden to access the primary ballot. Conclusion
Diminishing the meaning of the party’s endorsement undermines the reason that some people dedicate so much time and effort volunteering for the party. You cannot separate diminishing the meaning of the party’s endorsement from diminishing the member’s First
8Executive Order 7LL provides that “a petitioning signature shall be accepted as valid” if it: (1) is mailed to the candidate and then to the Registrar of Voters by the applicable deadline; or (2) it is “scanned or photographed electronically, and returned to the candidate by electronic mail and later to the Registrar of Voters by the applicable deadline along with a copy of the email demonstrating the electronic transmission of the petition by the registered voter.” 9Conn. Gen. §§ 9-400 and 9-410 require that petitions must be circulated, and that signatures must be collected, submitted, and attested to, by an eligible circulator.
12

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 13 of 43
Amendment rights. The plaintiffs seek a level of influence in the Democratic Party through this lawsuit because
they either could not or do not believe they otherwise could attain such influence. The First Amendment does not give party members lacking a base of support within the party itself the right to compel the state to do their bidding and encroach further upon the party’s rights so as to provide them with a more hospitable political environment. In NY Board of Elections v. Lopes Torres, the Supreme Court held that “we have, as described above, permitted States to set their faces against "party bosses" by requiring party-candidate selection through processes more favorable to insurgents, such as primaries. But to say that the State can require this is a far cry from saying that the Constitution demands it. New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. at 205.
Respectfully Submitted,
DEFENDANT CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE
By: KEVIN N. REYNOLDS, ESQ. (ct12305) General Counsel for the DSCC The Law Office of Kevin N. Reynolds, LLC 71 Sycamore Road West Hartford, CT 06117 Tel: 860-308-2388 Email: kreynolds@rsgllc.com
13

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 14 of 43 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 2, 2020, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be served upon all counsel of record registered with the Court’s ECF system, by electronic service via the Court’s ECF transmission facilities.
Respectfully Submitted, KEVIN N. REYNOLDS (ct12305)
14

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 15 of 43
EXHIBIT A
CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC STATE PARTY RULES
Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee 30 Arbor Street Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 560-1775 (860) 560-1522 (Fax) www.ctdems.org
1

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 16 of 43
PREAMBLE
1. All public meetings at all levels of the Democratic Party in Connecticut should be open to all members of the Democratic Party regardless of race, sex, age, color, creed, national origin, religion, ethnic identity, sexual orientation, economic status, philosophical persuasion or physical disability (hereinafter collectively referred to as "status").
2. No test for membership in, nor any oaths of loyalty to, the Democratic Party in Connecticut should be required or used which has the effect of requiring prospective or current members of the Democratic Party to acquiesce in, condone or support discrimination based on "status".
3. The time and place for all public meetings of the Democratic Party in Connecticut on all levels should be publicized fully and in such a manner as to assure timely notice to all interested persons. Such meetings must be held in places accessible to all Party members and large enough to accommodate all interested persons.
4. The Democratic Party in Connecticut, on all levels, should support the broadest possible registration without discrimination based on "status".
5. The Democratic Party in Connecticut should publicize fully and in such manner as to assure notice to all interested parties a full description of the legal and practical procedures for selection of Democratic Party officers and representatives on all levels. Publication of these procedures should be done in such fashion that all prospective and current members of this State Democratic Party will be fully and adequately informed of the pertinent procedures in time to participate in each selection procedure at all levels of the Democratic Party organization.
6. The Democratic Party in Connecticut should publicize fully and in such manner as to assure notice to all interested parties, a complete description of the legal and practical qualifications of all positions as officers and representatives of the State Democratic Party. Such publication should be done in timely fashion so that all prospective candidates or applicants for any elected or appointed position within this State Democratic Party will have full and adequate opportunity to compete for office.
7. The Democratic Party in Connecticut in electing its delegates to the National Convention, at both the district and state levels, shall attempt to reasonably reflect the apportionment of women, young people, and minority group members of the registered Democrats in each district and the state.
8. The Democratic Party in Connecticut shall adopt an affirmative action plan designed to encourage full participation by all Democrats in the delegate selection process and in all Party affairs, with particular concern for African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian/Pacific Americans, women, youths, the LGBTQ community, and persons with disabilities.
9. Any person, who is an enrolled Democratic elector, may participate in any and all party meetings, caucuses and conventions and may be elected to any Party office except where specifically prohibited by law.
ARTICLE I STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE
Section 1: Duties and Responsibilities
2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 17 of 43
The State Central Committee shall be the governing body of the Connecticut Democratic Party between conventions. It is authorized and empowered to take such action and render such decisions as may be necessary to carry out fully and adequately the decisions and instructions of the convention and to promote the aims and principles of the Democratic Party at the national, state and local levels. State Central Committee members shall (a) be the liaison between state and local party officials, (b) establish communications with the town committee or committees within their district, (c) assist within their local Democratic Party organizations in the election of their candidates and education of their voters, (d) disseminate statements of national and state party policy, (e) participate in other activities as the membership deems appropriate and (f) be automatic delegates, without the need for any further action, to the State Convention from the towns in which they reside and they will serve in addition to the regularly allocated number of delegates from that town, provided however, that such automatic delegates are not permitted to designate alternates and must appear at the State Convention in person to cast their ballot, and are not considered automatic delegates for any other purpose or Convention. Members of the Democratic State Central Committee shall work to promote harmony among all people, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, language, religion or sexual orientation.
Section 2: Composition of State Central Committee Members
A. The Democratic State Central Committee shall be composed of two representatives, one man and one woman, elected from each senatorial district in the state for a term of two years in the manner prescribed by Article I, Section 3. Members of the State Central Committee shall hold office from the completion of the last and final session of the State Convention following their election, until the end of the next state convention, or until they otherwise vacate their office. State Central Committee Members must reside in the district from which they were elected for their entire term. If the State Central Committee Member moves from the district from which he or she was elected during the elected term, his or her seat will be declared vacant by the State Chair and shall be filled under Article I, Section 4. B. In addition to the above paragraph, the State Chair, in consultation with the Connecticut Young Democrats, shall nominate two representatives, one man and one woman, for election to the State Central Committee. Additional nominations of Young Democrats may be made from the floor at the State Central meeting and the two representatives shall then be chosen by a majority of the members present and voting. Members chosen under this paragraph, shall be elected after the State Central Committee meeting to elect the State Chair and shall serve for a term to expire with the term of the State Chair. Members must be residents of the State of Connecticut. If a member moves from Connecticut or a vacancy, however arrived at, occurs, the seat shall be filled by the process set forth in this paragraph and the member shall serve for the balance of the term. The Young Democrats representatives chosen pursuant to this section shall not be permitted to vote for the State Central Committee Officers, or to fill any vacancy for these offices, or vacancies in the Democratic National Committee, and all other rights and privileges of DSCC Membership is reserved to the elected DSCC Members.
Section 3: Election of State Central Committee Members & State Convention Committees
The State Convention delegates from each senatorial district shall meet at least fifteen (15) days but not more than twenty-five (25) days prior to the first session of each State Convention, at a time and place to be designated by the State Central Committee members from the district. One of the State Central Committee members from the district shall act as a chair of the meeting. Upon due notice, the delegates to the State Convention from each senatorial district, who shall not exceed the number of delegates representing each town or portion of a town at the state senatorial convention in that senatorial district, shall meet and select by a majority vote of those present and voting, a man and woman member of the State
3

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 18 of 43
Central Committee, who may or may not be delegates to said convention. These delegates will also select from their numbers a vice-president and secretary for the State Convention, and shall also select one member for each of the following convention Committees: 1. Committee on Credentials; 2. Committee on Permanent Organization; 3. Committee for Rules and Resolutions; 4. Committee on Platform (when one is necessary in accordance with Article III, Section 11); and 4. Such other committees as shall have been determined by the State Central Committee. Votes shall not be taken by secret ballot at such elections. Such elections shall be certified by the secretary of such meeting to the Secretary of the State Central Committee within five (5) days subsequent to such meeting.
If said meeting has not been held in the period prescribed above, it shall be called by the Chair of the State Central Committee, to be held prior to the opening of the State convention, at a place and time to be designated by the State Chair. All elections made by such meeting shall be certified by the secretary of the meeting to the Secretary of the State Central Committee prior to the first session of such convention.
Section 4: Vacancies in State Central Committee Membership
Vacancies, however arrived at, in the membership of the State Central Committee shall be filled by a majority vote of those present and voting at a special meeting of state convention delegates from the preceding state convention from the senatorial district in which the vacancy has occurred. This special meeting shall be held within sixty (60) days after a vacancy arises. The remaining representative on the State Central Committee from said senatorial district shall set a time and place for said meeting and written notice of said meeting shall be sent to each state convention delegate, in good standing, from said senatorial district and the vacancy shall be filled by a majority vote of those present and voting at said meeting.
In order to be eligible to be a participant in the special meeting, the State Convention delegates must be in good standing, which is defined as being a valid Democratic elector, residing in the district at the time the special meeting occurs. A delegate in good standing may appoint an alternate for such special meeting, subject to the provisions of Article I, Section 9. If a delegate is not in good standing, his or her alternate to the prior State Convention, if in good standing and if appointed prior to the adjournment of the State Convention, shall participate in his or her place. If neither the delegate nor the alternate is in good standing, no new appointment shall be made.
Section 5: Election and Composition of State Central Committee Officers
Not earlier than the tenth (10th) day, nor later than the twenty-fourth (24th) day of January, in every odd-numbered year, the State Central Committee shall meet and shall elect a Chair and Vice Chair, one of whom shall be a male and the other a female. The Committee at the same meeting shall elect a Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer and any other Officers the Committee deems necessary. Beginning on the first day of February of the same year, officers shall commence their two year term. Officers need not be members of the State Central Committee. Each officer shall have the duties usually incident to the office of that name, and such other duties as the Committee may prescribe from time to time.
Section 6: Vacancies in State Central Committee Officer Positions
When a vacancy occurs in any of the aforementioned offices, the State Central Committee shall within sixty (60) days elect a successor to fill the unexpired term, by a majority vote of those present and voting at a meeting duly noticed and held for such purpose,
4

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 19 of 43
Section 7: Meetings
Meetings of the State Central Committee shall be held at least five (5) times yearly and may be held at any time upon call of the State Chair, or by vote of the Committee, or within ten (10) days of the receipt by the State Chair of a written request signed by not less than twenty (20) members of the Committee and stating the purpose for which such meeting is to be called. The announcement of the meeting shall contain a statement of the business to come before such meeting and will be sent to all Town Chairs at the same time and in the same manner as it is sent to the members of the Committee. Minutes of all meetings of this committee will be sent by email or regular mail to all members of this committee and, upon request, to all Town Chairs.
Section 8: Quorum
Two-fifths (2/5) of the membership in good standing of the State Central Committee shall constitute a quorum at any meeting.
Section 9: Proxies
Any member of the State Central Committee who is unable to attend any meeting of said committee may in writing select any enrolled Democratic elector of either gender within his or her senatorial district as their proxy. The selection of a proxy shall be filed with the secretary of the meeting, and the proxy may participate as a full member of the Committee until the meeting is adjourned. Notwithstanding the foregoing an automatic delegate to the State Convention must appear and cast their ballot in person, and shall not be permitted to designate an alternate delegate.
Section 10: Procedure of Meeting
Each meeting shall be convened and presided over by the Chair of the Party, or, in their absence the Vice Chair. After general orders of business, acts and/or resolutions may be brought up. In order to bring an act or resolution to the floor at a State Central Committee Meeting, it must first be brought to the Chair of the Party, who may refer the act or resolution to the appropriate committee. If there is not an appropriate committee, the Chair has the power to convene a special committee to hear the act or resolution. In committee, it can be amended. If passed in committee by a majority of members present, the Chair must bring the act and/or resolution to the floor of the next State Central Committee Meeting.
Section 11: Financial Report
The Treasurer of the Committee shall send an annual financial report to all members of the State Central Committee and all Town Chairs within sixty (60) days of the close of the fiscal year.
Section 12: Constituency Caucuses
The State Central Committee may, from time to time, establish and maintain various Constituency Caucuses, whose membership shall be open to any Connecticut Democratic electorate, to help recruit and recognize groups of importance to the Party, including the Hispanic, Black, Women’s, Asian American and Pacific Islander, and Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT) American Caucuses. The Constituency Caucuses are subsumed by the Connecticut Democratic Party, and for all operational, legal and campaign finance purposes are part of the Connecticut Democratic Party. Constituency Caucuses shall be governed by separate By-Laws, which shall fully comport with the Connecticut State Democratic Party Rules, and such By-Laws shall be approved by the State Central Committee. Whenever there is a conflict
5

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 20 of 43
between Caucus By-Laws and the Connecticut Democratic State Party Rules, the Party Rules shall prevail.
ARTICLE II DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
Section 1: Selection of Members and Terms
There shall be elected to the Democratic National Committee, in the year of the election of President of the United States, such number of National Committee members as have been apportioned to the State of Connecticut pursuant to the By-Laws of the Democratic Party of the United States. With exceptions noted elsewhere, each such member shall serve for a term of four (4) years or until a successor has been duly selected.
Section 2: Membership
Of the National Committee members to be elected, two (2) shall be the Chair and Vice Chair of the Democratic State Central Committee. The remaining members of the National Committee, who shall be registered Democrats in the State of Connecticut but need not be elected delegates to the National Convention, shall each be elected individually by a majority vote of the delegates to the Democratic State Convention to be held in the year of the Presidential election.
Section 3: Membership in the State Central Committee
Individuals elected to represent Connecticut on the Democratic National Committee, without the need for further action, shall be automatically delegates to the State Convention from the towns in which they reside, in addition to the regularly allocated number of delegates from that town.
Section 4: Change in Office
In the event that the Chair or Vice Chair of the State Central Committee is succeeded in office prior to the expiration of his or her National Committee term, his or her successor in office at the State Central Committee shall fill the remainder of such National Committee term.
Section 5: Vacancy in Membership
Except as provided in Section 3 of this Article, when a vacancy occurs in the office of National Committee Member, the State Central Committee shall within sixty (60) days elect a successor to fill the unexpired term, by a majority vote of those present and voting at a meeting duly noticed and held for such purpose,
ARTICLE III CONVENTIONS
Section 1: Convention Calls
The State Central Committee, at a meeting called for such purpose, shall fix:
A. The date, time, and place of meeting of the state convention; B. The date, time, and place of meeting of the congressional district conventions; and C. The date of the senatorial, assembly and probate district conventions in senatorial,
assembly and probate districts that cross one or more town lines. Only the State Central Committee members representing any part of a senatorial, assembly or probate district shall fix the time and place of conventions in such districts. Each
6

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 21 of 43
such convention shall originate by call of the Chair of the State Central Committee or his or her designee.
Section 2: Convention Dates
Each convention held to endorse candidates for congressional districts or state or district office to be voted upon at a state election shall be convened in the even numbered years, no later than the ninety-eighth day and closed not later than the seventy-seventh day preceding the day of the primary for such office. All congressional district conventions shall be held on the same day. All senatorial district conventions shall be held on the same day. All multi-town assembly district conventions shall be held on the same day. All multi-town probate district conventions shall be held on the same day. No congressional, senatorial, assembly, or probate district convention shall begin later than the twenty-first (21st) day following the close of the state convention.
Section 3: Delegate Representation
At each congressional, senatorial, assembly, and probate district convention, each town or portion of the town to be represented at that convention shall be entitled to one (1) delegate for each five-hundred (500) or fraction thereof derived from the average of the following factors: (a) Democratic registration as shown on the last list published by the Office of the Secretary of the State, and (b) votes cast for the Democratic candidate for President in the last preceding presidential election. At each State Convention, each town shall be entitled to the sum of the delegates representing each such town at the several senatorial district conventions whereat each such town is represented, and each town’s delegation shall include a number of delegates residing in each of said senatorial districts equal to the number of delegates representing said town at each of such senatorial district conventions.
Section 4: Delegate List
It shall be the duty of the Chair of each town committee to send to the Secretary of the State Central Committee, on forms furnished by the State Central Committee, a list of the delegates to each convention duly chosen from his or her town, properly attested by the Democratic Registrar of Voters or, in the event of his or absence, by the Town Chair only with the express approval of the State Chair. Such list shall be delivered, whether by paper or electronically, no later than the one hundred thirty-second day proceeding the day of the primary for such state or district office.
Section 5: Convention Roll
The temporary roll of each convention shall be comprised of the duly chosen delegates to such convention as filed with the Secretary of the State Central Committee by the Town Chair.
Section 6: Temporary Chairs
The State Central Committee shall elect a Temporary Chair for each State Convention at least sixty (60) days prior to such convention. The Temporary Chairs of all congressional, senatorial, assembly, and probate district conventions shall be chosen by the State Central Committee members representing all or part of such a district and shall be chosen at least thirty (30) days prior to such convention. The Temporary Chair shall assume the administrative duties to call and arrange for each district convention, but, in the event that he or she fails timely to do so, such duties shall forthwith be assumed by the State Chair or his or her designee. The Temporary Chair need not be a delegate to the convention he or she chairs. A Temporary Chair while serving as such shall have the additional right to cast a vote dissolving a tie, but this provision shall not affect his or her right to vote as a delegate in the first place. He or she shall serve until
7

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 22 of 43
the election by the convention of a Permanent Chair.
Section 7: Sessions
The times, length and agenda of the State Convention shall be determined by the State Chair, with the approval of the State Central Committee.
Section 8: Qualification of Delegates
Each delegate or alternate shall be an enrolled Democratic elector residing in the district which he or she represents.
Section 9: Alternates
Except with respect to automatic delegates (such automatic delegates consisting of either State Central Committee members as provided for in Article I Section 1(f), or individuals elected to represent Connecticut on the Democratic National Committee as provided for in Article II Section 3), each delegate to a convention elected in conformity with law and with these rules may, if in good standing, designate in writing an alternate delegate to act for him or her in his or her absence at any convention or other meeting of delegates held under these rules. Such appointment of an alternate shall cease to be effective upon adjournment of the respective convention or meeting, except as otherwise provided in Article I, Section 4. In the absence of such alternate delegate, the Town Chair shall have the right to fill vacancies in delegations to conventions during conventions and until the respective convention adjourns. This right to fill vacancies shall cease upon adjournment of the convention.
Section 10: Challenges to Delegates
A. Prior to the opening of the State Convention, five percent (5%) of the enrolled Democrats or five hundred (500) enrolled Democrats in any town (whichever is less) may challenge any delegate or delegates elected from their town.
B. The challenge shall be provided to the State Chair by registered or certified mail, and must be received at least seven days before the opening of the State Convention. A copy of the challenge shall be sent to all delegates challenged and to the Town Chair from the municipality from which each challenged delegate was elected.
C. The State Chair shall notify the Committee on Credentials and a meeting of said committee shall be called to order at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the first session of the Convention, and both sides shall be allowed equal time to present their case.
D. The Committee on Credentials shall issue a decision prior to the convening of said convention. No challenged delegate may vote on the report of the committee involving his or her respective challenge, nor shall a challenged delegate participate as a committee member with respect to his or her respective challenge.
Section 11: Pre-Convention Platform Committee and Rules Committee
A. When, in accordance with these rules, a Platform Committee is to be formed, then the State Chair, not less than ten (10) weeks prior to the opening of the State Convention, shall appoint two (2) persons from each state senatorial district to a Pre-Convention Platform Committee which shall conduct hearings on the platform and recommend a platform to the Platform Committee of the Convention.
8

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 23 of 43
B. Not less than ten (10) weeks prior to the opening of each State Convention, the State Chair shall appoint a Pre-Convention Rules Committee to recommend changes in the State Party Rules and to recommend convention rules to the Rules Committee of the Convention.
Section 12: State Convention Committees
The committees of the State Convention shall include a Committee on Credentials; a Committee on Permanent Organization, a Committee on Rules and Resolutions, and such other committees as shall be determined by the State Central Committee. There shall be a Committee on Platform at each State Convention wherein a candidate for governor shall be nominated. The memberships of each committee shall be elected in accordance with Article I, Section 3. The committees shall fulfill the following functions along with any others designated by the State Central Committee:
A. Credentials - Report on all challenges to delegates in accordance with Article III, Section 10, above.
B. Permanent Organization - To nominate the Permanent Chair and Permanent Secretary of the State Convention and to appoint the Sergeants-at-Arms and the Pages of the State Convention.
C. Rules and Resolutions - To propose changes deemed necessary in these rules and to propose procedures for the State Convention and such resolutions as shall be deemed necessary or appropriate by the committee.
D. Platform - To present to the State Convention a platform and such resolutions deemed appropriate by the committee. A draft of the platform shall be prepared by a Preliminary Platform Committee appointed by the Chair of the State Central Committee which Preliminary Platform Committee shall hold public hearings throughout the state and prepare its draft at least two weeks prior to the opening of the State Convention.
Any member of any committee shall be allowed to make a minority report to the convention on any matter decided by his or her committee. The function of each committee shall end with adjournment of the State Convention.
Section 13: Endorsement of Candidates
A. The State or Congressional District Convention shall endorse a candidate for nomination to each of the statewide offices or congressional district office, as the case may be. Candidates so chosen shall run in the primary as party-endorsed candidates. Any candidate that receives fifteen percent (15%) on any announced, final or accepted roll call vote shall be eligible to primary. A candidate shall be the nominee of the Democratic Party if no other person has received at least fifteen percent (15%) of the votes of the convention delegates present and voting on any roll call vote taken for endorsement or proposed endorsement of a candidate for such office, or if no other person receives two percent (2%) of the valid signatures of registered Democrats in the state or congressional district, or if no valid opposing candidacy has been filed for nomination to such office by four o'clock (4:00) p.m. on the fourteenth (14th) day following the close of the convention.
B. The State Senatorial, Assembly or Judge of Probate District Convention shall endorse a candidate for nomination to each of the state senate, assembly, or judge of probate offices, as the case may be. The only requirement to participate in a caucus shall be that the candidate is a registered Democrat in the applicable district. Candidates so chosen shall run in the primary as party-endorsed candidates. Any candidate that receives 15% on any announced, final or accepted
9

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 24 of 43
roll call vote shall be eligible to primary. Such a candidate shall be the nominee of the Democratic Party if no other person has received at least fifteen percent (15%) of the votes of the convention delegates on any roll call vote taken for endorsement or proposed endorsement of a candidate for such office, or if no other person receives five percent (5%) of the valid signatures of registered Democrats in the district, or if no valid opposing candidacy has been filed for nomination to such office by four o'clock (4:00) p.m. on the fourteenth (14th) day following the close of the convention.
Section 14: Nomination and Selection of Party Endorsed Candidates
A. Candidates for nomination may be proposed from the floor of the convention by any delegate. Whenever two (2) or more candidates for nomination to any office are proposed, the vote as between them shall be taken by roll call.
B. The secretary of the convention shall call the roll and keep a true record, in writing, of the vote of each delegate entitled to vote and voting at the convention, and shall, at the conclusion of the roll call, announce the result of the vote. The secretary shall file such record at the headquarters of the State Central Committee where it shall be preserved for a period of six (6) months after the adjournment of the convention and such record shall be open to public inspection at all reasonable times.
C. To obtain the endorsement of a convention, a candidate must receive a majority of the votes of the convention delegates present and voting. In the event that a vote taken on the selection of a party endorsed candidate results in a tie, such tie shall be dissolved by the vote of the permanent chairperson of the convention, but this provision shall not affect his or her right to vote as a delegate in the first place.
Section 15: Certification of List.
The secretary of each convention shall prepare an accurate list, printed by hand or typewritten, of the candidates endorsed by the convention, and also of any candidates receiving at least fifteen percent (15%) of the votes of the convention delegates present and voting on any roll call vote taken on the endorsement or proposed endorsement of a candidate, whether or not the party endorsed candidate received a unanimous vote on the last ballot, with the names, street addresses and towns of the person so endorsed or receiving fifteen percent (15%) of the votes and the title of the office for which each person is a candidate. This list shall be certified by the permanent chairperson and the secretary of the convention and shall be delivered to the Secretary of the State by the chairperson of the convention not later than forty-eight (48) hours after the close of the convention. Together with such list, said chairperson shall also file with the Secretary of the State the names, street addresses and towns of persons selected as the nominees for Presidential Electors. Copies of such lists shall be delivered to the Secretary of the State Central Committee.
Section 16: Plurality Vote Determinative of Nomination.
Whenever a primary for nomination to a state or district office is to be held under the provision of the State Primary Law, as the same may be amended from time to time, the nominee of the Democratic Party for such office shall be the person receiving a plurality of the votes cast.
Section 17: Presidential Electors.
In the year of a presidential election, Presidential Electors shall be nominated at the State Convention by a majority vote of the delegates present and voting.
Section 18: National Convention Delegates.
10

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 25 of 43
Delegates to National Conventions shall be elected in accordance with Democratic National Party Rules. The delegate selection process should be completed early enough to enable delegates to participate fully in National Convention Committees.
Section 19: Unit Rule.
The unit rule shall not be permitted at any convention.
ARTICLE IV VACANCIES
Section 1: In Nomination
A. If a nomination has been made for an office and the nominee thereafter but prior to twenty-four (24) days before the opening of the polls on the day of the election for which such nomination has been made, withdraws his or her name, or for any reason becomes disqualified to hold the office for which he or she has been nominated, the vacancy shall be filled as prescribed in Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-460, except as otherwise provided herein. If a nominee dies prior to twenty-four (24) hours before the opening of the polls on the day of the election for which such nomination has been made, the vacancy shall be filled as prescribed by Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-460, except as otherwise provided herein.
B. In the case of an office for which all the electors of the state may vote, the vacancy shall be filled by the State Central Committee, meeting upon no less than five (5) days’ notice.
C. In the case of the office of congressman, the vacancy shall be filled by the members of the State Central Committee representing territory within the congressional district, meeting upon no less than five (5) days’ notice.
D. In the case of the office of judge of probate, state senator, state representative, convention delegate, or any other office not otherwise specifically provided for herein, the vacancy shall be filled by reconvening the body which previously decided the party endorsement for the office, meeting upon no less than five (5) days’ notice, except that where the previous endorsing body was a caucus the town committee shall be convened to fill the vacancy. The provisions of this section shall also apply in the case of a town’s State Convention delegation not properly apportioned as required by Art. III, Section 3. In the event of such improper apportionment, the endorsing body shall fill any vacancies for under-represented senatorial districts and shall correspondingly reduce the number of delegates from over-represented senatorial districts.
E. If a vacancy in a nomination under subsection (c) or (d) of this section shall occur in a multi-town district less than sixty (60) but prior to ten (10) days before the opening of the polls on the day of the election for which such nomination has been made or, in the case of the death of a nominee, prior to twenty-four (24) hours before said opening of the polls, in such case the vacancy shall be filled by the State Central Committee members and Town Chairs for the district within which the vacancy has occurred meeting upon no less than three (3) days’ notice. If such vacancy shall occur less than eight (8) days prior to the opening of the polls, reasonable notice shall suffice. In filling a vacancy under the provisions of this subsection (e), each participating Town Chair shall be entitled to cast the number of votes to which his or her town was entitled in the body which previously decided the party endorsement.
F. If a vacancy in a nomination under subsection (d) of this section shall occur in a singletown district less than sixty (60) but prior to ten (days) before the opening of the polls on the day of the election for which such nomination has been made or, in the case of the death of a
11

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 26 of 43
nominee, prior to twenty-four (24) hours before said opening of the polls, in such case the vacancy shall be filled, meeting upon no less than three (3) days’ notice, by the town committee of the town within which the vacancy has occurred or as the local party rules may otherwise provide. If such vacancy shall occur less than eight (8) days prior to the opening of the polls, reasonable notice shall suffice.
G. Where a State Central Committee member or Town Chair who is called upon under subsection (e) of this section to fill a vacancy does not reside within the district for which a vacancy is to be filled, he or she shall appoint a representative who is a voter in said district to act in his or her place for the purpose of filling such vacancy.
H. No candidate shall be deemed to have withdrawn until a letter of withdrawal signed by such candidate is filed as prescribed by statute, except as otherwise provided herein.
Section 2: Tie Vote in Filling Vacancy.
A. The State Chair shall have the right to cast a vote to dissolve a tie when a vacancy in an endorsement or nomination is to be filled by the State Central Committee.
B. When a tie vote occurs among members of the State Central Committee or Town Committee Chairs in filling a vacancy under the provisions of this Article, the State Central Committee member who is senior in terms of cumulative service as a State Central Committee member representing the district within which the vacancy occurs, or a portion thereof, shall have the right to cast a vote to dissolve the tie.
C. If seniority of two or more State Central Committee members is identical for the purposes of dissolving a tie under this Article, the member who shall dissolve the tie shall be determined by random process.
Section 3: Certification of Filled Vacancy.
A. Whenever a vacancy in a nomination for a state or district office, is filled, pursuant to this Article, the action shall immediately be communicated to the State Chair, who shall certify the same as prescribed by statute, except as otherwise provided herein. In the absence of the Chair, such certification shall be made by the Secretary of the State Central Committee. B. Whenever a vacancy in a nomination to an office for which only the electors of a single town may vote is filled, the Chair or Secretary of the town committee shall immediately certify the same as prescribed by statute, except otherwise provided herein. Certification of such nomination to fill a vacancy due to death or disqualification shall include a statement setting forth the reason for such vacancy.
Section 4: Vacancy, Presidential Elector, Delegate, Alternate Delegate to National Convention
Any vacancy in the position of delegate or alternate delegate to the Democratic National Convention shall be filled in accordance with the Connecticut Delegate Selection Plan. A vacancy in the position of presidential elector shall be filled by the State Central Committee, meeting upon no less than five (5) days’ notice, if such vacancy occurs prior to the election at which presidential electors are to be chosen.
ARTICLE V FINAL COMMITTEE TO RESOLVE ENDORSEMENT DISPUTE
A. Any dispute concerning endorsements for any office, or for delegate or for town committee member or officer, and any dispute concerning the interpretation and effect of party rules and procedures must first be referred to the State Central Committee members in the
12

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 27 of 43
applicable district for local resolution. In order to expedite any such disputes, State Central Members may seek legal opinions from Counsel for State Central. If the parties involved cannot bring about a resolution to their differences, then the issue may be referred to the State Chair in writing asking that the issue be resolved through a Dispute Resolution Committee. If the dispute is brought before a Dispute Resolution Committee, the issuing of a previous legal opinion by State Central Counsel concerning the dispute shall not prohibit said Counsel from advising the Dispute Resolution Committee.
B. A Dispute Resolution Committee shall be composed of no less than three (3) nor more than five (5) members of the State Central Committee, appointed by the chairperson thereof, none of whom shall represent the district or districts concerned. The decision of the committee shall be conclusive and binding upon all parties.
C. The committee shall be appointed no later than five (5) business days after the State Chair receives a written request for the resolution of a dispute pursuant to this article. The committee shall set a time and place for a hearing of said dispute within five (5) business days of its appointment. The parties to the dispute shall receive notice at least seven (7) business days prior to the hearing unless exigent circumstances warrant less notice. The Committee shall issue its decision within five (5) days of the close of the hearing, and a written copy of such decision shall be filed with the State Central Committee, and provided to each party to the dispute. However, when exigent circumstances arise, the State Chairman shall have the authority to modify these requirements.
ARTICLE VI PRIMARY LAW
The nominations of the Democratic Party to all public offices and the election to a town committee and delegates to conventions shall be made in all respects in accordance with the State Party Rules, as may be amended from time to time, provided that no person may contest in a primary for any State or District office unless such person has received at least fifteen percent (15%) of the votes of the convention delegates present and voting in at least one roll call vote at a duly called and conducted convention for the endorsement of candidates for such offices, in accordance with the provisions of Article III of these rules, or such person has received two percent (2%) of the valid signatures of registered Democrats in the State or congressional district, or five percent (5%) of the valid signatures of registered Democrats in the State Senatorial, Assembly or Judge of Probate district.
ARTICLE VII RULES GOVERNING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN ALL TOWNS
The following rules shall govern the activities of the Democratic Party in each town of the state, whether or not the local party has adopted its own rules, notwithstanding any local party rule to the contrary.
Section 1: Election of Town Committees
A. Party endorsed candidates of any local party for town committee members shall be selected by the enrolled members of such party in caucus or via a direct primary held in accordance with the Connecticut General Statutes. At caucus meetings, any eligible person may be nominated from the floor, notwithstanding any notice or pre-registration requirements in the local rules. Notice of the time, place and purpose of said caucus shall be given to all enrolled Democratic voters of the municipality at least five (5) days, but not more than fifteen (15) days, in advance of the caucus by publication of the same in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality.
B. The payment of dues shall not be a requirement for the endorsement or election of a
13

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 28 of 43
candidate for any local party or town committee position. A town committee may be endorsed and elected on a district basis as such rules may prescribe. At any caucus duly called for the endorsement of members of a town committee, nominations for such town committee members may be made by (1) presentation to the caucus of a full slate composed of a number of persons equal to the number of town committee members prescribed by local party rules or (2) by nomination of individual candidates. Voting by slate is only permissible when the election is between two or more full slates. In the endorsement of such candidates, voting shall be in accordance with the local party rules, but in no event shall a member of the caucus vote for a greater number of candidates than those to be elected. In the event no endorsement is made by the above stated method, then there shall be no endorsement and election to such town committee shall be made by direct primary as provided by law. No person shall be eligible to serve on the town committee unless he or she is a registered member of the Democratic Party.
Section 2: Primary Date
On the first Tuesday in March in each even-numbered year, each town committee, if needed, shall hold a primary for the election of town committee members.
Section 3: Terms of Members
Unless otherwise provided in this Article, members of the town committee shall serve for a term of two (2) years, commencing on the Wednesday after the first Tuesday in March in each evennumbered year and ending on the first Tuesday in March of the next even-numbered year.
Section 4: Election and Call of Organizational Meeting
A. Not more than thirty (30) days following the day fixed for the holding of a primary for the election of town committee members, the chair of the town committee in office at the time of said primary shall call a meeting of the newly elected town committee for the purpose of electing such officers of the town committee pursuant to the local party rules. If such Town Chair fails, for any reason, to call such meeting by the end of the prescribed thirty (30) day period, the Vice Chair in office at the time of the primary shall call the meeting within forty-eight (48) hours.
B. If, for any reason, the Vice Chair does not call the meeting within the prescribed fortyeight (48) hour period, the State Central Committee members in the district shall call the meeting within the next forty-eight (48) hours. When the meeting must be called by the Vice Chair or a State Central Committee member, the call of the meeting will be valid notwithstanding any otherwise applicable rule concerning time and notification of town committee meetings.
Section 5: Quorum
Two fifths (2/5) of the membership of the town committee shall constitute a quorum at any meeting.
Section 6: Slate Endorsement
A. At any caucus or town committee meeting duly called for the election of delegates to any convention, nominations for said delegates may be made (1) by presentation to the caucus or town committee of a slate composed of a number of persons not exceeding the number of such delegates to which the town is entitled under the state rules of the Democratic Party or (2) by nomination of individual candidates. Voting by slate is only permissible when the election is between two or more full slates.
B. In the selection of such delegates, each member of the caucus or town committee member
14

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 29 of 43
present and voting shall vote for a number of delegates not to exceed the number of a full slate as defined above.
C. The voting for delegates to each convention shall be done by individual convention.
Section 7: Increased Membership.
The town committee, at a meeting called for the purpose, may, by majority vote of those present and voting, increase its membership, provided that all new members shall be duly elected by the time of the next primary date in the state election calendar, shall begin in office the next day, and shall continue in office only until the next date for election of town committee members.
Section 8: Town Committee Meetings
In accordance with the Charter of the Democratic National Committee, all meetings of Democratic town committees, subcommittees and all other Democratic Party committees shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot.
Section 9: Limitation on Proxy Voting in Town Committee Meetings
Unless specifically provided for in local party rules, proxy voting shall not be allowed at any town committee meeting or for the endorsement of candidates or delegates.
Section 10: Filing of Local Rules and List of Officers and Members
Within one week after swearing in a new town committee and the election of Officers for any given term, the Chair of the town committee shall file a copy of the town committee’s Local Rules, as well as a list of the names and addresses and other pertinent contact information of the officers and members of the town committee (in a format designated by the Democratic State Central Committee) with the Secretary of the Democratic State Central Committee.
ARTICLE VIII RULES GOVERNING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN TOWNS NOT HAVING LOCAL PARTY RULES
The following rules shall govern the activities of the Democratic Party in each town of the state in which no rules have been adopted by the local Democratic Party or have not been filed in accordance with Article VIII. The following rules also shall govern the activities of the Democratic Party in each town for circumstances where the local rules are silent or otherwise void. Where alternate sections bearing the same number are given, the applicable one, as indicated in the margin, shall govern.
Section 1: Town Committee Composition
A. For Towns Not Divided Into Voting Districts
The town committee shall consist of not less than ten (10) members, who shall be elected at large. Representation should be given to each section of the town.
B. For Towns Divided Into Voting Districts
The town committee shall consist of not less than three members from each of the voting districts of the town. The members of the town committee shall be elected to vote from their respective voting districts. In the vote in a primary for the election of town committee members from a voting district, only persons currently registered as members of the Democratic Party in such
15

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 30 of 43
voting district shall be eligible to vote.
Section 2: Terms of Members
Members of the town committee shall serve for a term of two (2) years, commencing on the day following the day established for holding a primary for the election of said town committee members and ending with the day established for the holding of a primary for the election of the members of the succeeding town committee. The provisions of this section shall apply notwithstanding the lack of cause for a primary to elect said members.
Section 3: Vacancy
Any vacancy on the town committee, arising from any cause including failure to elect, may be filled by the town committee by a majority vote of those present and voting at a meeting called for that purpose.
Section 4: Election and Call of Organizational Meeting
Not more than thirty (30) days following the day fixed for the holding of a primary for the election of town committee members, the chair of the town committee in office on the day of said primary shall call a meeting of the newly elected town committee for the purpose of electing such officers of the town committee as are prescribed in local party rules. If such Town Chair fails, for any reason, to call such meeting by the end of the prescribed thirty (30) day period, the Vice Chair in office at the time of the primary shall call the meeting within forty-eight (48) hours. If, for any reason, the Vice Chair does not call the meeting within the prescribed fortyeight (48) hour period, the State Central Committee members in the district shall call the meeting within the next forty-eight (48) hours. When the meeting must be called by the Vice Chair or a State Central Committee member, the call of the meeting will be valid notwithstanding any otherwise applicable rule concerning time and notification of town committee meetings.
Section 5: Qualifications
The officers of the town committee need not be members of the committee.
Section 6: Term
Officers so elected shall hold office until their successors have been elected.
Section 7: Duties
Each of such officers shall have the duties usually incident to his or her office and such other duties as the town committee may from time to time prescribe. In the event that a vote is taken that shall result in a tie, such tie vote shall be dissolved by the vote of the chair of the town committee, but this provision shall not affect his or her right to cast any vote, as a member of the town committee, to which he or she is otherwise entitled.
Section 8: Filing List of Officers and Members
Within one week after organization of the town committee, the Secretary shall file a list of the names and addresses of the officers and members of the town committee with the Secretary of the Democratic State Central Committee.
Section 9: Vacancy in Town Committee Office
16

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 31 of 43
If there shall be a vacancy in any office of the town committee, arising from any cause, the town committee may fill the same by a majority vote of those present and voting, at a meeting called for that purpose.
Section 10: Meetings, Minimum Meetings
The town committee shall meet at least four times a year.
Section 11: Special Meetings
Special meetings of the town committee may be called upon written request, signed by twenty percent (20%) of the members of the committee, presented to the Chair. Upon receipt of such request, the Chair shall instruct the Secretary to give reasonable notice of the time and place and purpose of such meeting to all members of the committee.
Section 12: Selection of Party Endorsed Candidates
A. For Towns of Five Thousand (5,000) or More Population Under the Last Federal Census
The enrolled members of the Democratic Party in the municipality, at a caucus called for the purpose, shall, by majority vote of those present and voting, select party endorsed candidates for the town committee. The town committee, at a meeting called for the purpose, shall, by a majority vote of those present and voting, elect delegates to conventions and select party endorsed candidates for all other offices. In the endorsement of any person for an office, or election of a delegate, for whom only the electors of a political subdivision of the municipality may vote, only the members of the town committee elected from said political subdivision may participate.
B. For Towns of Less Than Five Thousand (5,000) Population Under the Last Federal Census
The enrolled members of the Democratic Party in the municipality, at a caucus called for the purpose, shall, by a majority vote of those present and voting, select party endorsed candidates for each municipal office and for town committee members, and shall elect delegates to conventions. In the endorsement of any person for an office or for a position as committee member, or election of a delegate, for whom only the electors of a political subdivision of the municipality may vote, only the enrolled members of the Democratic Party in such political subdivision may participate. The time and place of holding all such caucuses shall be determined by the town committee, and notice of the time, place and purpose of any such caucus shall be given to all enrolled Democratic voters of the municipality at least five (5) days, but not more than fifteen (15) days, in advance of the caucus by publication of the same in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality and by posting the same on the public sign post in said municipality. The time of any such caucus shall be fixed so as to comply with the provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes. The chair of the town committee shall be the temporary chairperson of all such caucuses and shall preside until the meeting has selected its permanent chairperson. In like manner, the Secretary of the town committee shall act as secretary at all such caucuses until the meeting has selected its permanent secretary.
Section 13: Slate Endorsement
At any caucus or town committee meeting duly called for the election of delegates to any convention, nominations for said delegates may be made by (1) presentation to the caucus or town committee of a slate composed of a number of persons not exceeding the number of such delegates to which the town is entitled under the state rules of the Democratic Party or (2) by nomination of individual candidates. In the election of such delegates, each member of the
17

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 32 of 43
caucus or town committee member present and voting shall vote for a number of candidates not to exceed the number of a full slate as defined above. The voting for delegates to each convention shall be done separately for each convention.
Section 14: Party Endorsed Candidates for Municipal Office
Candidates for municipal office chosen as provided in Section 12 above shall run in the primary for such office as party endorsed candidates. Any candidate shall be the nominee of the Democratic Party for the office for which he or she is a candidate if no valid opposing candidacy has been filed for nomination to such office by four o' clock (4:00) p.m. on the twenty-first (21st) day preceding the day of the Democratic primary for such office.
Section 15: Party Endorsed Candidates for Town Committee
Candidates for town committee members chosen as provided in Section 12 above shall run in the primary for town committee members as party endorsed candidates. Any candidates shall be deemed elected as members of the town committee if no valid opposing candidacies have been filed for town committee members by four o' clock (4:00) p.m. on the twenty-first (21st) day preceding the Democratic primary for town committee members.
Section 16: Insufficient Endorsements
If, for any reason, sufficient endorsements of candidates for municipal office or town committee members are not made, any eligible person may seek to become a candidate in accordance with Conn. Gen. Stat. §§9-405, 9-406, and 9-372 et seq.
Section 17: Certification of Party Endorsed Candidates and Elected Delegates
The Secretary and the Chair or presiding officer of the town committee, caucus or convention, as the case may be, shall certify to the municipal clerk the names and street addresses of the party endorsed candidates selected, and delegates elected, as provided in Sections 12 and 13 above. Such certification shall include the title of the office or position as committee member for which each person is endorsed and the date upon which the primary is to be held, or the convention for which the delegate has been elected. In the case of the endorsement of a person for an office or for a position as committee member, or election of a delegate, for whom only the electors of a political subdivision of the municipality or for a senatorial district located entirely within the municipality may vote, the Secretary of the town committee shall certify to the municipal clerk the name or number of such political subdivision or senatorial district. Section 18: Date of Party Endorsement of Candidates
Each party endorsement of a candidate to run in a primary for the nomination of candidates for municipal office or for election as town committee members shall be made within the time frame established by the Connecticut General Statutes. Said endorsement shall be certified to the clerk of the municipality by the following two officials: the Chair and Secretary of the town committee, the permanent chair and secretary of the caucus or the permanent chair and secretary of the convention.
Section 19: Tie vote
A. For Towns of Five-Thousand (5,000) or More Population Under the Last Federal Census
In the event that a vote taken on selection of a party endorsed candidate results in a tie, such tie vote shall be dissolved by the vote of the chair of the town committee, but this provision shall not affect his or her right to cast any vote as a member of the town committee in the first place.
18

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 33 of 43
B. For Towns of Less Than Five-Thousand (5,000) Population Under the Last Federal Census
In the event that a vote on the selection of a party endorsed candidate results in a tie, such tie vote shall be dissolved by the vote of the permanent chairperson of the caucus, but this provision shall not affect his or her right to cast any vote as a member of the caucus in the first place.
Section 20: Vacancies in Party Endorsed Candidacy
A. If a party endorsed candidate for nomination to a municipal office or for election as Town Committee member, prior to twenty-four (24) hours before the opening for the polls at the primary, dies, or prior to ten (10) days before the day of the primary withdraws his or her name from nomination, or for any reason becomes disqualified to hold office or position for which her or she is a candidate, an endorsement may be made to fill such vacancy by the town committee, by a majority vote of those present and voting, at a meeting called for that purpose; provided if the original endorsement was made by the members of the town committee elected from only one political subdivision of the municipality, only such members shall participate in the endorsement to fill such vacancy.
B. The chair of the town committee may cast a vote on such endorsement to break a tie, but this provision shall not affect his or her right to cast any vote, as a member of the town committee, to which he or she is otherwise entitled. The Secretary of the town committee shall immediately certify the endorsement to fill such vacancy to the Democratic Registrar of Voters.
C. No candidate shall be deemed to have withdrawn until a letter of withdrawal signed by such candidate is filed with the municipal clerk.
Section 21: Plurality Vote Determinative of Nomination
The nominations of the Democratic Party to all offices and the election of members of the town committee and delegates to conventions shall be made in all respects as provided in the State Primary Law, as the same may be amended from time to time. At a primary for nomination to a municipal office or for election of town committee members the winner shall be determined by a plurality of votes cast.
Section 22: Vacancy in Nomination.
If a nomination has been made for a municipal office and the nominee thereafter, but prior to twenty-four (24) hours before the opening of the polls on the day of the election for which such nomination has been made, dies, withdraws his or her name, or for any reason becomes disqualified to hold the office for which he or she has been nominated, a nomination to fill such vacancy may be made by the town committee, by a majority vote of the town committee members present and voting at a meeting called for that purpose. The chair of the Town Committee may cast a vote on such nomination to break a tie, but this provision shall not affect his or her right to cast any vote, as a member of the town committee, in the first place. In the case of a withdrawal, said nomination shall not be valid until the candidate who has withdrawn has filed a letter of withdrawal, signed by such candidate, with the Secretary of the State, and also has filed a copy with the municipal clerk. The Chair of the town committee shall certify the nomination to fill such vacancy to the Secretary of the State, and shall file a copy with the municipal clerk. Such certification of a nomination to fill a vacancy due to death or disqualification shall include a statement setting forth the reason for such vacancy.
Section 23: Definitions
19

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 34 of 43
As used in these rules, "municipal office" means any elective office of a town, city or borough and the offices of justice of the peace, state representative in an assembly district composed of a single town or part of a single town, state senator in a senatorial district composed of a single town or part of a single town, and judge of probate in a probate district composed of a single town. The other terms used in these rules shall have the same meanings as in the State Primary Law, as the same may be amended from time to time.
Section 24: Special Caucuses.
Special caucuses may be called for any lawful purpose by a majority of the town committee or by not less than ten percent (10%) of the registered Democratic voters in the town. The call for any such special caucus shall be in writing and signed by each of the persons issuing the same, and notice of the time, place and purpose of said special caucus shall be given to all registered Democratic voters in the town, at least five (5) day in advance of such caucus, by publication in a newspaper having circulation in said town and by posting on the public sign post.
ARTICLE IX FILING OF LOCAL RULES
Within seven (7) days after party rules or any amendments to party rules are adopted by the Democratic Party in any town, a copy of the same shall be filed with the Secretary of the State Central Committee and the Secretary of the State and as otherwise required by law. Any amendments so filed shall set forth in full the section to be amended. Matter to be omitted or repealed shall be surrounded by brackets, and new matter shall be indicated by capitalization. Adopted party rules or amendments shall not be effective until sixty (60) days after the filing with the Secretary of the State Central Committee.
ARTICLE X AMENDMENTS TO LOCAL PARTY RULES
Local party rules may be amended by one of the three following methods:
1. By a caucus of the enrolled Democratic electors of the municipality called in the same manner as a caucus for selecting party endorsed candidates as provided in Section 12 of Article VIII of these rules.
2. By a convention of delegates chosen by the enrolled Democratic electors of the municipality in a manner prescribed in the local party rules of each municipality.
3. By the Democratic town committee at a meeting called in the same manner as a town committee meeting for selecting party endorsed candidates as provided in Section 12 of Article VIII of these rules, or as provided in local party rules.
In any municipality in which the town committee has not so adopted and filed such rules or amendments, the chair of the town committee in any municipality consisting of one voting district, or in the event of his or her failure to act, the Vice Chair, shall call a caucus within twenty (20) days upon filing with the Registrar of Voters of such party in such municipality a petition signed by at least five percent (5%), but no more than five hundred (500), of its enrolled party members, to take action on such petition.
In all other municipalities, the chair of the town committee, or, in the event of his or her failure to act, the Vice Chair, shall call a convention within twenty (20) days upon the filing with the Registrar of Voters of such party in such municipality of a petition signed by at least five percent (5%), or at least five hundred (500) (whichever is less), of its enrolled party members, to take action on such petition.
20

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 35 of 43
Such convention shall consist of three (3) delegates from each voting district elected at a caucus of the enrolled party members of that district. It shall be the duty of the Town Chair, or, in the event of his or her failure to act, the Vice Chair, to call such caucuses, which shall be held on the same day, designating the time, place and day by publishing said call in a newspaper having a circulation in such municipality, at least five (5) days before the day of such caucuses.
In the event the enrolled Democratic electors or the town committee in any town shall fail to adopt a method for amending the local party rules, then the method of amending said local party rules of said municipality shall be the same method used to select party endorsed candidates until such time as a method of amendment is lawfully adopted and filed by the proper authority.
ARTICLE XI COVERAGE
A copy of these rules shall be available on the State Party website and shall be deemed to cover the operations of the Democratic Party in each municipality until such time as the party within such municipality adopts a rule or amendment on the same subject matter, consistent with these rules and files the same with Secretary of the State Central Committee and the Secretary of the State and as otherwise required by law.
ARTICLE XII AMENDMENTS TO STATE PARTY RULES
Section 1:
These Rules may be amended by any State Convention. The State Central Committee, at a meeting duly called for such purpose, by a vote of at least two-thirds (2/3) of its entire membership, may make such amendments and only such amendments, as may be made necessary by changes in the laws of the United States or the State of Connecticut or by the National Democratic Party Rules. Any changes or amendments made by the State Central Committee shall be in force only until the next succeeding State Convention, at which they must be submitted for ratification or rejection.
Section 2:
Nothing herein shall be construed to permit the State Central Committee to alter the basis of representation at conventions as provided in Section 3 of Article III of these rules unless such alteration be required by change in the laws of the United States or of the State of Connecticut or by the National Democratic Party Rules.
ARTICLE XIII ROBERT'S RULES GOVERNING
Robert's Rules of Order (newly revised) shall be construed as applicable, controlling and conclusive on parliamentary issues, except as herein otherwise provided.
Amendments: Amended July, 1986 Amended July, 1994 Amended July, 1996 Amended July, 2000 Amended May, 2004 Amended May, 2008 Amended May, 2010 Amended May, 2012 Amended May, 2014 Amended May, 2016
21

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 36 of 43

EXHIBIT B

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al.

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

NED LAMONT, GOVERNOR OF THE :

STATE OF CONNECTICUT, and

:

DENISE MERRILL, SECRETARY OF :

THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

:

Defendants

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-00623(JCH) JUNE 2, 2020

DECLARATION OF JACQUELINE KOZIN Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1746, I, Jacqueline Kozin, hereby declare as follows: 1. I submit this Declaration in support of potential intervenor Defendant Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee, Defendant Governor Ned Lamont, and Defendant Secretary of the State Denise Merrill. I am the Executive Director of the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee, which is the Democratic Party of the State of Connecticut (hereinafter the “DSCC” or “Connecticut Democratic Party”), a position I have held since approximately January, 2019. In that capacity, I am responsible for managing the day to day operations of the entire organization, including planning and organizing nominating conventions. 2. Nominating conventions are the process by which the Democratic Party in the State of Connecticut determines what candidate for any particular office becomes the partyendorsed candidate for the primary election. Although such endorsement essentially deems the
1

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 37 of 43
candidate the “party favorite” (in colloquial terms), a party-endorsed candidate can still certainly face a primary challenger (by virtue of a petitioning candidate who collects a sufficient number of signatures, or a candidate who merely garners 15% of the delegate votes at a convention).
3. The State Central Committee is the governing body of the Connecticut Democratic Party (akin to the DSCC’s board). It is composed of seventy-two members total, drawing two representatives, one man and one woman, from each state senate district. The State Central Committee sets the date, time, and location of the nominating conventions (which are at least partially the subject matter of this lawsuit).
4. Democratic town committees are the Democratic Party apparatus of the municipalities. Town committee members themselves are elected by a caucus open to all registered Democrats in a Connecticut town. Every municipality in Connecticut has a Democratic town committee; therefore there are 169 Democratic town committees in Connecticut.
5. Delegates to a convention come from the municipalities that are represented by the office up for election (be it a state assembly district, state senate district, U.S. congressional district, etc.). These delegates are elected prior to the conventions either by a caucus open to all registered Democrats in a municipality or by a meeting of their Democratic town committees.
6. Nominating conventions are held within a window of time established by statute before the primary election in order to endorse candidates for each particular office, including state representative, state senator, judge of probate, all five Connecticut constitutional officers (Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of the State, Treasurer and Attorney General), as well as for federal offices including U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator. The mechanics of a convention vary somewhat from one to the next, but all adhere to state party rules, follow Roberts Rules of
2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 38 of 43
Order, and the following protocol. First, a convention is opened by a temporary chair and a temporary secretary, and then a permanent chair and permanent secretary are nominated (never by one’s self, but by others), then voted on by all delegates present and voting to run the convention. A permanent chair and permanent secretary are then elected by a majority vote of all delegates present and voting. The permanent chair then calls for nominations for the respective elected office(s). An individual cannot nominate one’s self; rather, one must be nominated by another. Such nomination must then be seconded, by yet another, different individual (that is, the initial nominator and seconder cannot be the same person). Any registered Democrat who is otherwise qualified to hold a particular office can seek the party nomination simply by being nominated and seconded, including the Plaintiffs in this case. There can be and often are numerous candidates nominated for endorsement to a particular office. Additionally, nominations may always be made spontaneously from the floor of the convention (as long as the nominations period remains open). Furthermore, before nominations are closed by the chair – which itself must done by a motion from the delegates and seconded - the chair of the convention literally calls out – “are there any other nominations,” providing the final opportunity for anyone to throw their hat into the ring and ensuring no would-be candidates seeking the party endorsement are missed or otherwise overlooked.
7. In order to be the “party-endorsed candidate” one must win a majority of votes from those delegates present and voting. When there is a contentious convention with numerous candidates vying for the party endorsement, and on the first round of voting, no candidate wins a majority of delegate votes (of those delegates present and voting), multiple rounds of voting will occur, where delegates vote numerous times for the various candidates before one candidate ultimately wins a majority of votes present and voting.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 39 of 43
8. Once the party-endorsed candidate is elected, then the convention, by motion, second, and vote of the delegates, is closed. The convention chair or secretary also completes a certificate of endorsement, signifying that the candidate is the party-endorsed candidate, which is filed with the Secretary of the State.
9. The process of endorsing a candidate is fair and accessible. People seeking endorsement for the elected office typically network with the convention delegates well before the conventions, working collaboratively to obtain the delegates’ support and reaching out to the delegates early and often. Furthermore, any serious contenders can attempt to become the partyendorsed candidate simply by being nominated and seconded at a convention and use their own political capital and personal contacts to develop their base of support. In any event, the most successful convention candidates are typically those who have tirelessly planned and sought the widespread support of their local Democratic electorate.
10. The fact that a candidate only needs 15% of the delegate votes to automatically qualify for the primary ballot underscores the reasonableness of the nomination process.
11. Even if a candidate does not win 15% of the delegate votes at a convention, they are not precluded from participating in the primary. Under both state party rules and the state statute – which not coincidentally mirrors the state party rules - one can employ the petitioning process by obtaining petition signatures from 5% of the registered Democrats in a district. See Connecticut Democratic State Party Rules, Art. III, Section 13(2), found here: https://ctdems.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2018-DSCC-Party-Rules-2.pdf
12. The Democratic State Party Rules are democratically determined, with the rules themselves and any subsequent amendments voted on by the delegates at the State Convention.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 40 of 43
It takes a majority vote of the delegates present and voting in order to adopt the rules and any amendment to the rules.
13. State Party rules are filed with The Secretary of the State and available online. The State gives much deference to the state party to determine its own pre-primary processes, including endorsements, which is an inherently political task best determined by the party structure.
14. In light of the Covid-19 global pandemic, Governor Lamont’s May 11, 2020 Executive Order 7LL reduced the required number of signatures required of a candidate for nomination by a political party to a state, district, or municipal office by thirty percent (30%). It also allowed for signatures to be obtained via electronic mail and eased the attestation requirements found in statute.
15. Executive Order 7LL, to which the DSCC does not object, was reasonable given the Covid-19 global pandemic and lowered the statutory and party-rules based bar for petitioning candidates like Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs would have known about Executive Order 7LL prior to the commencement of this year’s petitioning timeframe. For that matter, the DSCC does not presently contemplate how many candidates are petitioning under Executive Order 7LL, much less how many of these potential petitioning candidates will be successful in gaining ballot access through the petitioning process under Executive Order 7LL.
16. The DSCC values its First Amendment rights of free speech and association. The nominating convention process is the means by which the Democratic Party shows support for its endorsed candidates and it reflects the will of the people that comprise the Democratic Party’s membership. The party exercises its free speech in the nominating process itself, and upon the nomination of a specific candidate for a particular office, it also exercises its freedom of
5

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 41 of 43
association in determining which candidates it has chosen to best represent the Party and promote the Democratic Party’s platform.
17. The endorsement process is also how the Connecticut Democratic Party as a whole develops unity and coalesces its early support behind the candidates of its members’ democratic choosing. To disband endorsement convention process would harm the DSCC’s ability to manage its own party – that is, its own self.
18. I have no knowledge of how many candidates who have challenged Democratic Party incumbents obtained 15% of the delegate votes at a convention. I also have no knowledge of how many candidates petitioned in the past, or in 2020 specifically. Nor do I have any knowledge of how many candidates qualified for the ballot by petitioning to challenge Democratic incumbents.
19. I do know that in the past, the named Plaintiffs in this case sought seats that were not open, but rather already held by Democratic incumbents. To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, I also understand that the named Plaintiffs in this case are/were not collecting signatures or otherwise attempting to be petition candidates at the time this suit was filed.
20. I declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed: June 2, 2020

JACQUELINE KOZIN Executive Director Democratic State Central Committee
6

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 42 of 43
EXHIBIT C
Guilford Democrat Andy Gottlieb Joins 12th District State Senate Race
• Press Release from Andy Gottlieb • Apr 20, 2018
Andy Gottlieb, a 24-year-old progressive Democrat from Guilford, announced today his candidacy for the open 12th District Senate seat.
“This country and this state are in crisis,” said Gottlieb. “Now more than ever, we need a Democratic Party that lives up to its values and delivers for the working and middle class in Connecticut.”
Gottlieb is a proud graduate of the Guilford public schools, and was his high school class’ co-valedictorian. He graduated from Wesleyan University, and received his master’s in international relations and economics from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He interned for Senator Chris Murphy in Washington, and was a Robert Schuman Trainee at the European Parliament in Brussels, where he was posted to the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee. He currently studies electoral reform under former Senator Russ Feingold at the Yale Policy Lab.
Locally, Gottlieb is a member of the Guilford Democratic Town Committee, Shoreline Indivisible’s Connecticut Politics Action Team and the Guilford Land Conservation Trust’s Westwoods Trails Committee.
“My biggest priority as state senator will be to fight back against the short-sighted austerity budgets that have been enacted in recent years. Connecticut is one of the wealthiest states in the nation and has nearly unparalleled income inequality. Instead of cutting services for the most vulnerable, we should ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, including closing the carried interest tax loophole.”
Other priorities will include safeguarding and expanding the right to vote, protecting the environment, equitable education funding, criminal justice reform and improving public transit.
“The scheduled cuts to Shore Line East are outrageous. Should they go into effect this
1

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 29 Filed 06/02/20 Page 43 of 43 July, I will not rest until service is restored. Reducing access to public transportation is exactly the wrong direction for the state to go in.” Gottlieb sees state government as a potent means to push back against the Trump Administration. “Given the current occupant of the White House, I think we in Connecticut need to push even harder to combat racial injustice,” said Gottlieb. “There are many steps we can take in the General Assembly, including more police accountability and civilian oversight, and reforming our drug laws that disproportionately punish black offenders. We must also ensure that children in Bridgeport can receive just as good an education as children in Branford.” “Andy is a smart, thoughtful leader who’s going to take the General Assembly by storm,” said Alex Taubes, the 2014 Democratic nominee for state representative in Madison and Durham. “He’s built for this.”
2

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NED LAMONT, et al., Defendants.

:

:

Case No. 3:20-cv-623-JCH

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

June 2, 2020

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY OR PERMANENT
INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF AS TO FIRST CLAIM (BALLOT ACCESS)

“We have indeed acknowledged an individual’s associational right to vote in a party

primary without undue state-imposed impediment.” N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres,

552 U.S. 196, 204 (2008). “The State’s power cannot be used, for example, to create barriers that

unduly burden a person’s right to participate in a state-mandated . . . primary.” Yang v. Kosinski,

No. 20-1494-CV, 2020 WL 2820179, at *7 (2d Cir. June 1, 2020). “[V]oter-plaintiffs have an

associational right to vote in political party elections,” Price v. New York State Bd. of Elections,

540 F.3d 101, 108 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Lopez-Torres & Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 57-58

(1973)).

The State Defendants (Governor Lamont and Secretary of the State Merrill) and the

Democratic State Central Committee mistakenly rely almost entirely on Lopez-Torres, 552 U.S.

at 202, a case in which the plaintiffs “sought a declaration that New York’s convention system for

selecting Supreme Court Justices violates their First Amendment rights, and an injunction

mandating the establishment of a direct primary election to select party nominees for Supreme

Court Justice.” Id.

1

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 12
But this case is different from Lopez-Torres. Here the State Defendants will hold a primary for state offices on August 11, 2020, but it is alleged that the barriers to ballot access for that primary, imposed by statute and executive order, unduly and unjustifiably burden voter-plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to participate. States may or may not be required to hold a primary. But when they do, voter-plaintiffs argue that the primary must be held consistent with the First Amendment by not unjustifiably restricting participation. Plaintiffs here challenge no “internal party processes,” as State Defendants and the Democratic State Central Committee seem to contend, but instead challenge a “public electoral function” of the State of Connecticut, quintessential state action. Jacobson v. Kings Cty. Democratic Cty. Comm., 788 F. App'x 770, 774 (2d Cir. 2019) (rejecting claim based on allegedly illegal procedures of party convention). This case is therefore governed by the same well-settled Anderson-Burdick test that governed Campbell v. Bysiewicz, 213 F.Supp.2d 152 (D.Conn. July 23, 2002), a standard completely unaddressed by the State Defendants.
The State Defendants omit Anderson-Burdick from their brief, despite it being the prevailing First Amendment standard “for courts to utilize when faced with a First Amendment challenge to a state election law:”
A court considering a challenge to a state election law must weigh the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule, taking into consideration the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff's rights. . . . The standards for review are clear. If the plaintiffs' rights are severely burdened, the statute is subject to strict scrutiny. If the burden is minor, but nontrivial, Burdick’s balancing test is applied. . . . Nonetheless, . . . where the burden imposed by the law is non-trivial, we must weigh the State’s justification against the burden imposed.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31 Filed 06/02/20 Page 3 of 12
Price, 540 F.3d at 108-09 (citations omitted). The record in this case demonstrates that the state cannot justify the burdens imposed on voter-plaintiffs, especially given COVID-19.
A. Connecticut’s Ballot Access Laws – Even as Modified by Governor Lamont’s Executive Order – Impose Severe Burdens on Voters’ Associational Rights Even the State Defendants’ evidence shows the severe burden of Connecticut’s Ballot
Access Laws on voter-plaintiffs. This year, a total of 192 districts will elect State Representatives, State Senators, and U.S. Representatives in Connecticut.1 Only one district has a primary challenger that received a party endorsement, only six have a primary challenger that obtained 15% of the delegates at a convention, and only seven districts have a candidate even trying to access the ballot by petition. ECF No. 28-1 at 87 of 116 (Ex. C Tbl. 1). Thus, a total of 178 incumbent officeholders, or more than 92% of the State Representatives, State Senators, and U.S. Representatives in Connecticut, will face no primary challenger this year. Over 92% of the “orderly and fair elections” Connecticut purportedly seeks to protect on August 11, 2020 will likely be onecandidate elections where voters have no choice on the ballot.
State Defendants put forward evidence of only two people ever petitioning onto the ballot for a primary for the office of State Senate in Connecticut history, both in 2018 before COVID19, and in neither did so against an incumbent. ECF No. 28-1 at 89-95 of 116. In 2016, not a single candidate in either party petitioned onto the ballot for a primary for the office of State Senate. Id. at 91 of 116. State Defendants’ evidence from 2006-2014 fails to differentiate between primaries triggered by a 15% vote at convention or by petition, but the facts demonstrate the severe burden to access the ballot by petition or by party convention for the office of State Senate:
1 This Court can take judicial notice of Connecticut’s 151 House Districts, 36 Senate Districts, and 5 Congressional Districts.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31 Filed 06/02/20 Page 4 of 12

Connecticut State Senate Major Party Primaries by Petition or Convention
2006-2016

Year
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Democratic Party Primaries
0/36 Districts 3/36 Districts 1/36 Districts 3/36 Districts 4/36 Districts 3/36 Districts

Republican Party Primaries
0/36 Districts 1/36 Districts 1/36 Districts 0/36 Districts 0/36 Districts 0/36 Districts

ECF No. 28-1 at 89-91 of 116 (Ex. D. Tbl. 2). In 2020, the only three candidates petitioning for

the ballot for a State Senate primary are Plaintiff Bartlett, the undersigned counsel, and Lee

Samowitz Jr., Esq. in Bridgeport. Id. at 87 of 116, Ex. C. Tbl. 1.

The State Defendants present evidence of 16 candidates petitioning for primary ballot

access for the office of State Representative in all of Connecticut since the passage of Public Act

03-241. Id. at 89-91 of 116. Given that 151 State Representatives are up for re-election every year,

and the major parties potentially nominate over 300 candidates each year, this shows significant

lack of ballot access in Connecticut. State Defendants put forth evidence that only three candidates

have petitioned for primary ballot access for the office of Governor since 2004, and State

Defendants fail to show evidence of even one candidate who has petitioned for access to the

primary ballot for the office of U.S. Representative in Connecticut history. Id. Not one. This

follows 47 years without any primary elections for the office of U.S. Representative leading up to

Bysiewicz v. Campbell, a fact the district court found significant in concluding that the restrictions

on ballot access were overly severe. 213 F.Supp.2d at 156.

Indeed, as Plaintiff Gottlieb says in his supplemental affidavit, he has voted in nearly every

election in the Town of Guilford since he became eligible to vote at the age of 18, including party

4

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31 Filed 06/02/20 Page 5 of 12
primaries, as a registered Connecticut Democrat. Supplemental Declaration and Expert Report of Andy Gottlieb (Exhibit 1) at ¶¶ 7, 12. In none of these elections has Plaintiff Gottlieb ever had the opportunity to choose from more than one candidate for the offices of State Representative or State Senator in the party primary. Id. at ¶ 14. Not once. When Plaintiff Gottlieb attempted to access the ballot himself, he personally faced the severe burdens of Connecticut’s Ballot Access Laws. Id. at ¶¶ 2-4, 6. He collected signatures himself each and every day, and marshaled the support of many volunteers who volunteered hours of their time to help him. Id. But even with their tireless efforts, they fell short, because of the severe burden imposed by Connecticut’s Ballot Access Laws. Id.
All of this evidence demonstrates the severity of the burden on voter-plaintiffs even before COVID. With the onset of the pandemic, however, it is evident that Connecticut’s restrictions – even with the slight modifications made by Governor Lamont – are severely burdensome.
As the attached declarations demonstrate, Plaintiffs’ fears about petitioning in the time of coronavirus have come to fruition. The task of gathering signatures, as expected, has become significantly more difficult. See Supplemental Declaration of Jason Bartlett (Exhibit 2) at ¶¶ 4-11; Declaration of Sergio Rodriguez (Exhibit 3) at ¶¶ 6-10. Mr. Bromley says that he is “aware of testimony” that “individuals with experience circulating petitions can collect 8 to 10 signatures per hour.” ECF No. 28-1 at ¶ 57. This vague statement should be given little weight, even at the preliminary injunction stage. But assuming it is true, the ease with which individuals could gather signatures before COVID-19 only shows the difficulty that candidates face now. Campaigners hired or volunteering to go door-to-door are collecting dramatically fewer signatures than they were able to collect prior to the pandemic. Ex. 3 at ¶¶ 6-10. It is more difficult to hire individuals or find volunteers to go door-to-door in the first place. Ex. 2 at ¶¶ 10. Additional evidence of the
5

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31 Filed 06/02/20 Page 6 of 12
difficulty gathering petition signatures was presented to the state prior to the filing of its brief, on Thursday, May 28. See Declarations of Tawana Galberth and Renee Brown (Exhibits 4 & 5).
The State Defendants’ only response to COVID’s unique and extraordinary circumstances is that plaintiffs’ contentions are “nothing more than speculation and conjecture.” ECF No. 28-1 at ¶ 50. Not so. To begin, plaintiffs had significant experience gathering petition signatures that render their opinions about the feasibility of petition signature gathering reasonable and worthy of considerable weight. ECF No. 9-2 (Gottlieb Report), 9-3 (Bartlett Report). A plaintiff with common sense (let alone knowledge, training, and experience running campaigns) to know that a proposed plan of action will be burdensome, costly, or even dangerous to his or her health need not put him or herself (and others) at risk simply in order to prove that their opinions are not speculative.
We are living in a pandemic and the human risks at play here should not be taken lightly. It is obvious and known to everybody, including the State Defendants, that the deadly pandemic makes it more logistically difficult to engage in an intensive petition signature gathering drive. Simply labeling the concern “speculative” is an abdication of the responsibility to engage with a sensitive reality and fails to address plaintiffs’ argument that the conditions of the pandemic seriously “chill” petition drives from occurring in the first place. ECF No. 9 at 8. Moreover, the State Defendants were given evidence of the difficulty faced by campaign workers collecting signatures, on Thursday, but still maintained in their brief yesterday that no efforts were being made. See Exs. 4-5 (produced to the State Defendants May 28, 2020).
The State Defendants’ arguments about the ease of collecting signatures using new methods is, in fact, nothing more than conjecture. Mr. Bromley appears to have no experience running petition signature drives as a candidate or a campaign manager, but speculates that
6

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31 Filed 06/02/20 Page 7 of 12
candidates can now “quickly and easily” use new methods created by the Governor’s executive order to sign petitions electronically. ECF No. 28-1 at ¶ 51. Mr. Bromley provides no evidentiary foundation for this speculation. He says candidates should use party lists, but provides no evidence that candidates can “obtain . . . a list of . . . email addresses of . . . party members” as he postulates. Id. Mr. Bromley speaks of “emailing petition forms to friends, family and other personal contacts,” id. at ¶ 54, but omits the requirements for individuals to (1) print out the petitions, (2) sign them and provide sensitive information on them including date of birth, (3) scan them back into their computer system, and (4) email them back to the candidate, steps which he concedes would require “follow up,” id. at ¶ 48, and an added layer of verification.
Mr. Bromley is unrealistic. He omits that voters in a household must sign each petition separately on a separate piece of paper before scanning it back and emailing it to the candidate or else the signatures will not be counted. He omits that many voters lack printers or other electronic devices required for the new mechanisms. Ex. 3 at ¶ 11 (“[S]ome friends could not even print the petition form for signing.”); Ex. 4 at ¶¶ 27-33 (explaining that digital options impose barriers on low-income voters). Mr. Bromley’s idea that candidates “post[] [petitions] on . . . various social media pages,” ECF No. 28-1 at ¶ 51, fails to account for the various off-line tasks that are required of individuals who want to download the petition off of a social media page (if they somehow find it): print the petition out or use some unnamed software to sign it electronically, and then return the petition by email or by having the campaign individually come pick it up. Ex. 3 at ¶ 11. As Plaintiff Gottlieb points out, Mr. Bromley and the Democratic State Central Committee’s evidence contain factual errors and are misleading. Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 1-11.
Mr. Bromley never avers to have engaged in such an effort himself—but in fact, nobody has before this election. One individual who has tried is proposed Plaintiff Sergio Rodriguez. Ex.
7

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31 Filed 06/02/20 Page 8 of 12
3 at ¶ 11. Mr. Rodriguez has sent over 500 emails and has sent his petition to over 1,000 followers on Facebook. Id. Out of 500 emails, Mr. Rodriguez has obtained only 8 petition signatures, a response rate of under 2%. Id. From Facebook, he has only obtained 2 signatures, a response rate of under 1%. Id. Overall he has secured only 3.3% of the signatures he has gathered using online methods. Id. at ¶¶ 10-11. An experiment by an enthusiastic volunteer on the undersigned’s State Senate campaign, Ms. Antonia Oglesby, returned an even lower response rate for text messaging to obtain petition signatures—0.005% to even acknowledge receiving a text. See Declaration of Antonia Oglesby (Exhibit 6) at ¶¶ 1-7. Mr. Bartlett has also made efforts to gather signatures using online methods and social media, see https://bartlett4senate.com/ (offering Democratic Party members of New Haven an online signature petition portal created by Plaintiff Bartlett’s campaign), but he still believes that an order must issue in order to make access to the ballot possible for the August 11, 2020 primary election. Ex. 2 at ¶¶ 11-12.
As the State Defendants concede, “electronic circulation and collection of signatures has not been common within the context of ballot access petitions prior to 2020.” Mem. at 28. The State goes on to give the example of a government-created website, my2020census.gov, to show that it isn’t a novel technique—but that makes plaintiffs’ point, because a government-created secure and trusted web portal for submitting signatures is one part of plaintiffs’ requested relief. ECF No. 9 at 3.
Mr. Bromley points to the petition signature gathering drive of a self-funded millionaire, David Stemerman, to make his point, ¶ 51, which refutes itself. If only millionaires can afford to run for office, Connecticut’s system can hardly be considered constitutionally sufficient. See Mark Pazniokas, Stemerman pledges another $10M to his self-funded campaign, CONNECTICUT MIRROR
8

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31 Filed 06/02/20 Page 9 of 12
(Jun. 25, 2018), available at https://ctmirror.org/2018/06/25/stemerman-pledges-another-10million-self-funded-campaign/ (last accessed June 2, 2020).
Connecticut’s few party primaries show that the requirements for accessing the ballot in this state are severely burdensome. More than 90% of officeholders face no primary year after year and many voters, such as Plaintiff Gottlieb, Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 12-13, never see any primaries for important state offices. This is strong evidence that Connecticut’s Ballot Access Laws “unduly ‘limit the field of candidates from which voters might choose,’” Maslow v. Bd. of Elections in City of New York, 658 F.3d 291, 297 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing and quoting Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 786–87 (1983)); Campbell v. Bysiewicz, supra, violating the First Amendment.
With the COVID-19 pandemic, the burden is even more severe, as shown by the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs. See Exs. 2-3. At the very least, it cannot be said that a requirement to collect over 1,000 signatures in under 20 days is “trivial” warranting the type of deference upon which the State Defendants insist. Price, 540 F.3d at 110 (finding state law election burdens on primary voters “not trivial” and applying Anderson-Burdick). Thus, this Court should weigh the severity of the restrictions against the State’s offered reasons for them and resolve this case under the Anderson-Burdick test.
B. The State’s Reasons Fail to Justify the Restrictions The State Defendants put forward one “main interest” in regulating primary ballot access, “simply to ensure orderly and fair elections.” ECF No. 28-1 at ¶ 9.2 Given that the regulations
2 The Democratic State Central Committee, through its executive director, says that it opposes further changes to the petitioning requirements in Connecticut, but falls short of saying that it believes any change expanding ballot access would violate the party’s constitutional rights. The director simply says that she believes Governor Lamont’s changes are “reasonable” and no further action is needed. ECF No. 29 at 9, 40 of 43.
The director further says that “disband[ing] endorsement convention process would harm the DSCC’s ability to manage its own party,” id., but plaintiffs seek no such thing. Plaintiffs seek
9

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31 Filed 06/02/20 Page 10 of 12
challenged here prevent a primary election from even occurring over 90% of the races for State Representative or State Senator, it is hard to see how the state is advancing the purpose it purports to advance with its Ballot Access Laws. The State further fails to justify how plaintiffs’ proposed remedies would in any way undermine its admittedly great interest in orderly and fair elections. Plaintiffs – candidates and voters – obviously share an interest with the State Defendants in orderly and fair elections. They simply want orderly and fair elections to take place, with voter and candidate participation. They simply want elections to take place with more than one choice of candidate on the ballot. They want the voters—members of the Democratic Party of Connecticut— to decide, instead of smoke-filled – or smoke-free – rooms of party insiders.
The only concrete complaint the State Defendants put forward about the plaintiffs’ proposed relief is in maintaining the 16-day window that Governor Lamont’s order imposes on the collection of signatures, a 16-day window ending June 11, 2020. The State says it must maintain that deadline because “extending it beyond the two days it already has been extended could significantly interfere with the broader election calendar.” ECF No. 28-1 at 20 of 116.
But the State’s own evidence shows this not to be the case: Mr. Bromley’s declaration states that Registrar of Voters must be given seven days to verify the signature pages submitted by
ballot access to a party primary run by the state. State law restrictions on party primaries are state action to be adjudicated under the standards of the Anderson-Burdick test. The Supreme Court has held that overly burdensome requirements to access the primary ballot can be unconstitutional even where avenues of ballot access for the general election are available. Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 146–47 (1972) (“[W]e can hardly accept as reasonable an alternative that requires candidates and voters to abandon their party affiliations in order to avoid the burdens of the filing fees imposed by state law.”).
As Plaintiff Bartlett points out, it is unclear whether the executive director and counsel for the DSCC have authority from the committee to intervene in the lawsuit on the side of the State Defendants, Ex. 2 at ¶¶ 15-19, because the DSCC never held a vote. Id.
And although the director says the nominating process “reflects the will of the people,” ECF No. 29 at 7 of 43, what could reflect the will of the people better than a vote of the party members themselves? Ex. 2 at ¶ 19.
10

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31 Filed 06/02/20 Page 11 of 12
candidates before they can be required to submit them to the Secretary of the State, who in turn needs an additional nine days to review and calculate the total numbers of signatures and report back to the towns who has obtained ballot access. Id.
Mr. Bromley admits “that these dates are not set to accommodate the smallest of the offices on the ballot, but are set to accommodate the largest offices such as statewide offices where candidates collect tens of thousands of signatures.” Id. ¶ 59b. But this is a significant admission because, in 2020, no statewide offices are up for election. The State therefore leaves unexplained: Why do Registrars of Voters and the Secretary of the State need as much time – sixteen days – to count and verify the signatures, as the candidates need to collect them? It is not said what steps the Registrars or the Secretary must take in order to verify, review, count, or calculate, or why they would require sixteen days. It is therefore the State Defendants’ pure speculation that extension of the deadline to collect signatures would in any way “disturb the election calendar.” It would not.
Under the governing Anderson-Burdick standard, plaintiffs have easily shown a severe burden on voters’ associational rights imposed by Connecticut’s Ballot Access Laws, even as modified by Governor Lamont’s executive order. The State Defendants fail to justify the severe burdens imposed by Connecticut’s Ballot Access Laws with anything besides the vague invocation of “orderly and fair elections,” an interest that plaintiffs and the undersigned share with State Defendants. Contrary to the State Defendants’ contentions, the weight of the State Defendants’ and the Plaintiffs’ evidence demonstrate a very high likelihood of success on the Plaintiffs’ First Claim. The State Defendants’ memorandum fails to address the other three factors weighed by courts considering preliminary injunctions, such as irreparable harm and the public interest.
11

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31 Filed 06/02/20 Page 12 of 12

As a result, and for the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted, and an order

in the nature of the relief requested in the Motion, ECF No. 9 at pp. 2-3 (prayer for relief), should

be issued.

Dated: June 2, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

PLAINTIFFS, ANDY GOTTLIEB, LORNA CHAND, JASON BARTLETT, AND RICHARD LACOURCIERE, FOR THEMSELVES AND THE PROPOSED CLASS OF CONNECTICUT VOTERS

By:_____/s/_______________ Alexander T. Taubes, Esq. Federal Bar No.: ct30100 Alexander T. Taubes 470 James Street, Suite 007 New Haven, CT 06513 (203) 909-0048 alextt@gmail.com
Their Attorney

12

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NED LAMONT, et al., Defendants.

:

:

Case No. 3:20-cv-623

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

June 2, 2020

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION AND EXPERT REPORT OF ANDY GOTTLIEB

I, Andy Gottlieb, hereby declare this 2nd day of June, 2020 based on facts within my

personal knowledge:

1. The State of Connecticut’s brief and the Democratic State Central Committee’s brief are

both misleading and inaccurate in multiple respects.

2. The State alleges that “Connecticut’s overall election scheme is generous.” From my

experience as a petitioning candidate in 2018 who did my utmost to get on the Democratic

primary ballot for state Senate and was still unsuccessful, I can attest that this is not true.

3. From my research, only Connecticut and New York maintain such severely restrictive

ballot access laws for party primaries; other states require a smaller number of signatures (with a

much longer petitioning period than 14 days) for comparable offices or the payment of a token

filing fee to get on the ballot.

4. The State maintains that “the candidate may attain primary ballot access if they can

evidence a sufficient showing of support from their enrolled party members at large.” Permitting

voters to sign petitions only within an artificially cramped 14-day window (or even 16 days, per

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 5
Executive Order 7LL) does not allow the enrolled party members a realistic amount of time to show their support. 5. The vast majority of party members I encountered in my 2018 campaign were willing to sign my petition. 6. Ted Bromley makes certain assertions about the ease of Plaintiff Bartlett being able to attain ballot access given the constraints of 1,028 needed signatures and 10 volunteers within 16 days. I can attest that, in my 2018 campaign, I needed 1,014 signatures and had eight volunteer petition circulators (in addition to myself) to collect them in 14 days. Under those conditions, it was next to impossible to secure ballot access. I petitioned every single day, averaging roughly eight hours a day. Other volunteers’ time commitments varied when available, from approximately eight hours to two hours on a particular day. My campaign, working up until the last minute to gain and deliver signatures by the 4:00 PM deadline on the 14th day, submitted 1,120 signatures, of which 982 were ruled valid by town registrars, falling 32 signatures short of access. I cannot imagine how we could have put in any more effort in such a limited timespan. 7. The DSCC alleges that “[T]he lead plaintiff in this case, Andy Gottlieb, in 2018 returned to his hometown at age 24, joined the Guilford Democratic Town Committee and announced in late April that he would seek the party endorsement for State Senate.” This is factually incorrect. I have lived in Guilford my entire life (and have always been registered to vote there as a Democrat), only temporarily residing elsewhere for college at Wesleyan University, graduate school and various internships (including for Connecticut Democrats’ own Senator Chris Murphy in Washington). I resumed living in Guilford full-time in 2017 and started attending Guilford Democratic Town Committee (DTC) meetings in June 2017, at the age of 23. Later that year, I became a full member of the DTC, in recognition of my extraordinary efforts supporting

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 3 of 5
the Democratic slate in that year’s municipal elections. I performed many of the tasks listed by the DSCC as necessary for party participation, including attending all town committee meetings, making phone calls and going door to door to hand out campaign literature. I also helmed the town party’s campaign headquarters on at least one occasion. I even canvassed alongside our First Selectman nominee, who ultimately prevailed in the election, flipping control from Republican to Democratic. 8. The DSCC states that, “If some do not want to contribute to the party structure, it may make more sense for them to run outside the Democratic Party… In order to maintain its legitimacy, the Democratic Party must actively discourage party splintering [and] minimize voter confusion at the ballot box.” This is entirely contradictory, both on the facts and in my experience. I have been a duly registered Democrat since I turned 18, and desire the ability to meaningfully participate in the electoral processes of my party. By attempting to run in the party primary, I sought to avoid the possibility of splintering the party by running as an independent candidate in the general election, which could split Democrats’ votes in a first-past-the-post electoral system. The only “voter confusion at the ballot box” I encountered in 2018 was the inexplicable lack of a primary for state Senate, even as there were primaries that August for other state offices. 9. Even after what I viewed as a deeply unfair primary process (or lack thereof) in 2018, I continued volunteering my time to the party, including many hours canvassing to support the Democratic nominee for state Senate in the general election. My party loyalty has never been in question. 10. Being known to the local Democrats in my town, I attempted to go through the party structure in 2018 immediately after the incumbent state senator announced his retirement. When

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 4 of 5
I contacted local party officials, I was either ignored or, in one case, threatened with political reprisal. And in 2020, I was told by a leading party official that the local DTC would endeavor to forever keep me off the ballot. 11. Jacqueline Kozin states that, “I do know that in the past, the named Plaintiffs in this case sought seats that were not open, but rather already held by Democratic incumbents.” This is also factually incorrect. I sought an open state Senate seat in 2018, after the announced retirement of the Democratic incumbent. 12. I voted in the following municipal, state and federal elections (minus budget referenda):
• August 2012 Democratic Primary for U.S. Senate • November 2012 General Election • November 2014 Midterm Election • April 2016 Democratic Presidential Primary • November 2016 General Election • November 2017 Municipal Election • August 2018 Democratic Primary for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney
General and Treasurer • November 2018 Midterm Election • November 2019 Municipal Election 13. In all those years of voting, I was never able to vote in a Democratic primary for the General Assembly (House District 98 and Senate District 12). I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to Title 28, § 1746 of the United States Code, that the foregoing is true, correct, and within my personal knowledge.

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 5 of 5
/s/Andy Gottlieb Andy Gottlieb Dated this 2nd day of June, 2020

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-2 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NED LAMONT, et al., Defendants.

:

:

Case No. 3:20-cv-623

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

June 2, 2020

DECLARATION AND/OR EXPERT REPORT OF JASON W. BARTLETT

I, Jason W. Bartlett, hereby declare this 11th day of May, 2020 based on facts within my

personal knowledge:

1. I stand by the affidavit that my attorney filed in Court with our motion for a

preliminary injunction.

2. As I expected, although I had significant support, I fell short of the 15% of the

delegates necessary to qualify for access to the ballot for the 10th Senate District Democratic Party

Primary on August 11, 2020. I received 6 votes out of the total of 53 delegates.

3. My affidavit also said that going door-to-door will be impossible. It is not

impossible but nearly so, much more difficult than it has been in other years.

4. I went out in my neighborhood today to collect signatures.

5. In order for anyone to actually know who I was from walking my dogs or being

seen in the neighborhood in the last four years, I had to pull my mask down so they could see my

face.

6. One individual asked me to throw my clipboard with petition across her deck so

neither of us had to get too close. She did sign.

1

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-2 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 3
7. Another individual wanted to sign, but went inside to get her own pen because she was worried that someone else had already touched the pen that I was providing.
8. Another individual was just incensed that I was going door-to-door in-person in the time of COVID-19 and refused to even consider signing a petition.
9. Theories of how COVID-19 spreads and how it affects a person’s health are different and vary from household to household.
10. It has been difficult to recruit trained individuals to volunteer or even be hired to collect petition signatures because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
11. I have also made other efforts to collect petition signatures, such as emailing and texting the petitions, posting them on social media, and posting them on my website.
12. With all of my efforts, I have been able to collect over 150 signatures so far. I will continue working as diligently as I can with as many individuals as I can to collect as many signatures as I can. However I still believe that if an order from this Court does not issue, time will run out and irreparably harm the ability of myself and other candidates for office to meaningfully access the ballot, unless they are well-connected and have the support of someone like the New Haven Democratic Party Chair and can qualify through party convention.
13. I have authorized my attorney to settle this case if the number of signatures is reduced to one percent of the total number of registered party members in the district and the number of days is extended by five days to an extra week. I believe that this is more than fair and protects the voters’ First Amendment rights.
14. This case is about the voters of New Haven and West Haven and other towns across Connecticut, voters in towns dominated by one party or another, voters who will only have a realistic voice in the selection of their elected representatives if they can choose from a full range
2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-2 Filed 06/02/20 Page 3 of 3
of candidates in the state party primary. Unless candidates are given reasonable access to the ballot in the state party primary, Democratic Party insiders will be able to maintain a political monopoly over many state senate and state representative districts in our state. Unless this Court takes action, the ballot access restrictions in the Governor’s order will deny thousands of voters in towns and cities across Connecticut the First Amendment right to vote for the candidate of their choice, including candidates with significant support.
15. The Democratic State Central Committee has supposedly intervened in this lawsuit. 16. As a former State Central Committee member as recently as last month, I know that for a decision like whether to intervene in a lawsuit, State Central Committee members should have been queried and provided a forum as to the question of whether intervention was an appropriate response. 17. Neither I nor any current member of the Democratic State Central Committee was afforded a voice in whether the State Central Committee should be involved in this lawsuit. 18. I would argue that the best way to determine the will of the members of the Democratic Party is by having primary elections where the voters are the members of the Democratic Party. 19. I want to know why the State Central Committee would not want all Democrats to express their desires in this time of COVID-19.
* * * I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to Title 28, § 1746 of the United States Code, that the foregoing is true, correct, and within my personal knowledge. /s/Jason W. Bartlett Jason W. Bartlett Dated this 2nd day of June, 2020
3

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-3 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NED LAMONT, et al., Defendants.

:

:

Case No. 3:20-cv-623

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

May 11, 2020

DECLARATION AND/OR EXPERT REPORT OF SERGIO RODRIGUEZ

I, Sergio Rodriguez, hereby declare this 2nd Day of June, 2020 based on facts within my

personal knowledge:

1. I am a registered Connecticut voter in New Haven, Connecticut and member of the

Connecticut Democratic Party.

2. I have filed paperwork to run for the office of Registrar of Voters for the City of

New Haven.

3. I have experience running campaigns and petition signature drives. I have run four

primary campaigns for alderman, five general election campaigns for alderman, one primary for

State Representative, and one city-wide primary for City Town Clerk. In 2013, I successfully

secured over 3,400 signatures of registered Democrats in New Haven for City Town Clerk. That

took 18 trained volunteers working every day for ten days.

4. I need to collect over 1,429 signatures of registered Democrats in New Haven to

qualify for the August 11, 2020 primary.

5. I currently have four people working eight to nine hours per day gathering

signatures. They have been working since the middle of last week.

1

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-3 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 3
6. It has been difficult finding individuals who want to go out and interact with the public due to the COVID-19 crisis so door-to-door canvassing is not producing the same numbers as in previous elections.
7. There aren’t as many outdoor events that provide large numbers of people, which was a significant contributing factor in my successful petition signature gathering in the past, other than sustained door-to-door efforts.
8. Outdoor concerts, street fairs, community barbecues, events at New Haven’s International Festival of Arts & Ideas, neighborhood community summer popups, Cityseed and other farmers’ outdoor markets are simply not being held the way they have been held in the past. Without any open air events that provide significant numbers, it appears we may be unable to get the 1,429 signatures needed to qualify for the August primary.
9. This process has been extremely challenging. Many members of the public are frightened to open the door, touch a pen, or interact with anyone coming to the door wearing a mask.
10. I have managed to obtain almost 300 signatures so far but I am not sure how many are valid yet.
11. I am also trying to get signatures electronically. I have sent over 500 emails with only 8 petitions returned and posted petition on facebook with over 1000 friends and only two returns. I would not consider this an effective or efficient way of collecting signature; some friends could not even print the petition form for signing. The democratic voter list provided by the current Registrars office does not include emails or phone numbers to be able to reach out to voter who are democrats; this also contributes to the challenge of getting signatures to be placed on the ballot.
12. I am available to answer any questions the Court may have about my experience.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-3 Filed 06/02/20 Page 3 of 3 13. I would like to be added as a plaintiff to this case, so that the requirements for ballot access for my campaign are reduced, as requested in plaintiffs’ motion.
* * * I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to Title 28, § 1746 of the United States Code, that the foregoing is true, correct, and within my personal knowledge. Sergio Rodriguez Sergio Rodriguez Dated this 2nd day of June, 2020
3

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-4 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NED LAMONT, et al., Defendants.

:

:

Case No. 3:20-cv-623

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

May 28, 2020

VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT AND/OR EXPERT REPORT OF TAWANA GALBERTH

I, TAWANA GALBERTH, hereby declare this 28TH day of May, 2020 based on facts

within my personal knowledge:

1. I am a registered Connecticut voter who resides in New Haven, Connecticut.

2. I am the campaign manager for Alex Taubes for CT Senate for the 11th Senate

District.

3. With Governor Lamont’s order, our campaign needs to collect 1,016 signatures in

sixteen days, starting on May 26 with a deadline of June 11, 2020 at 4:00pm.

4. I have over twenty years of experience working with the Democratic Party with

petitions and getting signatures.

5. Recently, I worked on the Joe Ganim for Governor Campaign in 2018, during

which time the campaign petitioned onto the ballot for the office of Connecticut Governor. To get

on the ballot we needed thousands of signatures, but we were able to successfully get the signatures

in the required amount of time.

1

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-4 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 6
6. It is impossible for a candidate to do everything himself. In order for someone to get as many signatures as 1,000 or more, a candidate needs to have a dedicated field team of workers who are motivated to work long hours day after day until all of the signatures are collected.
7. I have over twenty years of experience putting together teams to collect signatures on a mass basis, for offices ranging from City Alderman to President of the United States.
8. In my knowledge, training, and experience, and to a degree of professional certainty, a highly-skilled campaign worker who works hard for seven hours during the day can collect up to 80 or more valid Democratic Party registered voter signatures in New Haven.
9. On Tuesday, May 26, the petitions for Eleventh Senate District were finally made available by the Secretary of the State’s Office. We got them on the first day that they were available.
10. On every day since then, we have launched with workers to collect signatures so that Alex can qualify for the ballot in the Eleventh Senate District.
11. I have recruited, trained, and worked side-by-side with a crew of paid workers to collect the signatures for Alex.
12. Among the people who I have recruited to collect signatures is Renee Brown. In my knowledge, training, and experience, Ms. Brown is among the most highly-skilled at collecting petition signatures of anybody I have worked with in my twenty years of experience. I have worked with her on campaigns in the past, most recently Toni Harp for Mayor in 2019.
13. In an average seven hour shift, in my knowledge, training, and experience, to a degree of professional certainty, Ms. Brown is able to collect at least 80 valid signatures.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-4 Filed 06/02/20 Page 3 of 6
14. COVID-19 has affected everything in our society. Petition signature gathering is no exception. In fact, petition signature gathering has become much much more difficult and is now unfair because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
15. On Wednesday and Thursday, Ms. Brown put in seven hour shifts and worked hard both days. She walked highly populated areas of Fair Haven within the Eleventh Senate District where I have experience collecting many hundreds of signatures over the years.
16. On those two days, Ms. Brown was only able to collect a grand total of 12 signatures. Normally I would expect Ms. Brown to collect more than 80 in that time.
17. I personally observed that Ms. Brown was working hard throughout her seven hour shifts. Lack of diligence was not the reason for the lack of signatures.
18. Another worker I have recruited to collect signatures is Anthony. In my experience petitioning on the Ganim campaign, Anthony could collect over 100 signatures in a day. He even won awards for his signature gathering.
19. Anthony worked a seven-hour shift today and was able to collect 13 signatures. 20. On the Ganim campaign, it was a reliable shorthand that it cost the campaign about $1 to $2 per signature, with workers earning $60-80 per day on a good day. But at the rate that highly-skilled paid petition signature gatherers are collecting signatures during COVID, it will cost campaigns $10 or more per signature, if workers are earning the same $60-80 per day at an hourly rate. 21. The reason for the lack of signatures – and the added costs and time imposed on candidates – is simple: COVID-19. 22. People don’t want to answer their doors because of COVID-19. Not everyone, of course, but most people.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-4 Filed 06/02/20 Page 4 of 6
23. Other people don’t even believe that there will be an election because they haven’t seen any outreach from our elected leaders about their plans for the coming year.
24. Other people are unwilling to sign because they are afraid of getting infected. 25. While Ms. Brown was collecting signatures in an apartment building, I received a complaint from the building manager saying that she was not allowed to go door-to-door. The reason given was the COVID-19 pandemic. Alex has a lot of support in the building because he lives there. In normal times, multifamily housing is the most accessible place to collect signatures, especially in inclement weather, because the hallways are covered and protected from the rain. 26. The next most accessible place is large gatherings such as festivals, carnivals, parades—the type of events that are banned by the Governor’s executive orders and by our Mayor right now. Normally in Fair Haven we would have a lot more people on the streets. 27. I have been told that people are expected to sign the petitions electronically or by mail. 28. In my experience, we have never required a person to have a physical home address – let alone a computer, an internet connection, and the knowledge to be able to use them – in order to participate in elections. I feel that that is unfair practices. 29. Also, as a human service worker, I realize that every home does not have a computer or a phone in it. 30. So how can we fairly expect a person to sign a petition electronically or through the mail, if they do not have a home or a computer or knowledge on how to use these new electronic methods? I do not know how to electronically sign a petition under the Governor’s order and I have been doing this for over twenty years. It is unfair to assume that people have either a computer or a mailing address also.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-4 Filed 06/02/20 Page 5 of 6
31. Social distancing makes going door-to-door extremely difficult. It also is making people less aware of what’s going on in their community, like how they are going to get out and vote. Word of mouth is the most effective GOTV method. But word is not getting out because of COVID. In my twenty years of experience I am noticing things are different because of COVID.
32. Organizing the petition signature drive itself has become more difficult because of COVID. I cannot do job interviews for new recruits. I cannot go door-to-door in a group anywhere, which is something we often do to introduce ourselves to the community. I cannot even take volunteers in a group to train them at getting signatures, because it would require so much close in-person interaction. I cannot even take the candidate out walking door-to-door to meet the people.
33. We have made strong attempts to put our petition online, on social media, and to send it to people by e-mail and we have followed up. But the sheer number of tasks involved – printing, signing, taking a picture, emailing it back – make it time-consuming and almost impossible. And we can only get one at a time that way. Door-to-door is much more efficient. That is why we do door-to-door.
34. Office space is more difficult to get because of the pandemic. Stores we frequent during campaigns – like Staples – are closed or have restricted hours because of the pandemic, which requires us to drive longer distances to access anything we need for the campaign. Everything is being made harder and keeping requirements substantially the same is very unfair.
35. The Governor’s order reduces the signatures required by 30% and gives us 2 extra days. Unless he reduces it further, and gives us more time, he will be making it impossible for people like Alex – who have a significant amount of support – to make it on the ballot and be heard on Election Day.
5

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-4 Filed 06/02/20 Page 6 of 6
36. Daily I am receiving phone calls from people who want to work on this campaign who don’t know how it’s going to work because of social distancing. We started planning in January and every week and every month things are changing making it impossible to plan anything.
37. I pray that this Honorable Court will issue a ruling that will protect the voters’ rights during this pandemic, prior to Election Day, so that we have a chance in this.
* * * I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to Title 28, § 1746 of the United States Code, that the foregoing is true, correct, and within my personal knowledge. /s/Tawana Galberth Signed Electronically With Assistance of Alex Taubes Dated this 28th day of May, 2020
NOTARIZATION Subscribed to and sworn before me, this 28th day of May, 2020, personally, before me.
/s/ Alexander T. Taubes, Esq. Commissioner of the Connecticut Superior Court
6

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-5 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 5

UUNNITEIDTED SSTTATAESTES DDISITSRITCTRICT CCOOURUT RT DDISITSRTICRT ICT OOFF CCOONNNENCTEICCUTTICUT

AANNDDY Y GGOOTTTTLIELBIE, B, eett aall..,, PPllaainintitfiffsf,s, v.
NNEEDD LLAAMMONOTN, T, eett aall..,, DDeeffeennddaanntsts..

:

:

CCaassee NNoo. . 33::220-0cv--c6v23-623

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

MMaayy 2288,, 22002200

VVEERIRFIEIDFIED AAFFFIDFAIVDITAVIT OOFF RREENENEEE BBRROWONWN

II,, RREENNEEEE BBRROOWWNN, , hheerreebbyy ddeeccllaarree tthhiiss 2288TTHH ddaayy ooff MMaayy,, 22002200 bbaasseedd oonn ffaaccttss wwiitthhinin

mmyy ppeerrssoonnaall kknnoowwleleddggee: :

11..

II aamm aa rreeggiisstetereredd CCoonnnneecctitciuctut vvootteerr wwhhoo rreessiiddeess iinn NNeeww HHaavveenn, , CCoonnnneecctitciuctu. t.

22.. I wwaass hhiirreedd byy TTaawwaannaa Gaallbbeerrtthh too coolllleecctt ppeettiittioionn siggnnaattuurreess foorr AAlleexx Taauubbeess'’ss

ccaammppaaiiggnn foorr Statee Senate inn tthhee Elleevveenntthh DDiissttrricict t inn 22002200..

33.. II hhaavvee eexxppeerriieennccee ccoolllleecctitningg ppeettiittioionn ssiiggnnaattuurreess iinn tthhee ppaasstt ffoorr mmaannyy ccaammppaaiiggnnss..

44.. IInn mmyy eexxppeerriieennccee,, ccaammppaaiiggnnss ppaayy mmee aabboouutt $$11 aa ssiiggnnaattuurree.. WWhheenn II wwoorrkk aa sseevveenn--

hhoouurr sshhiifft,t, II ccoolllelecct t aabboouutt 6600--8800 ssiiggnnaatutureres,s, aanndd tthhaatt iiss aa ddeecceenntt ppaayy ffoorr tthhaatt ddaayy..

55.. Inn mmyy twwoo seveen--hhoouurr shiffttss foorr AAlleexx's’s camppaaiiggnn I haavvee ccoolllleecctteedd a ttoottaall ooff 118

siggnnaattuurreess..

66.. TThhaannkkffuulllyl,y, AAlleexx iiss ppaayyiinngg mmee bbyy tthhee hhoouurr aanndd nnoott bbyy tthhee ssiiggnnaattuurree.. BBuutt aass aa

ccaammppaaiiggnn wwoorrkkeerr,, II rreeccooggnnizizee tthhee uunnffaaiirrnneessss tthhaatt hhee ccaannnnoott ggeett tthhee ssiiggnnaattuurreess wwiitthhoouut t aa lloott mmoorree

eefffofrot.rt.

77.. I attaacchh ttoo thhiiss afffiiddaavvitit thhee ppeettiittioionnss tthhaatt I hhaavvee ttaakkeenn ttoo tthhee ppeeooppllee ovveerr tthhee ppaasstt

ttwwoo ddaayyss..

1 1
Searchable PDF created by OCR.space (Free Version)

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-5 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 5

88..

II wwaalklekded aalll l ooff JJaammeses SSttrreeetet iinn NNeeww HHaavevne. n. II aallssoo wwaalklekded aalll l ooff LLoommbarbdard SSttrreeete. t. II

aallssoo wwaallkkeedd mmuucchh ooff GGrraanndd AAvveennuuee,, iinncclluuddiningg aa mmuullttifiafammilyily bbuuiillddiningg aatt 665577 GGrraanndd AAvveennuuee.. II

wwoorrkkeedd aass hhaarrdd aass II ccaann ttoo ccoolllleecctt aass mmaannyy ssiiggnnaattuurreess aass II ccoouulldd.. TThhee vvootteerrss wwhhoo wweerree wwiilllilnigng ttoo

ssppeeaakk ttoo mmee wweerree hhiigghhlyly rreecceeppttivivee ttoo ssiiggnniningg AAlelexx's’s ppeettiititoino.n. BBuutt ssoo mmaannyy ppeeoopplele wweerree uunnwwilililnligng

ttoo ttaalklk bbeeccauasuese ooff CCOOVIVD.ID.

99.. TThheerree's’s nnoott mmuucchh eellssee ttoo iitt.. TThhee ppaannddeemmicic mmaakkeess iitt hhaarrddeerr.. PPeerriioodd. . IInn mmyy ooppiinnioion,n,

tthhee rruulleess sshhoouulldd bbee rreellaaxxeedd ssoo wwee ccaann ffiinndd mmoorree pprroodduuccttivivee uusseess ooff oouurr ttiimmee..

1100.. II aamm aavvaaiillaabblele ttoo ssppeeaakk ffuurrtthheerr aabboouutt mmyy eexxppeerriieenncceess aass aa ccaammppaaiiggnn wwoorrkkeerr iinn tthhee

ppaannddeemmici.c. TThhaannkk yyoouu ffoorr ccoonnssiiddeerirnigng mmyy ooppiinnioion.n.

* * *

II ddeeccllaarree uunnddeerr ppeennaalltyty ooff ppeerrjujuryr,y, ppuurrssuuaannt t ttoo TTiitltele 2288,, § 11774466 ooff tthhee UUnnitietedd SSttaatteess CCooddee,,

tthhaatt tthhee ffoorreeggooiningg iiss ttrruuee,, ccoorrrreecctt,, aanndd wwiitthhinin mmyy ppeerrssoonnaall kknnoowwleleddggee. .

//ss/R/Reneene ee BBrorwonwn SSiiggnneedd EElleeccttrroonnicicaalllyly WWiitthh AAssssiissttaannccee ooff AAlleexx TTaauubbeess DDaatteedd tthhiiss 2288tthh ddaayy ooff MMaayy, , 22002200
NNOOTATRAIZARTIIOZNATION

SSuubbssccrribibeedd ttoo aanndd sswwoorrnn bbeeffoorree mmee,, tthhiiss 2288tthh ddaayy ooff MMaayy, , 22002200,, ppeerrssoonnaalllyl,y, bbeeffoorere mmee..

I/ss// AAlleexxaannddeerr TT.. TTaauubbeess,, EEssqq.. CCoommmmisisssioionneerr ooff tthhee CCoonnnneeccttiiccuutt SSuuppeerriioorr CCoouurrtt

22
Searchable PDF created by OCR.space (Free Version)

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-5 Filed 06/02/20 Page 3 of 5

(ED-619DIST)RevS(/0C3irculatoRr:eadseparatinestructiosnheebt efore

docl [71

WARNING:IT ISACRIMETOSIGNTHISPETITIONIN THENAMEOFANOTHERPERSON WITHOUTLEGALAUTHORITTYODOSOANDYOUMAYNOTSIGNTHISPEITITONIF YOU
ARE NOT AN ELECTOR.

PRIMARYPETITIONFORMULTI-TOWNDISTRICTOFFICE(S)

Petition Circulated in Town of

(name of mun icipality)

(TObefilledinbeforecirculating)

A. SYECRETAMRUSTFILLOUTTHISPAR(TA)BEFORGEIVINGOUTTHISFORM

MULTI-TOWN

DISTRICT:

11th

NAME OF PARTY / DATE OF PRIMARY:

DEMOCRATIC (party)

August 1 2020 (date of primary)

NAME(S) OF CANDIDATE(S) Alex Taubes

ADDRESS
657 Grand Avenue, Unit A 305
New Haven, CT 06511

OFFICE(S) SOUGHT State Senate

THIS PETITIONMUST BEFILED WITH THEREGISTRARSOF VOTERSin thetom of circulationnot
later than 4:00 p.m. on June I I, 2020.

B. We,theundersignebde,ingenrolledmembeOrsftheabovepartyin theabovepoliticasl ubdivisioonf the abovemunicipalityd,oherebpyetitionthattherebeprintedonthevotingmachinbeallotlabelstobeusedin theprimaryof saidpartyinsaidpoliticasl ubdivisiotonbeheldonthedateabovespecifietdhenameosfthe

above individuals as candidates for nomination to the office s) s ecified:

SIGNATURE

OF ENROLLED

ELECrOR

PRINTED

NAME OF

ELECTOR

(Jhar

BIRTH

DATE

STREET ADDRESS

56b Lo rd 4

2

5118 cm

S

3

loll IC

5tcgvLom

rd S

5 6

caus Cu

22/ D

10 11

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Searchable PDF created by OCR.space (Free Version)

Case 3:20-5c/0v3-(C0i0rc6ul2at3o-r:RJeCaHdsepaDraoteincsutrmucetionnsth3ee1bt-e5iöreFiled 06/02/20 Page 4 o[7f] 5
WARNING: IT IS A CRIMETOSIGNTHISPETITIONIN THENAMEOFANOTHERPERSON WITHOUTLEGAL AUTHORITYTO DOSOANDYOUMAY NOTSIGNTHISPEITITONIF YOU
ARE NOT AN ELECTOR.

PRIMARY PETITION FOR MULTI-TOWN DISTRICT OFFICE(S)

Petition Circulated in Town of

(nameof municipality)

(To be filled in before circulating)

A. SECRETARY MUST FILL OUT THIS PART (A) BEFOREGIVING OUT THIS FORM

MULTI-TOWN DISTRICT:

I Jth

NAME OF PARTY / DATE OF PRIMARY:

DEMOCRATIC (party)

August 11.2020 (date of primary)

NAME(S) OF CANDIDATE(S) Alex Taubes

ADDRESS
657 Grand Avenue, Unit A305 New Haven, CT 0651 1

OFFICE(S) SOUGHT State Senate

THIS PETITIONMUST BE FILED WITH THE REGISTRARSOF VOTERSin the later than 4:00 p.m. on June I I , 2020.

ofcirculation not

B. We,theu, ndersignbeedingenrollemdembeorfstheabovpeartyintheabovpeoliticaslubdivisiOonfthe abovme unicipalidtyo,herebpyetitiotnhatherbeeprinteodnthevotinmg achinbealloltabeltsobeuseidn theprimaroyfsaidpartyinsaidpoliticsaul bdivistioobneheldonthedateabovsepecifitehdenameOsfthe

aboveindividualsascandidatefsor nominationtotheoffce(s s cified:

SIGNATURE OF ENROLLED
LE

PRINTED NAME OF ELECTOR
clut : f

BIRTH DATE

STREET ADDRESS

5

- -90

C/-,2Y-97 2

7 8

9 10

11 12 13

14 15 16

17 18 19 20

Searchable PDF created by OCR.space (Free Version)

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-5 Filed 06/02/20 Page 5 of 5

(CirculatoRr. eadseparatIenstructiosnheebt efore

[71

WARNINGIT:ISACRIMTEOSIGNTHISPETITIOINTHENAMEOFANOTHEPRERSON WT ITHOULEGAALUTHORTITOYDOSOANDYOUMAYNOTSIGNTHISPEITITOIFNYOU
ARE NOT AN ELECTOR.

PRIMARYPETIMONFORMULTI-TOWNDISTRIC OFFICE

PetitionCirculatedin Townof

(nameof mumclpallty)

(To be filled in before circulating)

A. SYECRETAMRUSFTILLOUTTHISPAR(TA)BEFORGEIVINOGUTTHISFORM

MULTI-TOWNDISTRICT: I lth

NAMEOFPARTY/ DATEOFPRIMARY: DEMOCRATIC
(party )

August I l. 2020 (date of primary)

NAME(SO) FCANDIDATE(S)

ADDRESS

Alex Taubes

657 Grand Avenue, Unit A3()5
New Haven. CT 06511

OFFICE(S) SOUGHT State Senate

THISPETITIOMNUSTBEFILEDWITHTHEREGISTRAORFSVOTERinSthe ofcirculationnot
later than4:00p.m.onJuneII, 2020.

B. We,theundersignbeedi,ngenrollemdembeorfstheabovpeartyintheabovpeoliticaslubdivisionfthe

abovemunicipalitdyo, herebpyetitionthat herebeprintedonthevotingmachinbeallotlabeltso beusedin

theprimaroyfsaidpartyin satdpoliticasl ubdivisiotonbeheldonthedateabovsepecifietdhenameosf the

aboveIndividualsascandidatefsor nominationto theoffices) s citied:

SIGNATURE

OF ENROLLED

ELECrOR

PRINTED NAME OF El.F.cr0R

BIRTH DATE

STREET ADDRESS

sæeek
2

3

4

5

6

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Searchable PDF created by OCR.space (Free Version)

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-6 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NED LAMONT, et al., Defendants.

:

:

Case No. 3:20-cv-623

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

June 2, 2020

DECLARATION OF ANTONIA OGLESBY

I, Antonia Oglesby, hereby declare this 2nd day of June, 2020 based on facts within my

personal knowledge:

1. I am over 18 years of age and recognize the obligations of an oath.

2. I am Student Senate Vice President at Housatonic Community College, Co-

President of the Political Science and History Club, and Student Advisory Committee

Representative. I have also served as a legislative intern for the Connecticut General Assembly.

3. I am a registered Connecticut Democrat.

4. I did text canvassing for petitions for Alex Taubes.

5. In the span of 3 hours I texted 193 different numbers.

6. Out of 193 numbers I received 1 reply which had said, “I am 100% a registered

Republican, I would rather not vote then ever vote for a Democrat. I think the dem agenda is a

complete joke, nothing against your candidate. Tell Lamont he's doing a real good job at screwing

up Connecticut. Already one of the highest deficits in the nation and it just continues to grow.

Frankly, I don't understand how we keep electing Democratic governors; you guys have zero clue

how to balance a budget. It's disgraceful. Take my number off all these lib contact books:

TRUMP2020.”

1

Case 3:20-cv-00623-JCH Document 31-6 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 2 7. I did not find this method of collecting signatures effective at all as the response rate was .005%. I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to Title 28, § 1746 of the United States Code, that the foregoing is true, correct, and within my personal knowledge. /s/Antonia Oglesby Antonia Oglesby Dated this 2nd day of June, 2020
2