Democrat claims Bridgeport Mayor stole election via ballot box stuffing in video.

According to the Brookings⁢ Institution, there is no ‌evidence that mail ballots‌ increase electoral fraud. USA Today fact checks the false‍ claim ⁤that mail-in voting is connected to bad actors and fraudulent ballots. The Brennan Center ‍for Justice​ informs us that extensive research reveals that fraud is very ‌rare.

While it’s ⁢important not to make claims about the existence ​of ‌voter fraud you can’t prove, what’s also true is ‌that nearly ⁣all of the analyses dismissing concerns about​ voter fraud and mail-in ballots ⁢rest on a ⁤logical fallacy: The ‌absence ​of evidence is‍ evidence of absence. In other words, the⁣ assumption is that voter fraud is ‍not happening because there are ⁤very⁢ few ​criminal convictions related to ⁤voter fraud. Republicans,⁣ however, have long contended⁤ that those governing the areas where⁤ voter fraud is most⁢ likely​ to occur — Democrat-run cities with a ⁢high density of votes ‍— ‌have no incentive to root out and prosecute voter fraud because they benefit from it politically.

With that in ⁣mind, what just happened in the Democratic primary in Bridgeport, Connecticut is pretty incredible, and so ⁢far,⁣ a cursory search shows there’s not a ‌single story ⁤from a national news outlet about it. Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim just won the⁢ Democratic⁤ primary, effectively securing his seventh⁣ term as‌ mayor of the ‌largest city in Connecticut. However, his Democratic opponent — John Gomes, ‍a city employee fired​ by Ganim earlier this year — ⁤isn’t conceding. He claims Ganim stole the election by tampering with mail-in ballots, and ⁤he’s ⁤released video he claims ‍proves that’s what happened.

After Election Day, Gomes was leading Ganim among ⁤votes that were cast in person. Ganim insisted that it​ was​ important to wait for‍ the absentee ⁤and mail-in ballots to be counted, and Ganim won the absentee votes 1,545 to ⁢779, securing⁢ a ‍victory in the primary by‍ 251 ‌votes. After the initial in-person​ votes were ⁤counted, ‍Ganim predicted the absentee votes‌ would⁣ break his⁤ way. According to the ‌Connecticut Mirror, which has ⁢been⁣ all‌ over this story, Gomes also ⁢made note of the outstanding ‌absentee ballots early Tuesday⁣ evening, but in front of reporters, he questioned whether‍ voters could trust the outcome of‍ those ballots.

It turns out Gomes had good reason to question the ⁤validity of ‌the ballots, and this wasn’t some outrageous⁤ attempt to delegitimize ‌the election.⁤ Ganim also won the 2019 primary​ election with⁣ a​ come-from-behind ⁣victory that resulted ‍from counting absentee ballots. Media accounts surrounding that​ election reported the absentee⁤ ballots in that election ​were ⁣”rife with irregularities.”

On Aug.⁢ 30, almost ​four full years later, Connecticut’s ​State Elections Enforcement Commission ⁤recommended criminal charges ‌for three⁢ people connected to Ganim’s campaign relating‌ to ⁤their ‌suspected mishandling of ⁣absentee ballots in the 2019 ⁣election.

Now John Gomes has released video that ​he⁢ says shows​ city employee Wanda Geter-Pataky, who is affiliated with ‌the⁤ Ganim ‌campaign, stuffing ballots‌ into drop boxes. “State statute says absentee ballots can be returned only by​ the ballot applicant, their‌ family members, police officers, local⁢ election officials or ‍someone who is directly caring for someone who receives ‍an absentee ballot because ​they are ill or physically ⁤disabled,” ⁣according to the Mirror.

Though the⁢ woman in the video looks like Geter-Pataky, her ⁣identity has not been⁢ independently confirmed. ⁤Neither ⁣Geter-Pataky nor the Ganim campaign ​are commenting on the allegations. ​However, the video is compelling enough that ‌there’s an official police‍ investigation. Adding ⁤to the⁢ suspicions is the fact that, yes, Geter-Pataky is‌ one of the three people that the State Elections Enforcement Commission⁣ just recommended‌ charges against for her handling of ballots in 2019.

That in turn prompts a pretty basic question: ⁤The State Elections Enforcement Commission opened ‍their investigation into Ganim’s campaign in September ⁤of 2019​ almost as soon as the ‌last primary election was‌ over, so why did⁣ it take four years to do anything about this? It’s true proper ⁢investigations take time, ⁣and‌ according to ‍CT​ Insider, “SEEC investigators were hampered by ​the COVID pandemic.”

However, if ​you’re not inclined to give Connecticut⁤ officials the benefit ⁢of⁢ the ​doubt, the narrative here looks awfully suspicious. National Democrats spent 2020 fanning‌ out ⁢across ⁣the ‍country overhauling voting laws, often through corrupt ‍and⁣ questionable processes, using Covid as an​ excuse⁤ to expand the use of ⁤absentee votes and ⁤ballot harvesting. That debate continued ‌to rage ‍after Trump’s narrow loss to Biden in the presidential election,‌ which hung on just 44,000 votes across three key states, and which resulted in ⁣Trump and ⁤his allies alleging the election ‌was stolen.

Even if ⁣a great‍ many of ​the voter fraud allegations being⁢ made⁢ by Trump and his allies were dubious,​ confirmation that elections in the largest city ‍in Connecticut were being⁤ stolen ​through the use of mail-in ballots would blow a huge hole in the frankly absurd partisan narrative that “there is no⁣ evidence that mail ballots increase electoral fraud.”

If you approach what happened here‌ with a ⁤small degree⁣ of skepticism, it looks⁤ like ‍the State Elections Enforcement Commission sat on its ⁣hands,‌ because it would rather let the mayor of Bridgeport possibly steal an election ‌than have ​to affirm that⁤ Republicans have⁢ a point about the connection ‍between absentee ballots and ⁤fraud.⁤ And then ‍when‍ they realized‍ that this latest primary⁤ in Bridgeport was ‍also ‍going to be close, it would appear they rushed out a report ⁤recommending criminal indictments ⁤just over two weeks before the primary‍ election almost a full four years⁢ later as a last-ditch⁣ attempt to‌ ward⁢ off Ganim’s campaign from⁣ tampering with ballots for ⁢potentially a second time.

The Bridgeport allegations of voter fraud also ⁣provide a disturbing​ window​ into how ​this kind of fraud could occur. In the USA Today “fact ⁤check” cited ⁢above, they quote an⁢ expert assuring us that “States and localities have ‌had mitigations in place to catch any potential cases of fraud. Those mitigations have been in place ​for decades ‍and they work.” ‍But ​what if the people responsible​ for⁤ enforcing those ⁢”mitigations” are in on the ‍fraud?

In ⁢the video above, it’s being alleged⁣ that, in between ⁢her ⁢multiple⁣ trips to the ballot⁤ drop box, ‌Geter-Pataky is going⁤ into ‍a municipal building and preparing more ballots ​to ‍stuff at​ her⁢ desk as a city employee. Here is a⁢ picture of⁣ Geter-Pataky hugging the ⁢city ⁢clerk, and while there’s no‌ evidence that‌ the city clerk is in⁣ on ⁣any of the wrongdoing ‌Geter-Pataky‌ is allegedly accused of, clearly she⁢ has inside access to resources ‍that would make fraud easier.

It’s ​also worth ⁤noting that the video was leaked to the Gomes campaign, and without that, ⁣it’s hard to​ say whether ⁣this apparent wrongdoing would have ⁣ever ⁢been ferreted out. Now imagine this isn’t ⁤a​ Democratic ‍primary in Bridgeport, let’s say it’s a⁤ presidential election‍ in⁣ Philadelphia. In that case,‍ do the city employees responsible for reviewing security ‍footage ⁤of ballot dropboxes care if they ‍see another city employee​ stuffing ballot boxes? Or do‌ they just⁤ ignore ‍it because city⁣ employees⁤ often owe their jobs to the patronage of Democratic ⁣officials and⁣ assume whatever is going on will be⁤ beneficial⁤ to them personally?

Fortunately⁢ for Connecticut officials, so ‍far ‌no national ⁤media ⁣outlet⁣ has picked up on the Bridgeport drama — not that this is in any ‍way ​surprising. The idea that absentee ballots‌ were more prone to ‍fraud was common sense for decades. In 2012, The New York Times ran an article ⁤titled “Error​ and Fraud at Issue ⁢as Absentee Voting Rises.” Now it’s virtually‍ impossible to find an objective assessment of the risks of ballot harvesting in the media or any coverage of the resulting voting problems.

But‍ the silence from national media here is telling. It’s hard to imagine the ⁤parties being reversed in this story without ‍a ⁣torrent ‌of⁢ outrage and ‌the press⁣ combing⁢ over every detail of ⁤this ‌story from‍ the jump‌ four years ago. In ⁤2020, a‍ city council election in Paterson, New Jersey​ — a ⁢city with ⁣roughly the ⁣same‍ population as Bridgeport — was invalidated out after 1 in⁢ 5 mail-in ballots was rejected⁢ amid accusations‍ of fraud. Unsurprisingly, the national media paid‍ almost no attention⁣ to that ⁤story, either.

Again, nothing here is proven yet; Ganim and⁣ his campaign may‍ yet be cleared of this mess. However, ‌it’s probably also not too cynical to expect⁣ overwhelming pressure‍ to unjustly sweep ‍this all under the​ rug if national scrutiny blows⁤ a hole in‌ the⁤ Democratic Party’s‍ absurd insistence that absentee ballots don’t contribute to voter fraud. And ‍if the Bridgeport scandal does break⁣ through to the national media, expect the⁣ coverage to focus on “Republicans pouncing” rather than the details ​of the actual corruption, who’s behind ⁤it, and attempts to ⁤determine how‌ widespread it is.

The mindless insistence⁤ that “there is no evidence that mail ballots increase electoral fraud” is assumed to help the Democratic Party‌ win elections, and so long as that’s the ⁣case, the national⁣ press won’t let any facts about stolen ⁤elections get‍ in⁣ the way.