The court ruled in favor of the Greenwich Registrar of Voters in a case brought by several current and former RTC members

Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter

In the court case brought by Republican RTC members against the Republican Registrar of Voters, the court, as expected, ruled in favor of the establishment in the form of the Registrar.  The court’s ruling makes a mockery of the election law in that the court’s interpretation of the law leaves the law devoid of any meaning.

The election law states that a candidate wishing to contest the results of a caucus election may not collect signatures for “another candidate or another group of candidates.”  The court interpreted this sentence to allow candidates to collect signatures for groups of candidates, so long as they are a part of the group, claiming: 

The circulating of petitions by a candidate whose name is included but is not the sole name on the petition is not the circulation of a petition for "another group of candidates." To hold otherwise would render the word, "another" meaningless in the statute and be inconsistent with the common meaning of the word "another".

The court failed however to account for the phrase “another candidate.”  If the law prevents a candidate from collecting signatures for another candidate, why would the law allow this if the two candidates are simply listed together making a group?  This creates a contradiction.  This contradiction was not addressed by the court.

Why would you, as a candidate, collect signatures for other candidates individually or as a group unless you wanted those other candidates on the ballot?  In which case, the prohibition is meaningless because you can get around the prohibition by including your name with whatever other candidates you want on the ballot.  In the opposite case, where you don’t want the other candidates to run, you would collect signatures only for yourself. 

In other words, as interpreted by the court, the statement in the law prohibiting collecting signatures for “another candidate or another group of candidates” is meaningless because in one case you would not want to include other candidates, and in the other case you can simply include your own name and get around the restriction.

As a result, the court is legislating from the bench, and effectively struck down this prohibition and has made primaries more likely, and caucus single-day elections, moot.  Primaries include absentee voting, early voting and other Democrat priorities which remove checks and balances in the voting process.

After the verdict, the plaintiffs issued the following statement:

“We believe, respectfully, that the trial court misinterpreted the language of the statute and added additional perspective that is in conflict with the statute’s intent. The election law is designed to preclude a single candidate from overturning the results of a caucus election. There are several provisions which:

1. Require petitions for 25% of contested seats to cause a primary;

2. Require each petitioning candidate to sign that they agree to initiate a petition; and

3. Require that petitioning candidates may not collect signatures for other candidates for the same office.

These requirements all go hand in hand.  Without such safeguards, there is effectively no reason to hold caucus elections, since primaries will always result.  This suit was filed to uphold those principles and because at least one of those primaries resulted in an 8-vote shift that effectuated an RTC leadership change. 

The law is clear on its face yet the trial court found an alternative interpretation that we believe is incorrect. We are exploring our options regarding next steps.”

The Registrar, who has been under fire for accepting a $500,000 in Zuckbucks from the Center for Tech and Civic life, issued a statement claiming the ruling vindicated his actions. 

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!‘