A Connecticut Superior Court judge issued a blistering decision in what could have been a routine hearing last month, possibly setting the tone in the criminal cases for the seven people charged with abusing Bridgeport’s absentee voting system.
On its own, the decision rendered by Judge Tracy Lee Dayton means the charges against Nilsa Heredia, one of the defendants accused of illegally handling other voters’ absentee ballots and tampering with a witness, will not be dropped in return for her completing a diversionary program.
But some of the remarks that Dayton made during the hearing also sent a strong signal about how seriously she and the judicial system view the alleged crimes that took place during Bridgeport’s 2019 and 2023 Democratic mayoral primaries, several attorneys said.
During the hearing, Heredia’s attorney, Ken Krayeske, asked the judge to approve his client for the widely used diversionary program known as accelerated rehabilitation. He cited several cases in which Connecticut judges granted similar requests, including instances where public officials were accused of stealing taxpayer money.
But Dayton, who previously served as a federal prosecutor, didn’t buy that argument, and she insisted that allegations of election fraud and voter manipulation were serious matters, even when compared to cases stemming from the embezzlement of public funds.
“I have granted AR in very, very serious situations,” Dayton said. “I certainly understand my ability and discretion to do so. I find this case to be more serious.”
“I think taking someone’s vote is more serious than taking someone’s money,” she added.
The decision to grant accelerated rehabilitation in Connecticut is made on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of each judge.
But several lawyers who reviewed the transcript from the hearing said Dayton’s sharply worded response shows that she, and the court system, are not taking the allegations of election fraud in Bridgeport lightly. And they said that could have wider implications as the seven defendants seek to either strike a deal with prosecutors or prepare for trial.
“While every case and accused are different, the judge’s comments suggest that she views the crimes — the charges and the conduct — as serious in nature,” said William Bloss, who led a civil lawsuit that overturned the results of Bridgeport’s 2023 mayoral primary.
Christopher Morano, who previously served as Connecticut’s chief state’s attorney, said the tenor of Dayton’s remarks is likely to catch the attention of the six other campaign workers, city council members and party officials who have been accused of manipulating the absentee voting process.
“I think this judge wanted to send a strong message that if you mess with the electoral process, it’s going to be treated harshly by this court,” Morano said.
A poster child for fraud
Dayton’s views on the ongoing criminal cases, Morano added, are likely being influenced by Bridgeport’s history of elections scandals, which has made the city a poster child for absentee ballot fraud in the United States.
Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim’s primary victories in 2019 and 2023 were both challenged in court on the grounds that absentee ballot fraud skewed the results. But it was the 2023 election that placed the city in the national spotlight after leaked surveillance footage captured several political operatives depositing stacks of absentee ballots into drop boxes.
The lawsuits and public outcry that followed those elections prompted investigations by election enforcement officials and state prosecutors. And it was those investigations that ultimately landed Heredia and the other defendants in Dayton’s courtroom last month.
State elections enforcement officials continued to clear a backlog of investigations stemming from Bridgeport’s mayoral elections in 2023 and 2024 last month, and they openly questioned the systemic nature of the problem in the city.
Krayeske, Heredia’s attorney, said he is not entirely surprised that Dayton drew such a hard line in court, given the atmosphere surrounding the criminal cases. But he said the judge’s decision is still likely to serve as a warning particularly for some of the other defendants who are accused of repeatedly violating the state’s absentee voting laws over the course of several elections.
That list includes city councilman Alfredo Castillo and Bridgeport’s Democratic vice chairwoman Wanda Geter-Pataky, who are accused of illegally taking possession of voters’ absentee ballots during the 2019 and 2023 elections.
“Judge Dayton is deadly serious about absentee ballot fraud,” Krayeske said. “I’m glad I’m not Wanda Geter-Pataky’s lawyer, or Alfredo Castillo’s lawyer. My client is the most sympathetic, and I can’t get AR for her.”
Frank Riccio, Castillo’s attorney, declined to comment for this story. And John Gulash, Geter-Pataky’s attorney, said it would be inappropriate for him to weigh in on the judge’s remarks.
‘That’s manipulative’
Krayeske tried to sway Dayton in court by arguing that Heredia, who lives in Bridgeport’s public housing, was not a ringleader of the alleged absentee ballot schemes that prosecutors investigated in recent years. And he noted that Heredia often volunteers her time in her low-income community.
Krayeske also highlighted a letter of support that was written by Prerna Rao, an attorney who questioned Heredia during a civil lawsuit that challenged the results of Bridgeport’s 2019 Democratic mayoral primary.
Rao explained in her letter that Heredia was one of the more cooperative witnesses she examined under oath in court in 2019.
“Ms. Heredia did not design or direct the absentee ballot schemes that have plagued this city’s Democratic primaries for so many years. She did not hold political power,” Rao wrote in the letter. “While she may very well have violated the law, her subsequent conduct demonstrated a level of integrity wholly foreign to those who directed the activities for which she stands in judgment.”
But those arguments also didn’t convince Dayton.
“You know, she wants to come in here and say how helpful she is to the community,” Dayton said of Heredia. “That’s manipulative to the community. That’s not serving the community in which you live. That’s harming the community in which you live. You’re robbing somebody of their vote.”
At one point, Dayton also questioned why election-related crimes weren’t classified as more serious offenses under Connecticut law. Illegally possessing another voter’s absentee ballot is considered a class D felony, which carries a maximum sentence of up to five years prison and a $5,000 fine.
“I’m not sure why it is a D felony,” Dayton said, before adding “It’s not up to me. I’m not part of the legislature.”
Politicians react
Republican leaders in the General Assembly said they were glad to see that Dayton is taking the alleged election crimes in Bridgeport seriously.
“I’m hopeful that the courts view this the same way I do, and that is that these crimes impact the integrity of our elections,” said House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford.
In recent years, Candelora and his Republican colleagues have repeatedly advocated for legislation that would create a mandatory minimum sentence of one year in prison for anyone convicted of mishandling absentee ballots. But those proposals have not passed the Democratic-led General Assembly.
Without those sentencing requirements, Candelora said, it is even more important for judges who are handling such criminal cases to show clearly that absentee ballot abuse won’t be let off easily.
“I don’t take pleasure in this, but I’m glad that the judge is viewing this as significant,” Candelora said.
Rep. Matt Blumenthal, the Democratic co-chair of the legislature’s Government Administration and Elections committee, said he believes the state’s sentencing guidelines for election-related crimes are sufficient.
“I think that five years’ imprisonment should be significant enough deterrent to prevent future misconduct,” he added.
But he also noted that it is up to the judicial system to impose an appropriate punishment when someone is found guilty of such behavior.
“As a general matter, deterrence is the most important element of preventing misconduct in our elections, and that requires swift and vigorous investigation and prosecution and punishment if appropriate,” Blumenthal said.
This story was originally published in the Connecticut Mirror.
