Most complaints I've received pertains to the Roy campaign's lit drop tactics. Basically, a lit drop is when a candidate comes by your house and drops off information about their candidacy. Usually, if you're not home, the candidate (or people associated with his campaign) will "drop" off the material at your home.
To my best knowledge, there are restrictions regarding where a candidate can drop off their material. For instance, (again, this is my understanding) a candidate is not allowed to place any material inside a resident's mailbox. With that in mind, I received an email form a 5th ward resident who was not too pleased to find about finding this on his/her mailbox (unless it is the result of the normal delivery of postage-paid mail).
To add insult to injury, another person sent me this photo...
Notwithstanding the legality of placing campaign material on an individual's car, my question to the Roy campaign is "how do you know that the person's car you littered with your campaign material is a resident of the 5th ward? Just because a car is parked in the 5th ward doesn't automatically mean that the individual who owns the car lives in the 5th ward.
I've been asked by these neighbors whether or not this type of lit drop procedure is legal. I have a inquiry into the state election enforcement commission and I'll update this post when I get an answer.
In short, it's not nice to piss off the very people need to vote for you. In this case, I think Roy just lose at least 2 votes.
UPDATE: From the feedback I'm receiving, in terms of mailboxes, a candidate can not place non-postage material into a resident's mailbox but they can place material on a resident's mailbox. Now, this isn't official, but this is info is coming from multiple sources who are in the know when it comes to campaign stuff.
No word on placing material on automobiles yet.
UPDATE 2: According to the state election enforcement offices, there is no statue that pertains to the placement of campaign material. In other words, this area of campaigning is not within their jurisdiction.
So to recap: Placing NON-POSTAGE campaign material in a mailbox is against federal law and a BIG no no. Placing material on a mailbox should be okay. Campaign material on cars is annoying but could be legal.
In any event, in my opinion, the best way for candidates to drop of their material is to simply place it securely in/on the door (or better yet, design your material so that you can place it on the doorknob. That way, you really don't piss anyone off too much (i.e., image having to deal with removing a soggy piece of campaign crap from your car or lawn in the rain).
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
