As the Mark Boughton's laughable gubernatorial campaign continue to cringe as more of their petitions are marked invalid, Hartford Courant columnist Kevin Rennie joins the increasing numbers of political analysis and lawmakers who are extremely skeptical with Danbury GOP Registrar of Voters Mary Ann Doran given her extremely controversial past.
Not all registrars of voters are the same. Some have spent years in the dark side of politics and bear watching. Danbury’s Mary Ann Doran is one of those. She’ll be overseeing the critical count of signatures on the petitions Republican lieutenant governor hopeful Mark Lauretti’s campaign submitted in running mate Mark Boughton’s hometown. Read about Doran here. Mercy, what a history.
The Danbury signatures take center stage as the Boughton-Lauretti ticket has been buffeted by a damaging number of rejected signatures. Waterbury, Brookfield, and Shelton (Lauretti’s hometown) have identified large numbers of invalid signatures for a campaign that left itself little room for error in the count. If the rejected signatures continue at this pace, even Boughton favorite Doran will be helpless to save her benefactor.
Without Lauretti’s fundraising talent, Boughton will have have little chance of raising the $250,000 in small contributions he needs to qualify for public financing and mount a competitive campaign for the August 12th Republican primary.
Given the fact that rejected signatures continue to rack up, and the importance of signatures from Danbury, if one's past is an indication of future behavior, EVERYONE should be concerned with the activities of Doran.
Tom Foley would be wise to have monitors track Doran's petition verification process and have lawyers on standby when they find a hint of wrongdoing from the woman who is considered the most controversial figure in the political history of Danbury.
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.
