The Secretary of State office just released the following statement regarding late Danbury Councilman Gregg Seabury's name on the ballot.
“This is an emotional time and Secretary Merrill and the staff of her office have deep sympathy for the friends and family of Councilman Seabury.
Early yesterday afternoon, lawyers from the Secretary of the State’s office informed Danbury’s local election officials of the law regarding replacing a deceased candidate on the ballot. Connecticut law in this case is clear, and there is no basis in law to allow Gregg Seabury’s name to remain on the ballot, or to treat this situation as if there is a vacancy in office.
It is of great concern to read news reports this morning that Danbury officials have apparently decided to ignore the clear requirements of Connecticut law. It is the position of this office that all local election officials should follow the law as written.”
- Gabe Rosenberg, Communications Director for Connecticut Secretary of the State Denise Merrill
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.
