New London – A New London Superior Court judge, in a preliminary ruling on Monday, rejected a motion to dismiss a case that challenges the constitutionality of state election law and could lead to a primary election for Democrats in the city’s second voting district.

Judge Timothy Bates listened to arguments in a case brought by Jason Morris against the city’s Democratic Register of Voters, William Giesing. Morris challenged the rejection of petition signatures that would have forced a primary between six petitioning candidates and a slate of 17 endorsed members of the New London Democratic Town Committee.

After hearing arguments on both sides in New London Superior Court, Bates said he would rule on the case by the end of the week. He agreed to work on a short timeline in consideration of the burden on the city should it have to prepare for an election. He also rejected the city's motion to dismiss the case.  

Bates said he did not fault Giesing for following state law in denying the petition but indicated he was grappling with the constitutional rights associated with Morris circulating the petition.

Morris filed an injunction request after he was told by Giesing on Jan. 27 that the 37 signatures he gathered would not be accepted. Added to those collected by others, the signatures would brought the total to more than the 127 needed for a primary.

Morris said he was unaware of state law that mandates petition circulators must have been a party member for more than 90 days prior to any activity with that party. Morris is a former Green Party member who switched to Democrat in December and is not eligible under state law to collect signatures or vote with Democrats until March 9.

Attorney Daryl Justin Finizio, the former New London mayor who represents Morris, argued that the rejection of the signatures Morris collected has denied a “core political speech.”

Finizio cites a recent federal court case in which Chief District Judge Janet Hall ruled that denying signatures collected by paid, out-of-state petition circulators for the Libertarian Party of Connecticut placed a “severe burden” on free speech and voting rights.

He said “… the restrictions placed upon the plaintiff in this case, Mr. Morris, are clearly more restrictive and severe.”

“Party elections can have as much impact as general elections on the formulation of public policy and the course of history,” Finizio wrote in his legal brief.

Attorneys for Giesing argue that Morris, who had received notice from the state indicating he would not be able to participate in Democratic Party activities, should have known he was not eligible to collect signatures. They have called his actions a “purposeful misrepresentation,” and that under state law what he did was illegal.

Attorney Victoria S. Mueller, who represents Giesing on behalf of the city, additionally argued that the people who signed the petition “had their chance,” to participate in the democratic process during the Jan. 12 Democratic Town Committee caucus.

She said that in the federal case cited by Finizio that the Libertarians had no other way onto the ballot other than a petition.

Finizio argued that Morris had collected the signatures in “good faith,” belief he was a registered Democrat. He said Giesing had signed his petition sheet after a preliminary check of Morris’ party affiliation.

“His good faith does not excuse ignorance of the law,” Mueller said of Morris. “The plaintiff is asking the registrar of voters to ignore state law.”

She said the waiting period set by state law was established to avoid people jumping in and out of parties.

Attorney Thomas Londregan, who also represents Giesing, said if any person, regardless of political party, could circulate a petition for any party, it would lead to “chaos in the election process.”

g.smith@theday.com

Twitter: @SmittyDay