According to people supporting the Holloway Slate last night, Democratic State Central rules were clear and stated the following:
Section 19: Tie vote
A. For Towns of Five-Thousand (5,000) or More Population Under the Last Federal Census
In the event that a vote taken on selection of a party endorsed candidate results in a tie, such tie vote shall be dissolved by the vote of the Chair of the Town Committee, but this provision shall not affect his or her right to cast any vote as a member of the Town Committee in the first place.
The wording of that seems pretty clear. The problem arises though in where that clause is found in the State Central Party Rules. The only spot I could find that wording was in the section entitled:
RULES GOVERNING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN TOWNS NOT HAVING LOCAL PARTY RULES
Read that heading again, "in towns NOT having local party rules". The problem is that Hartford does have local party rules, so the tie-breaking clause would seem to not apply. There were plenty of lawyers in that room last night, but if that is what they were relying on for the win, I'm not sure it applies.
As of this afternoon, Sean Arena has apparently filed a dispute with the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee and according to their party rules it will be handles as follows:
FINAL COMMITTEE TO RESOLVE ENDORSEMENT DISPUTE
A. Any dispute concerning endorsements for any office, or for delegate or for town committee
member or officer, and any dispute concerning the interpretation and effect of party rules and procedures must first be referred to the State Central Committee members in the applicable district for local resolution. In order to expedite any such disputes, State Central members may seek legal opinions from Counsel for State Central. If the parties involved cannot bring about a resolution to their differences within seven business days, then the issue may be referred to the State Party Chairman in writing asking that the issue be resolved through a Dispute Resolution Committee. If the dispute is brought before a Dispute Resolution Committee, the issuing of a previous legal opinion by State Central Counsel concerning the dispute shall not prohibit said Counsel from advising the Dispute Resolution Committee.
B. A Dispute Resolution Committee shall be composed of no less than three (3) nor more than five (5) members of the State Central Committee, appointed by the chairperson thereof, none of whom shall be represent the district or districts concerned. The decision of the committee shall be conclusive and binding upon all parties.
C. The committee shall be appointed no later than five (5) business days after the Democratic Party Chair receives a written request for the resolution of a dispute pursuant to this article. The committee shall set a time and place for a hearing of said dispute within five (5) business days of its appointment. The parties to the dispute shall receive notice at least seven (7) business days prior to the hearing unless exigent circumstances warrant less notice. The Committee shall issue its decision within three (3) days of the close of the hearing, and a written copy of such decision shall be filed with the State Central Committee, and provided to each party to the dispute. However, when exigent circumstances arise, the State Chairman shall have the authority to modify these requirements.
I guess we will have to see where this ends up.
Only in Hartford.
TO READ THE ENTIRE CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATS PARTY RULES, CLICK HERE