DeLauro Challenger Challenges Convention

By Thomas Breen, New Haven Independent

NEW HAVEN, CT — A state Democratic Party panel is weighing a possible redo of U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro’s reelection endorsement after a challenger pressed a complaint of a rigged convention.

“We’re better than this. We’re the better party and we run the state, so we need to do things in accordance with laws and rules and order.”

So argued local civil-rights attorney Alex Taubes Thursday evening as he represented Andrew Rice at a complaint hearing hosted by the Connecticut Democratic Party.

Rice, a 37-year-old democratic socialist and molecular biologist from Milford, is challenging DeLauro, an 83-year-old incumbent seeking a 19th two-year term in office, for the Democratic nomination to represent Connecticut’s Third Congressional District, which includes New Haven.

On Thursday, Rice and Taubes made their case via Zoom to a three-person panel of Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee members for why the party needs to either host another Third District endorsement convention — or place Rice’s name directly on an Aug. 11 primary ballot.

They argued that neither the agenda nor the presumed rules were followed at the May 11 convention in West Haven that saw DeLauro win 294 delegate votes to Rice’s 45 — leaving Rice just six votes shy of qualifying for an August primary election.

Taubes and Rice focused their argument Thursday on “Rule 10” of the 2026 Democratic Party Convention Rules, which states: “At the conclusion of the roll call, the Chair shall provide delegations with a 10-minute period to change their votes, which may be extended at the Chair’s discretion for good cause.”

Taubes and Rice said that the convention’s chair, New Haven Democratic Town Committee Chair Vinnie Mauro, did not provide that 10-minute period for vote changing — thereby depriving delegates of the opportunity to switch their votes from DeLauro to Rice when they saw how close Rice was to clearing the 15-percent threshold needed to force a primary.

Taubes and Rice said that they have already found two delegates who have attested that they would have switched their vote from DeLauro to Rice if they had been given the opportunity after the convention’s initial vote. Another delegate, Anthony Fiore, spoke up at Thursday’s complaint hearing about how he too would have backed Rice — and was surprised to learn that his proxy, who had been selected with assistance from the Hamden Democratic Town Committee, had voted for DeLauro.

If Rice makes the Aug. 11 primary ballot, DeLauro — the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, and one of the most important members of Congress — would face her first Democratic primary election in her three decades representing New Haven in Washington, D.C.

“There were no rules being followed” at the May 11 convention, Taubes contended, including the 10-minute-vote-switching rule. “It was anarchy, not democracy.”

Thursday’s hearing was moderated by Kevin Reynolds, the legal counsel for the Connecticut Democratic Party. The three-person panel charged with deciding whether or not to grant Rice’s request included Sharon Mounds of Rocky Hill, Thomas Gaudett of Bridgeport, and Nicholas Vegilante of Preston. Mauro was present to defend how the convention was run.

The panel did not issue a decision on Thursday. Instead, Reynolds said that the panel will shoot to have a decision within the next three days, “if not sooner.” He acknowledged that “time is of the essence,” given that Rice has only until June 9 to petition his way onto the August primary ballot — if the May 11 convention vote holds.

“You Sound Like The Press Secretary For Saddam Hussein”

Thursday’s hour-and-a-half-long hearing was heated at times, as Taubes ripped into the Connecticut Democratic Party — and Reynolds in particular — for protecting incumbents and opposing contested primaries, even if that means breaking the party’s own rules.

“You’re a paid lobbyist, paid for by big corporations, to shill for incumbents. You’re a bully,” Taubes said to Reynolds as Reynolds accused Taubes of not answering his questions, and Taubes accused Reynolds of interrupting him every time he spoke.

“You sound like the press secretary for Saddam Hussein justifying a 97-percent election,” Taubes said to Reynolds later in the hearing, after Reynolds said that the convention’s candidate-nomination and voting processes “didn’t seem to be unfair” based on what he saw in a video recording of the night’s proceedings.

Taubes also accused Reynolds of “trying to engage in the party’s coverup” by the way he was conducting Thursday’s hearing.

“Attorney, please, can we stick to your case and stop being accusatory?” Mounds told Taubes. “We’re all Democrats. We’re just about getting to the business of this hearing, so stop accusing Kevin of whatever you feel personally and just stick to the facts of this case. My time is valuable.”

“All Vibes, No Rules”

Sparring aside, the complaints raised by Taubes and Rice on Thursday were essentially uncontested by Mauro.

Mauro conceded that he did not provide a 10-minute period for vote changing, as the convention’s proposed rules required. He conceded that he did not appoint a parliamentarian, as the convention’s proposed agenda said. He conceded that he did not call for a vote for the adoption of the rules, as the convention’s proposed agenda said.

“I will point out the obscenities and vulgarity pointed at me [that night] were quite extensive,” Mauro said. Later in the hearing, he said, “the vulgarities being hurled at me from all points of the room were a little distracting to say the least.”

Was there indeed just one round of voting at the May 11 convention? Mounds asked.

“Yes there was,” Mauro said. “It was just two people running,” DeLauro and Rice. DeLauro won a clear majority after the first vote, thereby securing the party’s endorsement, and Rice came up short from the 15-percent threshold needed to make it onto the primary ballot.

Mauro insisted that “there was nothing nefarious” about how he ran the convention, and about his failure to call for the rules to be adopted. “If someone had said, ‘You forgot to do the rules,’ I probably would have said, ‘Oh shit,'” and then called for the rules to be voted on.

Gaudett, one of the three panel members for Thursday’s complaint hearing, zeroed in on how the convention’s proposed rules were never adopted — even though they were distributed to delegates and candidates in advance of the convention.

“Isn’t it true, in the complaint, that those rules were never adopted?” Gaudett asked.

“There have got to be some sort of rules for the convention” or else it was not in compliance with state law, Taubes replied. “If it was all vibes, no rules, for a state party convention,” then that’s a big problem.

“I don’t think it’s all vibes, no rules,” Gaudett said. “They proposed rules because we start with the upper framework of state law, then the normal practice is to adopt specific rules for the convention.” State party rules show that, if a convention does not adopt a specific set of rules, Gaudett continued, then “We defer to Robert’s Rules,” which does not appear to specify a 10-minute period for vote changing.

“The problem with that theory is that the convention also did not follow Robert’s Rules,” Taubes said, in not honoring several of Rice’s supporters’ requests for points of order.

Taubes said that Robert’s Rules “would have allowed” a 10-minute period for vote changing, “because that was the understanding of the rules at the time” — based on the proposed rules distributed to delegates in advance.

“It really was no rules, all vibes that night,” Taubes said. He said that Mauro’s performance as convention chair on May 11 “was as sorry as” Reynolds’ performance running Thursday’s complaint hearing.

Taubes stressed on Thursday that he — and everyone in the Zoom room for the complaint hearing — loves and appreciates Rosa DeLauro.

“This is not about Congresswoman DeLauro,” he said. “This is about the principles on which the Connecticut Democratic Party is founded on.” The principles of democratic participation, of equal access and opportunity, of valuing different and marginalized voices.

Therefore, Taubes said, “We cannot allow this convention to stand in the way that it was run.”

The New Haven Independent is a not-for-profit public-interest daily news site founded in 2005.