BRIDGEPORT — A lawsuit filed in state Superior Court Monday is seeking for a judge to order a Democratic mayoral primary do-over between incumbent Joe Ganim and state Sen. Marilyn Moore.

Prerna Rao, a Trumbull-based attorney, filed a lawsuit alleging cases of “irregularities and illegal conduct” involving the absentee or mail-in ballots that helped Ganim win the close Sept. 10 contest with Moore.

Three plaintiffs were named — Annette Goodridge, Beth Lazar and Vanessa Liles — though it was not immediately clear from the legal documents why they were involved other than they are registered voters.

A source said the Bridgeport Generation Now, Working Families and P.T. Partners advocacy organizations were behind the legal action and spent several days compiling the evidence presented.

Ganim lost to Moore at the polls, 4,721 to 4,337, but won the absentee total 967 to 313. The final vote totals were 5,304 for Ganim and 5,034 for Moore, according to the Secretary of the State.

Absentee ballots are meant for individuals unable to make it to the polls for health or religious reasons or because they will be out of town on election day. But campaigns can be won or lost through elaborate absentee ballot operations to supplement in-person votes, and mail-in votes were a key part of Ganim’s primary campaign strategy.

According to Rao’s lawsuit, “Multiple individuals associated with Mayor Ganim, the endorsed (Democratic) candidates and/or the (Democratic) Town Committee engaged in illegal and/or improper primary election activity concerning absentee ballots.”

Moore, who represents part of Bridgeport, along with Trumbull and Monroe in the legislature, has built a reputation as being independent of the town committee and its long-time chairman, close Ganim friend Mario Testa.

Photo: Christian Abraham / Hearst Connecticut Media

The lawsuit cites 17 examples of voters being provided unsolicited absentee ballots and/or being told how to vote.

Frequently mentioned is City Clerk and former City Councilwoman Lydia Martinez.

“Lydia Martinez .... visited two disabled residents, unsolicited. Although both residents indicated they were not sure they needed absentee ballots, Martinez ... insisted, attempted to tell them whom to vote for, and offered to assist in filling out their ballots,” states the lawsuit.

In another case, Martinez allegedly provided another unsolicited absentee ballot to an elderly resident, and “pointed to Line A — the endorsed candidates — on the ballot (and) also provided a stamp for the ballot.”

Reached Monday night, Martinez said she was unaware of the lawsuit and called the allegations “absolute nonsense.

“I can guarantee you that’s not true,” Martinez said.

But in 2011, Martinez was fined $500 for her involvement assisting a resident of Harborview Towers with an application for an absentee ballot.

A separate investigation conducted and published last week by Hearst Connecticut Media uncovered some findings similar to those in the lawsuit. For example, an unidentified resident of the P.T. Barnum housing complex said she felt pressured into voting for Ganim.

The woman said she had no reason to vote absentee because she could have gone to the polls in person, but a ballot mysteriously came in the mail. Later, a person knocked on her door and offered to help her fill it out, the woman said, adding that the visitor stayed with her as she voted and pointed to the bubble next to Ganim’s name as the one to fill in.

The State Elections Enforcement Commission on Monday launched a probe of the absentee ballots because of Hearst’s reporting, but, based on past cases, that work is likely to take several months.

Now John Rodriguez, the Republican candidate for mayor, is calling for expanded supervision of all absentee votes, saying that requested absentee ballots should not be mailed but “would be given to election officials to deliver to the voter in person.

“It is time to end the corrupt absentee ballot process,” Rodriguez said in a press release put out Tuesday. “We in Bridgeport have been victimized and embarrassed by this practice time and time again ... Election laws need to be changed to allow for universal supervised absentee voting.”

Ganim could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday. But last week, in response to Hearst’s absentee ballot probe, the mayor said he had no personal involvement with mail-in ballots and also sought to deflect the attention to Moore. Ganim noted a person in Moore’s absentee ballot operation previously pleaded guilty to election fraud and was fined $1,400.

“One could wonder if some of these irregularities could be tied to the Moore campaign,” Ganim had said.

There is recent precedent in Bridgeport for a Superior Court judge to overturn elections. Judge Barbara Bellis actually ordered two do-overs of a close 2017 City Council primary in the North End after she concluded there were troubling matters involving absentee ballots.

The city challenged Bellis’ second ruling in state Superior Court and lost.

The Supreme Court Justices’ detailed decision at the time made it clear that they believe “a court should be very cautious before exercising its power to vacate the results of an election” and that Bellis in Bridgeport had good reasons to do so.

Coincidentally, just days before the Sept. 10 primary, Bellis moved to the court in Waterbury where she will take over the complex litigation docket.

Both Generation Now and the Working Families have close links to Moore’s primary bid.

The former bills itself as non-partisan, but some of its founders donated to Moore’s campaign, while another — Vice President Gemeem Davis — took a leave of absence to be Moore’s campaign manager.

The political wing of the Working Families — a third party — endorsed Moore in the primary and has been involved in her state Senate races.

Generation Now ahead of the primary between Ganim and Moore appealed unsuccessfully to Secretary of the State Denise Merrill to provide extra oversight of the mail-in ballots, citing the City Council race that landed before Bellis as a prime example. Merrill at the time responded that she was unable to take any action in part because the election had not been held and there was no evidence of impropriety.

Staff Writers Ken Dixon and Ignacio Laguarda contributed to this report.