Bortner v. Town of Woodbridge 736 A.2d 104 736250 A.2d 104 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 Conn. 250(Cite Conn. A.2d 104, 137 Ed. 104) Law Rep. 1019 as:241, 250736 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) Supreme Court at of Connecticut. absentee ballots such election or Steven BORTNER primary, may bring a complaint to any v. Court for relief therejudge of the Superior TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE et al. from. In any action brought pursuant to the provisionsNo. of 16114. this section, the complainant shall send a copy of the complaint Argued June 1999. by first-class mail, or 11, deliver a copy of the Decided Aug. 17, 1999. complaint by hand, to the State Elections Enforcement Commission. If such comUnsuccessful write-in candidate for elementary plaint is made prior to such election or board of education brought action against town, reprimary, such judge shall proceed expedigistrars of voters, and successful candidates, chaltiously to render judgment on the comlenging election results based on alleged voting maplaint and shall cause notice of the hearing chine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial to be given to the Secretary of the State District of New Haven, Pittman, J., ordered new and the State Elections Enforcement Comelection. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, mission. If such complaint is made subBorden, J., held that: (1) trial court abused its dissequent to such election or primary, it shall cretion in refusing to open evidence to consider be brought within fourteen days of such election records offered by defendants, and (2) new election or primary to any judge of the Suelection was not warranted. perior Court, in which he shall set out the claimed errors of the official, the Reversed and remanded withelection direction. claimed errors in the count or the claimed violations of said Such judge Berdon, J., concurred and sections. filed opinion. shall forthwith order a hearing to be had West Headnotes upon such complaint, upon a day not more [1] Elections than five nor8.1 less than three days from the 144k8.1 Most of Cited making suchCases order, and shall cause noPurpose of election statutes to ensure the true tice of not less than is three nor more thanand most accurate count possible of votes for candidates five days to be given to any candidate or in the candidates election. whose election or nomination may be affected by the decision upon such [2] Elections 227(8) hearing, to such election official, the Sec144k227(8) Most Cited Cases retary of the State, the State Elections EnWhen individual ballot is questioned, no voter is to forcement Commission and to any other be disfranchised on a doubtful construction, and party or parties whom such judge deems statutes tending to limit exercise of ballot should be proper parties thereto, of the time and liberally construed in his or her favor. place for the hearing upon such complaint. Such298(1) judge shall, on the day fixed [3] Elections for such hearing without unnecessary 144k298(1) Most Cited and Cases delay, proceed to hear parties.responsibility If suffiElection laws generally vestthe primary cient reason is shown, any for ascertaining intent and willhe of may votersorder on election voting machines to be unlocked or any balofficials, subject to court's appropriate scope of relot boxes to be opened and a recount of the votes cast, including absentee ballots, to be made. Such judge shall thereupon, if he Page 1 Page 4 view when officials' determination is challenged in a judicial findsproceeding. any error in the rulings of the election official or any mistake in the count of [4] Elections 227(1)the result of his finding the votes, certify 144k227(1) Most to Cited Cases or decision the Secretary of the State beNo losing candidate is entitled to the the electoral equifore the tenth day succeeding concluvalentsion of aof"mulligan," which is a free shot somethe hearing. Such judge may order times aawarded to a golfer in nontournament play new election or primary or a change in when the preceding shot was poorly played. existing election schedule. Such certificate of such judge of his finding or de[5] Elections 298(3) cision shall be final and conclusive upon 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases all questions relating to errors in the ruling (Formerly 144k227(1)) of such election officials, to the correctTo secure judicial order for new municipal election, ness of such count, and, for the purposes of challenger is not required to establish that, but for this section only, such claimed violations, irregularities that he has established as a factual and shall operate to correct the returns of matter, he would have prevailed in election; inthe moderators or presiding officers, so as stead, court must be persuaded that (1) there were to conform to such finding or decision, exsubstantial errors in rulings of election official or cept that this section shall not affect the officials, or substantial mistakes in count of votes, right of appeal to the Supreme Court and it and (2) as a result of those errors or mistakes, relishall not prevent such judge from reserving ability of result of election, as determined by elecsuch questions of law for the advice of the tion officials, is seriously in doubt. C.G.S.A. § Supreme Court as provided in section 9-328. 9-325. Such judge may, if necessary, issue his writ 305(2) of mandamus, requiring the [6] Elections adverse party and Cases those under him to deliv144k305(2) Most Cited er to the complainant thetoappurtenances Although underlying facts are be establishedof by a such office, and shall cause his subject finding on andappreponderance of evidence and are to be entered onstandard, the records of thedepeal todecree the clearly erroneous ultimate Superior Court in the proper judicial dis- a termination of whether, based on underlying facts, trict." new municipal election is called for, that is, whether there were substantial violations of statute auFN4. The defendants purported to appeal thorizing court to order new election that render redirectly to this court pursuant to General liability of result of election seriously in doubt, is a Statutes § 51-199(b)(5), which, insofar as mixed question of fact and law that is subject to it might apply to the present case, provides plenary review on appeal. C.G.S.A. § 9-328; Pracfor a direct appeal to this court in "any tice Book 1998, § 60-5. election ... dispute brought to the Supreme Court pursuant [7] Statutes 181(1)to ... section 9-325...." Technically, however, 361k181(1) Most Cited Casesthis is not an appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 9-325 because such 188 an appeal involves a certifica[7] Statutes tion,Most by the trial court to the Chief Justice 361k188 Cited Cases of this court, of the trial court's findings of fact and rulings of law, followed by a special session of this court, none of which 173 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.