The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 736 A.2d 104 736 A.2d 104 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) marks of Representatives Robert F. Frankel and Supreme Court of Connecticut. Martin M. Looney; see footnote 22 of this opinion. Steven BORTNER v. FN21.TOWN SectionOF 3 WOODBRIDGE of Public Act 87-545 et al. added to § 9-328 provisions permitting a canNo. 16114. didate to claim that he was "aggrieved by a violation of any June provision of sections Argued 11, 1999. 9-355, 9-357 to 9-361, inclusive, Decided Aug. 17, 1999. 9-364, 9-364a or 9-365 in the casting of absentee Unsuccessful write-in candidate for elementary ballots at such election or primary...." board of education brought action against town, reFN22. following colloquycandidates, took place chalgistrars of The voters, and successful between Representatives Robert F. Frankel lenging election results based on alleged voting maandmalfunctions. Martin M. Looney during theCourt, legislatchine The Superior Judicial ive debate in the HousePittman, of Representatives: District of New Haven, J., ordered new "[Representative Mr.Supreme Speaker,Court, election. Defendants Frankel]: appealed. The just one, perhaps questions for legisBorden, J., held that: two (1) trial court abused its dislativeinintent. AstoI understand the existing cretion refusing open evidence to consider statutes, which we by aredefendants, about to act election records offered and on (2) new amending, one can use this procedure election was not warranted. where the outcome of an election may be Reversed andand remanded at stake, now wewith are direction. going to provide that any alleged violation of these other Berdon, J., concurred and filed opinion. sections would also be reason to go to court. The operative language ... when West Headnotes under these new areas, the judges may or[1] Elections 8.1 der a Most new election. 144k8.1 Cited Cases "Through you, Mr. Speaker, if the the violaPurpose of election statutes is to ensure true and tion were to be found by the judge, it most accurate count possible of votes for but candidates was not of a substantial nature such that in the election. the election results would change, and I give you an example. Is it our intent [2] will Elections 227(8) to have a judge order a new election in in144k227(8) Most Cited Cases stances such ballot as I is amquestioned, about to no outline, When individual voter is to they are thatconstruction, they may and be where disfranchised on minimal, a doubtful maketending other findings, but would advised statutes to limit exercise of be ballot should be not toconstrued order a new election? liberally in his or her favor. "And let me give you an example. If, for [3] example, Elections an allegation 298(1) under one of these 144k298(1) Cases sections Most was Cited brought that someone had Election laws generally vest responsibility voted three or four times, primary and indeed, it is for aascertaining and will sections. of voters on election violation ofintent one of these And, officials, to acourt's after asubject hearing, judgeappropriate found out scope indeedof rethat was, in his belief, the case, but the outcome of the election wouldn't be affected, Page 1 Page 15 view when officials' determination is challenged in because perhaps the final result was a judicial proceeding. say: 500 votes difference, and the fraud [4] that Elections was found 227(1) involved only three or four 144k227(1) MostUnder Cited Cases difference. those circumstances, I No trust losingthat candidate is entitled to the we are not directing theelectoral judge to equivalent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot someorder a new election. times awarded to Mr. a golfer in nontournament play "Through you, Speaker. when preceding shot J. was poorly played. "[Speaker Irving Stolberg]: Representative Looney. [5] Elections 298(3) "[Representative Looney]: Yes, Mr. 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases Speaker, through you to the Majority (Formerly 144k227(1)) Leader, for purposes of legislative intent. To secure judicial order for new municipal election, The Majority Leader is correct. It is not challenger is not required to establish that, but for the intent of this amendment that a judge irregularities that he has established as a factual would overturn an election or primary unmatter, he would have prevailed in election; inless the violation was major. It would not stead, court must be persuaded that (1) there were be the intent to have the remedy far outsubstantial errors in rulings of election official or strip the events. officials, or substantial mistakes in count of votes, "[Representative Frankel]: Through you, and (2) as a result of those errors or mistakes, reliMr. Speaker, just a follow-up on that. Obability of result of election, as determined by elecviously, we are in areas where there would tion officials, is seriously in doubt. C.G.S.A. § be substantial violations where, perhaps, 9-328. might change the results, and I would asthat if unclear, [6] sume Elections 305(2) but they were substantial, the judge 144k305(2) Most Citedcould Casesorder a new election. Although underlying facts are to be established by a "Through you, Speaker. preponderance of Mr. evidence and are subject on ap"[Speaker Stolberg]: Representative peal to the clearly erroneous standard, ultimate deLooney. of whether, based on underlying facts, a termination Looney]: you, new"[Representative municipal election is called Through for, that is, whethMr. Speaker, to the Majority Leader. Yes, er there were substantial violations of statute authat is court correct. If the violations sub- rethorizing to order new electionwere that render stantial, the judge could order a new elecliability of result of election seriously in doubt, is a tion,question if he believed election so to mixed of factthat andthelaw that iswas subject compromised that was the best ap- Pracplenary review onthat appeal. C.G.S.A. § and 9-328; proved and most equitable remedy. tice Book 1998, § 60-5. "[Representative Frankel]: Thank you, Mr. 30 H.R. Proc., Pt. 30, 1987 [7] Speaker." Statutes 181(1) Sess., pp.Most 11,021-24. 361k181(1) Cited Cases Although this was not the legislature that [7] enacted Statutesthe original 188 provision for a judi361k188 Most Cited Cases cially ordered new election, and although we ordinarily do not regard subsequent legislative debate on the intent of earlier enacted legislation as particularly persuasive 184 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.