The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 736 A.2d 104 736 104 250A.2d Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d Ed. Law Rep. 1019 (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241,104, 736137 A.2d 104) (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) Supreme Court of Connecticut. mit further evidence to be offered after the close of Steven testimony in the case is BORTNER a matter resting within its v. Conn. 138, 145, 130 discretion. State v. Levy, 103 TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE al. 453, Atl. 96 [1925]; State v. Chapman, 103etConn. No. 16114. 479, 130 Atl. 899 [1925]; King v. Spencer, 115 Conn. 201, 203, 161 Atl. 103 [1932]; State v. Swift, June 11, 125 Conn. 399, Argued 405, 6 A.2d 3591999. [1939]. Hauser v. Decided Aug. 17, 1999. Fairfield, 126 Conn. 240, 242, 10 Atl. (2d) 689 [1940]. In the ordinary situation where a trial court Unsuccessful write-in candidate for elementary feels that, by inadvertence or mistake, there has board of education brought action against town, rebeen a failure to introduce available evidence upon gistrars of voters, and successful candidates, chala material issue in the case of such a nature that in lenging election results based on alleged voting maits absence there is serious danger of a miscarriage chine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial of justice, it may properly permit that evidence to District of New Haven, Pittman, J., ordered new be introduced at any time before the case has been election. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, decided.... State v. Holmquist, 173 Conn. 140, 152, Borden, J., held that: (1) trial court abused its dis376 A.2d 1111, cert. denied, 434 U.S. 906, 98 S.Ct. cretion in refusing to open evidence to consider 306, 54 L.Ed.2d 193 (1977)." (Internal quotation election records offered by defendants, and (2) new marks omitted.) Doe v. Doe, 244 Conn. 403, 421, election was not warranted. 710 A.2d 1297 (1998). The same principles apply toReversed a requestand to remanded offer evidence after a decision has with direction. been rendered. Stocking v. Ives, 156 Conn. 70, 72, 238 A.2d J., 421concurred (1968). and The trial court abused its Berdon, filed opinion. discretion in denying the defendants' motion. West Headnotes First, the documents [1] Elections 8.1 offered by the defendants, which were attached the motion, [FN23] conclus144k8.1 Most Cited to Cases ively demonstrate that it wasis**118 impossible Purpose of election statutes to ensure the true for and voting machine count number 107017 havefor been out of most accurate possible ofto votes candidates paper at least 8:30 a.m.," as the trial court in the"since election. had found. Other evidence in the case established [2] Elections 227(8) that, when the machine was *266 taken out of ser144k227(8) Cases had received 115 vice at 6:30 Most p.m., Cited the plaintiff When individual ballot is questioned, voter is to write-in votes on that machine. Thenodocuments be disfranchised on a doubtful construction, and that the defendants offered were the official tally statutes to limitmachine exercise used of ballot should sheets fortending each voting in the elec-be liberally construed in his or her favor. tion. They constituted the official record, taken from the counting mechanism of each machine, of [3] Elections 298(1) the number of electors who had entered that ma144k298(1) Most Cited Cases chine to vote on an hour-by-hour basis. These docElection laws generally vest primary responsibility uments establish that: as of 8 a.m., 52 electors had for ascertaining intent and will of voters on election entered that machine; as of 9 a.m., 80 electors had officials, subject to court's appropriate scope of reentered that machine; and as of 10 a.m., only 109 electors had entered that machine. Thus, it is simply impossible for this machine to have been Page 1 Page 17 view when officials' determination is challenged in a judicial proceeding. out of paper for the purpose of recording write-in votes at 8:30 a.m., and also to have recorded 115 [4] Elections write-in votes for 227(1) the plaintiff as of 6:30 p.m. 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases [FN24] No losing candidate is entitled to the electoral equivalent of a "mulligan," which a freeinshot FN23. In opposing the is motion the sometrial times awarded a golferdid in not nontournament play court, theto plaintiff contest the auwhen preceding poorlyofplayed. thenticityshot or was accuracy the documents, and has not done so in this appeal. The [5] Elections documents 298(3) on their face demonstrate their 144k298(3) Most CitedWe Cases authenticity. therefore consider them (Formerly 144k227(1)) as authentic and accurate. To secure judicial order for new municipal election, challenger is not to establish that, court's but for FN24. Therequired fatal frailty of the trial irregularities established as ademonfactual findingthat in he thishas regard is further matter, strated he would have prevailed in election; inby a comparison of the total numstead, court be persuaded were ber ofmust write-in votes castthat for(1) thethere plaintiff substantial errors machine in rulings of election official on voting number 107017 and onor officials, substantial mistakes countindicated, of votes, theorother machines. As weinhave and (2) 115 as a electors result of cast thosetheir errors or mistakes, write-in votes relifor ability of of election, as determined electheresult plaintiff on that machine. Thebyrange tion officials, is seriously C.G.S.A. of write-in votes forinthedoubt. plaintiff on the§ 9-328. other machines--excluding voting machine number 143719, which was taken out of [6] Elections 305(2) service early in the voting hours, at 6:50 144k305(2) Most Cited Casesvote cast--was from a a.m., with one such Although underlying facts are to be established by a low of 79 on voting machine number preponderance of evidence and are subject on 106949, which was taken out of service apat peal to 4:45 the clearly erroneous ultimatemadep.m., to a high ofstandard, 137 on voting termination whether, basedand on included underlying facts, chineofnumber 76264, totals of a new municipal election is called for, that is, wheth90, 105, 110, 112, 115 and 123. It is er therewholly were substantial of statute auimprobable,violations therefore, that 115 thorizing court to order new have election render rewrite-in votes would beenthat cast for the liabilityplaintiff of resultbyof8:30 election seriously in doubt, is a.m. on that one machine, a mixed question of fact and law subject and none thereafter, whilethat theisother ma-to plenarychines reviewinonservice appeal.throughout C.G.S.A. most § 9-328; or allPracof tice Book 1998, § 60-5. the day recorded a range of similar totals for the plaintiff. [7] Statutes 181(1) 361k181(1) Most Second, the cautionCited withCases which a court should approach the decision of whether to order a new elec[7] Statutes 188 tion strongly suggests that the trial court should 361k188 Most Cited Cases have entertained the proffered evidence, notwithstanding its lateness. Appropriate judicial respect for the election process requires that, when the two factors of accuracy and speed conflict, it is better 186 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.