The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 736 A.2d 104 736 250A.2d Conn.104 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d Law Rep. 1019 (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241,104, 736 137 A.2dEd. 104) (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) Connecticut. service lessSupreme than oneCourt hour of into the voting day, and Steven there is no evidence thatBORTNER it contributed to any idenv. of the votes for the tifiable mistake in the count TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE et al. plaintiff. Second, two of the three complaints on No. were 16114.found to be unfounthe questioned machine ded, and it was checked twice thereafter and found Argued JuneThird, 11, 1999. to be working properly. one machine was Decided Aug. 17, 1999. not questioned until 4:45 p.m., when it was promptly taken out of service. There is no evidUnsuccessful write-in candidate for elementary ence that, prior to that time, it contributed to any board of education brought action against town, reidentifiable mistake in the count of the votes for the gistrars of voters, and successful candidates, chalplaintiff. Fourth, one machine was taken out of lenging election results based on alleged voting maservice at 6:30 p.m. The only evidence that this machine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial chine contributed to identifiable mistakes in the District of New Haven, Pittman, J., ordered new count of votes for the plaintiff was that it did not reelection. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, cord the votes of three voters, who did not at any Borden, J., held that: (1) trial court abused its distime register complaints with the election officials cretion in refusing to open evidence to consider when those complaints could have been addressed. election records offered by defendants, and (2) new Furthermore, the undisputed evidence regarding all election was not warranted. of the machines in question was that they registered total numbers write-inwith votesdirection. that were consistent Reversed and of remanded with the numbers registered on the machines that were neverJ.,questioned. There no basis, thereBerdon, concurred and filedwas opinion. fore, for an inference that these particular malfuncWest for Headnotes tions were a surrogate other, unidentified mal[1] Elections 8.1 functions of the process of write-in votes for the 144k8.1 Most Cases plaintiff, eitherCited on the machines in question or on Purpose of election statutes is to ensure the trueApand the other machines in use during the election. most accurate count possible of votes for candidates plying our plenary scope of review to this evidence, in the election. therefore, we conclude that it falls short of establishing substantial mistakes in the count of the [2] Elections 227(8) votes in the election. 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases When individual ballot isthat questioned, votertoisre-to *277 We also conclude even if wenowere be disfranchised on a doubtful construction, and gard these mistakes in the count as substantial, the statutes tending to limit exercise of ballot should be evidence falls short of establishing that those misliberally construed in his or her favor. takes rendered the reliability of the result of the election, as reported by the election officials, seri[3] Elections 298(1) ously in doubt. The margin between the plaintiff 144k298(1) Most Cited Cases and Greene was fifty-six votes. Giving the Election laws generally vest primary responsibility plaintiff the full benefit of any mistakes in the for ascertaining intent and will of voters on election count established by the evidence, we cannot conofficials, subject to court's appropriate scope of reclude that those mistakes would have brought the plaintiff's number of votes significantly closer to that of Greene so as to cast doubt on the reliability Page 1 Page 23 view when officials' determination is challenged in a judicial proceeding. of the result of the election. [4] Elections 227(1) and the case is remanded The judgment is reversed 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases with direction to render judgment for the defendNo losing candidate is entitled to the electoral equiants. valent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot someIn this awarded opinion CALLAHAN, and NORCOTT times to a golfer inC.J., nontournament play and KATZ, JJ., concurred. when preceding shot was poorly played. BERDON, J., concurring. [5] Elections 298(3) 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases I agree with my colleagues in the majority that the (Formerly 144k227(1)) trial court should order a new election pursuant to To secure judicial order for new municipal election, General Statutes § 9-328 only when the following challenger is not required to establish that, but for two criteria have been satisfied: (1) the party chalirregularities that he has established as a factual lenging the election has proven that it is more likely matter, he would have prevailed in election; inthan not that "there were substantial **124 violastead, court must be persuaded that (1) there were tions of the requirements of [§ 9-328] ... and (2) as substantial errors in rulings of election official or a result of those violations, the reliability of the resofficials, or substantial mistakes in count of votes, ult of the election is seriously in doubt." I also and (2) as a result of those errors or mistakes, reliagree that the ultimate determination of whether ability of result of election, as determined by electhese criteria have been satisfied "is a mixed question officials, is seriously in doubt. C.G.S.A. § tion of fact and law that is subject to plenary review 9-328. on appeal." Applying this analytic framework to the before us, 305(2) I join my colleagues in the ma[6] facts Elections jority in holding that theCases trial court in the present 144k305(2) Most Cited case improperly ordered a newto election. I write Although underlying facts are be established by a separately for two preponderance of reasons. evidence and are subject on appeal to the clearly erroneous standard, ultimate deFirst, I believe that part I of the majority opinion is termination of whether, based on underlying facts, a dangerously misleading, and I write to set the renew municipal election is called for, that is, whethcord straight. The text of § 9-328 authorizes a trial er there were substantial violations of statute aucourt to order a new election if it "finds any error thorizing court to order new election that render rein the rulings *278 of the election official or any liability of result of election seriously in doubt, is a mistake in the count of the votes...." (Emphasis admixed question of fact and law that is subject to ded.) I fear that the lopsided tone of part I of the plenary review on appeal. C.G.S.A. § 9-328; Pracmajority opinion will intimidate trial courts and detice Book 1998, § 60-5. ter them from vacating elections that do not embody the will of the people. Although the majority [7] Statutes 181(1) is361k181(1) certainly correct to emphasize that "all of the Most Cited Cases electors who voted at [an] officially designated [7] Statutes election ... have a 188 powerful interest in the stability 361k188 Most Cited of that election," theCases voters have an even more powerful interest in the integrity and the accuracy of that election. (Emphasis added.) Pursuant to the legislative mandate contained in § 9-328, it is 192 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.