In re Gray-Sadler 736 A.2d 104 753 A.2d 1101 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 164 N.J. 468, 753 A.2d 1101 (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) (Cite as: 164 N.J. 468, 753 A.2d 1101) voter's wish and preserve franchise." Id. at 301, Supreme Court ofthe Connecticut. 323 A.2d 521. Steven BORTNER v. We observe, theWOODBRIDGE case before us, et that TOWNinOF al.this was a small election in aNo. small borough with only seven 16114. offices to be filled. Like Harry Wright, the candidate for officeArgued in In June re Fifteen Voters, petitioners 11, 1999. campaigned Decided vigorously for17, write-in Aug. 1999. votes and sent publicity mailings to all of the registered voters in Unsuccessful candidate the borough. write-in Petitioners **1107 for also elementary campaigned board of education brought action against retogether in opposition to the incumbent town, candidates gistrars of voters, and successful candidates, chaland made it quite clear that they were running as a lenging election team. results based voting mayor/council Cf. id.onatalleged 298, 323 A.2dma521 chine malfunctions. The of Superior Judicial (noting joint campaign write-inCourt, candidate and District of New Haven, Pittman, J., ordered new other candidates). On the paper rolls, many of the election. Defendants The Supreme voided votes were appealed. cast in groups of three,Court, but on Borden, J., held that:or(1)just trialbelow court abused its dislines just above the designated cretion to reasonable open evidence to consider spaces.in refusing The only conclusion to be election records offered by defendants, and (2) newof drawn from those groupings is that the intention election waswho not warranted. the voters cast those votes was to elect GraySadler for mayor, and Sturgis and Geiger for borReversed and remanded with direction. ough council. Berdon, J., concurred and filed opinion. *478 The voters who used stickers had taken the trouble to bring West them Headnotes to the voting booth and to attempt to affix them in [1] Elections 8.1 the proper place. It defies common sense to imagine 144k8.1 Most Cited Cases that those voters entered the voting machines with isany intent other than Purpose of election statutes to ensure the true andto elect the candidates named on the stickers to the ofmost accurate count possible of votes for candidates fices for which they were running. To disregard in the election. those votes would run counter to the purpose of our inquiry--to for the real intention of the voter [2] Electionssearch227(8) "no matter how crudely it is expressed, provided 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases only, individual of course,ballot that there is a reasonable When is questioned, no voterexpresis to of that intent the ballot." Id. at 300,and 323 besion disfranchised on on a doubtful construction, A.2d 521. statutes tending to limit exercise of ballot should be liberally construed in his or her favor. Recognizing the voters' intent, we must ask why write-in votes were placed on the wrong lines or not [3] Elections 298(1) cast in the Most first place. The answer to that question 144k298(1) Cited Cases should help to determine whetherresponsibility the "rejected" Election laws us generally vest primary voters had their votes invalidated as a of their for ascertaining intent and will of votersresult on election own errors or astoacourt's result of election officials' officials, subject appropriate scope of nonrecompliance with statutory requirements. See, e.g., Kirk v. French, 324 N.J.Super. 548, 554, 736 A.2d 546 (Law Div.1998) (distinguishing extrinsic cause Page 1 Page 6 view when officials' determination is challenged in rejection from voter's refusal to comply with a of judicial proceeding. simple, reasonable, and normal requirement de[4] Elections 227(1) voting). In fact, the record signed to assure honest 144k227(1) Cited Cases with N.J.S.A. 19:50-3, illustrates aMost failure to comply No losing candidate is entitled theinstruct electoral equi-on which directs election officialstoto voters valent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot somethe proper use of voting machines. The instructions times awarded to a"carefully golfer indrawn nontournament play should have been so as to fully adwhen shot wasproper poorlyprocedure played. he [or she] vise preceding the voter as to the is to follow." In re Sweetwood, supra, 91 N.J.Super. [5] Elections 298(3) at 500, 221 A.2d 543. Indeed, the statute requires 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases that a mechanical model be provided, if practicable, (Formerly 144k227(1)) to illustrate how to operate the actual machine and To secure judicial order for new municipal election, to afford voters an opportunity to practice on the challenger is not required to establish that, but for model. N.J.S.A. 19:50-3; see also N.J.S.A. irregularities that he has established as a factual 19:48-1(l ) (requiring mechanical model). It also matter, he would have prevailed in election; inrequires that "[t]he voter's attention ... be called to stead, court must be persuaded that (1) there were [a] diagram of the face of the machine so that the substantial errors in rulings of election official or voter can become familiar with the location of the officials, or substantial mistakes in count of votes, questions and the names of the officers and candidand (2) as a result of those errors or mistakes, reliates." N.J.S.A. 19:50-3. ability of result of election, as determined by election officials, is seriously in doubt. C.G.S.A. was § During the Chesilhurst election, no information 9-328. provided outside the voting booths explaining how properly to cast write-in *479 votes. Voters seeing [6] Elections 305(2) conflicting and incomplete instructions for the first 144k305(2) Most Cited Cases time on entering the booths were understandably Although underlying facts are to be established by a confused, and their confusion is attributable to depreponderance of evidence and are subject on apfects outside of their control. The testimony at the peal to the clearly erroneous standard, ultimate dehearing indicated that voters who made a sincere termination of whether, based on underlying facts, a effort to cast a write-in vote were thwarted by the new municipal election is called for, that is, whethlimited and deficient instructions provided inside er there were substantial violations of statute authe booths. For example, one voter, Bernadette thorizing court to order new election that render reFreeman, testified that she wished to cast write-in liability of result of election seriously in doubt, is a votes for Gray-Sadler, Sturgis, and Geiger, but folmixed question of fact and law that is subject to lowed the personal choice "warning" and stepped plenary review on appeal. C.G.S.A. § 9-328; Pracout of the booth to ask an election official for intice Book 1998, § 60-5. structions. When she spoke with an official, the official entered 181(1) the voting machine and pulled the [7] Statutes lever to enter Ms. Freeman's 361k181(1) Most Cited Cases votes before she was finished voting. [FN2] Even if she had been allowed to re-enter [7] Statutes 188the booth and continue voting, Ms. Freeman wouldCases not have found an adequate ex361k188 Most Cited planation of the personal choice procedures in the polling place. 259 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.