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) Supreme Court of Connecticut. plaintiff alleged further that, as a result of these irSteven BORTNER regularities and malfunctions, and "various ... rulings of election officials, v. there has been a failure to TOWN WOODBRIDGE et al. in the record votes and,OF consequently, a mistake No. 16114. count of the votes cast at [the] election...." The plaintiff also alleged that, "[b]ut for the improper Arguedofficials June 11,and 1999. actions of the elected the irregularities Decided Aug. 17, 1999. which occurred, there is a substantial likelihood that the result of said election would have been difUnsuccessful write-in candidate for elementary ferent." board of education brought action against town, registrars FN11. of voters, successful candidates, Theand plaintiff also made certainchalallenging legations election results basedpurported on allegedfailures voting maregarding "to chine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial conform to hardware standards imposed by District state of New Haven, Pittman, J., ordered regulation, including [§ 9-241-20new of election.the Defendants appealed. Supreme Court, Regulations of The Connecticut State Borden,Agencies]." J., held that:The (1) trial trial court court made abusednoitsfinddiscretion ings in refusing to open evidence to consider or legal conclusions regarding this election claim, recordsand offered by defendants, (2) new the plaintiff has notand pursued it election on was not warranted. appeal. We therefore disregard it. Reversed andofremanded with direction. On the basis these allegations, the trial court held an expedited trial [FN12] on May 19 and 21, Berdon, J., concurred and filed opinion. 1999. At the conclusion of the trial, the court issued an oral memorandum of decision vacating the West Headnotes results of the election, [1] Elections 8.1 and ordering a new election, to144k8.1 be heldMost on June 1999, for all candidates for Cited22, Cases the board in the May 3, 1999iselection. Purpose of election statutes to ensure[FN13] the trueThe and court found "that there were complaints most accurate count possible of votes forthroughout candidates the dayelection. to election officials, not all of which were in the properly recorded and to which not all were attended in an expeditious and appropriate fashion." In [2] Elections 227(8) support of this general 144k227(8) Most Citedfinding, Cases the court made the following "underlying findings."no On voting When individual ballotfactual is questioned, voter is to machine number 143719, the paper for write-in be disfranchised on a doubtful construction, and candidates was not advancing a.m. statutes tending to limit exerciseatof6:50 ballot shouldAlbe though machinein was taken out of service and liberallythat construed his or her favor. replaced at that *252 time, "that issue that early in [3] day Elections 298(1) one candidate more than the affecting certainly 144k298(1) Most Cited Caseswas only one candidothers--in other words, there Election laws generally vest primary ate that depended on paper at that pointresponsibility or that kind forpaper ascertaining andhave will of voters election of [FN14] intent ... should served as on some sort officials, subject to court's appropriate scope of reof notice to the election officials that scrutiny of the mechanics of all of the machines needed to be undertaken throughout the day with some care." Page 1 Page 9 view when officials' determination is challenged in a judicial proceeding. FN12. Because of the expedited nature of the proceedings, the defendants did not file [4] Elections 227(1) an answer to the complaint. 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases No losing candidate is entitled to theclaims electoral FN13. On appeal, the town that,equiif a valent ofnew a "mulligan," which a free shot someelection were to beisrequired, it should times awarded to a golfer nontournament be confined to a inrun-off between play the when preceding was poorly plaintiff shot and Greene, the played. candidate who received the next closest number of votes. [5] Elections 298(3) The plaintiff agrees with this contention. 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases however, who are The other defendants, (Formerly 144k227(1)) represented by separate counsel, claim that To secure judicial election order forwould new municipal election, a run-off not be approprichallenger is not required to establish that, for ate. In view of our conclusion that but a new irregularities that he has established as a factual election is not warranted, we need not matter, reach he would have prevailed in election; inthis issue. stead, court must be persuaded that (1) there were substantial errors rulings of official or FN14. Theinevidence waselection undisputed that, officials,inoraddition substantial mistakes in count of votes, to the plaintiff, there was one and (2) other as a result of those errorswho or mistakes, reliwrite-in candidate, was competability of election, by elecingresult for aofposition onasthedetermined regional board of tion officials, is seriously C.G.S.A.we§ education. In viewinof doubt. this evidence, 9-328. regard the statement of the trial court as referring only to the candidates for the ele[6] Elections 305(2) mentary board of education. 144k305(2) Most Cited Cases Although underlying factsthat are voting to be established by a The trial court also found machine numpreponderance of evidence and are subject on apber 150231 had a significant **111 problem peal to the the clearly standard, throughout day,erroneous in that there wereultimate reports deto termination of whether, basedthat on underlying election officials concerning machine atfacts, 1:40a new municipal election is called thatp.m. is, whethp.m., 2:50 p.m. and 3 p.m., and thefor, 1:40 report er there were substantial violations of statute auinvolved a perceived inability to cast a write-in vote thorizing court to The ordercourt new further electionfound that render refor the plaintiff. that this liability of resultcontinued of election doubt, is a machine "never to seriously function in adequately," mixed and law is subject and thatquestion it was of notfact checked at 3that p.m., althoughto plenary on appeal. C.G.S.A. § 9-328; there wasreview a complaint regarding it at that time. Practice Book 1998, § 60-5. The trial court also found that voting machine num[7] 106949 Statuteshad a 181(1) ber paper jam at 4:45 p.m., when it 361k181(1) Cited Cases was taken outMost of service. The court noted that "the only candidate that depended upon paper of this [7] Statutes 188 kind was the write-in candidate," namely, the 361k188 Most Cited Cases plaintiff. See footnote 5 of this opinion. The trial court found further that, at 6:30 p.m., voting machine number 107017 had no paper and was 178 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.