The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 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) rented fromSupreme CamdenCourt County. Those machines of Connecticut. were older models that BORTNER use paper rolls to record Steven write-in votes. v. TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE et al. Among the candidatesNo. for16114. local office were three individuals who ran a spirited write-in campaign-Kati Gray-Sadler for mayor, John Sturgis for counArgued June 11, 1999. cilman, and Edward Geiger, for councilman. Decided Aug. also 17, 1999. *472 The other candidates for those offices, Mayor Unsuccessful write-inJr.,candidate for elementary Arland Poindexter, Councilman Bernard board of education brought action against town, reCongleton, and Councilman Ralph Johnson, were gistrars of voters, and successful candidates, chalincumbents and were the only candidates whose lenging election on results based on alleged ballot voting for manames appeared the voting machine chine and malfunctions. The Superior Judicial mayor borough council. To vote Court, for a write-in District ofa New Pittman,to J.,hold ordered candidate, voter Haven, was required downnew a election. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, lever with one hand, simultaneously slide open a Borden, J., held that: court abused dismetal window next to (1) the trial appropriate officeitswith cretion in refusing to open evidence to consider the other hand, and then insert the name of the deelection recordsinoffered and on (2) the new sired candidate writingbyordefendants, with a sticker election was not warranted. paper revealed in the open window. Reversed remanded with direction. Prior to theand election, voters received sample ballots that depicted the face of the voting machine. In Berdon, J., concurred and filed opinion. addition, petitioners distributed pre-printed stickers bearing **1104 theWest write-in candidates' names, toHeadnotes gether with information about their backgrounds [1] Elections 8.1 and platforms. No information about how to cast a 144k8.1 Most Cited Cases write-in vote was available at the pollingthe place Purpose of election statutes is to ensure truepriand ormost to entering the voting machines. accurate count possible of votes for candidates in the election. Inside the voting machines, the face of the ballot contained the following instruction in minute letter[2] Elections 227(8) ing placed inMost the Cited top left corner: "PERSONAL 144k227(8) Cases CHOICE WARNING! Do not touch personal When individual ballot is questioned, no voter is to choice unless you intend to write in. Ask Election be disfranchised on a doubtful construction, and Judge for instructions before entering machine statutes tending to limit exercise of ballot shouldtobe vote." [FN1] On theinballot, were seven lines liberally construed his or there her favor. for each of the available offices (one for mayor and two for general assembly, county freeholder, [3] each Elections 298(1) and borough Most council) forty-three extra blank 144k298(1) Citedand Cases lines. thegenerally left wallvest of the voting booths, a ElectionOn laws primary responsibility poster provided separate instructions that read: for ascertaining intent and will of voters on election officials, subject to court's appropriate scope of reFN1. Respondents contend that the personal choice warning was only on the sample ballot and not on the face of the machine. Page 1 Page 3 view when officials' determination is challenged in However, the trial court found testimony a judicial proceeding. that the warning was on the face of the ma[4] Elections chine to be 227(1) credible. We have no basis for 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases questioning that finding. No losing candidate is entitled to the electoral equiTo vote a candidatewhich of your choice, valent of for a "mulligan," is apersonal free shot someplace finger of left hand on small lever indictimes awarded to a golfer in nontournament play ated. preceding Pull levershot to right, this will release window when was poorly played. slides. [5] 298(3) slide of the designated PullElections to right the window 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases to cast your vote. office for which you desire (Formerly 144k227(1)) Paper will then be exposed for your write-in vote. To secure order for new municipal You mustjudicial place an X after written name.election, It is challenger is not required for also permissible to attachtoa establish sticker tothat, the but paper irregularities that he has established as a factual with a candidates [sic] name plus the X. matter, would have prevailed in election; by in*473 The he written instructions were accompanied court must be persuaded (1) there a stead, photograph of two hands, onethat pointing to were the substantial errors in rulings of election official or small lever and the other to a metal window. officials, or substantial mistakes in count of votes, The sheet indicated that Poinandinitial (2) aselection a resultreturn of those errors or mistakes, relidexter votes for mayor and by Grayabilityreceived of result 164 of election, as determined elecSadler received 146 votes. in With the addition tion officials, is seriously doubt. C.G.S.A.of § absentee and provisional ballots, Poindexter's total 9-328. rose to 172 and Gray-Sadler's to 154. After a re[6] Elections count of the paper 305(2) rolls, Gray-Sadler's total vote 144k305(2) Most Cited count was decreased fromCases 154 to 152. The return Although underlying facts are to be established by a sheet showed that incumbent Councilmen preponderance of evidence and are subject on apCongleton and Johnson received 166 and 164 votes, peal to the clearly erroneous ultimate derespectively, whereas write-instandard, candidates Sturgis termination of whether, on votes. underlying facts, and Geiger received 123 based and 113 After the a new municipal for, ballots, that is, whethrecount and the election addition isofcalled absentee Sturer there were substantial violations of 134. statute augis's final total was 135 and Geiger's was thorizing court to order new election that render reOn December 3, 1999, petitioners filed aincomplaint liability of result of election seriously doubt, is a challenging the election on theto mixed question of fact results and lawessentially that is subject grounds that the write-in instructions were confusplenary review on appeal. C.G.S.A. § 9-328; Pracing that1998, the voting ticeand Book § 60-5. machines had scraped off certain write-in stickers, a claim not raised before [7] Court. StatutesThe trial 181(1) this court conducted a hearing in 361k181(1) Most Cited Cases which the Borough of Chesilhurst and the Attorney General's Office, on behalf of the Camden County [7] Statutes 188 Board of Elections and the Camden County Super361k188 Most Cited Cases intendent of Elections, defended the results. Six witnesses testified for petitioners and all claimed that they had had difficulty in determining how to cast a write-in vote because the instructions were 256 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.