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) placed on the wrong Court line due to insufficient and unSupreme of Connecticut. intelligible instructions ignored or counted as Steven were BORTNER votes for offices that the v. candidates were not seeking. They also claim that the inadequate TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE et al. instructions prevented other No. voters from casting any write16114. in votes at all. The gravamen of those claims is 11, 1999. were "rejecthat legal votesArgued cast forJune the petitioners Decided Aug. 17, 1999. ted." See N.J.S.A. 19:29-1(e). Unsuccessful write-in for"rejected" elementary [2][3] Petitioners' readingcandidate of the term is board of education brought action against town, resupported by prior caselaw that defines the term " gistrars of any voters, and successful chal'to include situation in which candidates, qualified voters lenging election alleged voting maare denied accessresults to the based polls.'on " **1106In re 1984 chine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial Maple Shade Gen. Election, 203 N.J.Super. 563, District New Pittman, J., ordered 590, 497 of A.2d 577Haven, (Law 1985) (quoting Maguranew v. election. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Smith, 131 N.J.Super. 395, 399, 330 A.2d 52 Court, (Law Borden, J.,overruled held that: in(1)part trialoncourt abused its disDiv.1974), other grounds, In cretion in refusing to open evidence to consider re Mallon, 232 N.J.Super. 249, 271, 556 A.2d 1271 election records by117 defendants, (2)A.2d new (App.Div.), certif.offered denied, N.J. 166,and 564 election was not warranted. 883 (1989)); accord In re *476 Moffat, 142 N.J.Super. 217, 223, 361 A.2d 74 (App.Div.) Reversed and remanded with direction. (holding that votes "rejected" when partially malfunctioning machine prevented recording of Berdon, J., voting concurred and filed opinion. votes for one candidate), certif. denied, 71 N.J. 527, 366 A.2d 682 (1976). Voters need not be physicWest Headnotes ally barred from voting [1] Elections 8.1 to have their votes rejected, but may instead showCases that, through no fault of their 144k8.1 Most Cited own, theyofwere prohibited specifPurpose election statutesfrom is tovoting ensurefor thea true and icmost candidate bycount somepossible irregularity in the proaccurate of votes forvoting candidates cedures. In re Moffat, supra, 142 N.J.Super. at 223, in the election. 361 A.2d 74. The essential question is whether [2] Elections voters were denied227(8) the opportunity to vote for a 144k227(8) Most choice. Cited Cases candidate of their Ibid. When individual ballot is questioned, no voter is to [4] disfranchised Respondents on admit that many write-in votes be a doubtful construction, and were ignored because they were placed on the statutes tending to limit exercise of ballot should be wrong line. Theyinargue, liberally construed his or however, her favor. that N.J.S.A. 19:49-5 required election officials to reject those [3] Elections 298(1) votes, based on a plain reading of the statute, which 144k298(1) Citedvote, Cases states that if Most a write-in or "irregular ballot," is Election laws generally vest responsibility not "in its appropriate place primary on the [voting] mafor ascertaining intent voters on election chine, ... it shall be voidand andwill not of counted." officials, subject to court's appropriate scope of reAlthough the statute appears straightforward, it must be read in light of the broad purpose of the election laws to prevent disenfranchisement of Page 1 Page 5 view when officials' determination is challenged in qualified In cases involving invalidated a judicial voters. proceeding. write-in votes, our courts have distinguished errors [4] Elections 227(1) from errors caused by a due to extrinsic problems 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases voter's own neglect. In re Hartnett, 163 N.J.Super. No losing candidate is entitled to the electoral equi257, 268, 394 A.2d 871 (App.Div.1978) (holding valent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot somethat vote properly voided where intent was clear but timeswas awarded a golfer in nontournament error withintovoter's control); In re Fifteen play Rewhen preceding poorlyofplayed. gistered Voters shot on was Behalf Flanagan, 129 N.J.Super. 296, 301-02, 323 A.2d 521 (App.Div.) [5] Elections 298(3) (holding that write-in votes bearing only surname 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases should not have been voided where desired candid(Formerly 144k227(1)) ate was obvious and voter sufficiently complied To secure judicial order for new municipal election, with instructions), certif. denied, 65 N.J. 577, 325 challenger is not required to establish that, but for A.2d 711 (1974); In re Klayman, 97 N.J.Super. 295, irregularities that he has established as a factual 304, 235 A.2d 45 (Law Div.1967) (holding that inmatter, he would have prevailed in election; incorrect spelling or absence of middle initial should stead, court must be persuaded that (1) there were not void write-in vote where intent clear and writesubstantial errors in rulings of election official or in space small); but see In re Sweetwood, 91 officials, or substantial mistakes in count of votes, N.J.Super. 496, 499, 221 A.2d 543 (App.Div.1966) and (2) as a result of those errors or mistakes, reli(holding that *477 although ballot did not instruct ability of result of election, as determined by elecvoter to designate office for selected candidate, tion officials, is seriously in doubt. C.G.S.A. § failure to do so invalidated vote). Those cases 9-328. generally adhere to the principle that rigid application of technical rules should not prevent otherwise [6] Elections 305(2) valid write-in votes from being counted. See 144k305(2) Most Cited Cases Riecker v. Hartmann, 130 N.J.Super. 266, 272, 326 Although underlying facts are to be established by a A.2d 101 (Law Div.1974) (stating thatsubject "the technicpreponderance of evidence and are on apalpeal restraints of the election laws" should not restrict to the clearly erroneous standard, ultimate devoters' will). of whether, based on underlying facts, a termination new municipal election is called for, that is, wheth[5] We do not believe that the Legislature intended er there were substantial violations of statute auN.J.S.A. 19:49-5 to be applied in a manner that thorizing court to order new election that render rewould frustrate the free expression of the voters' liability of result of election seriously in doubt, is a will when the incorrect placement of the write-in mixed question of fact and law that is subject to vote is the result of mistakes or problems beyond plenary review on appeal. C.G.S.A. § 9-328; Practhe voters' control. To determine the nature of any tice Book 1998, § 60-5. alleged mistakes or problems and their impact on the we consider [7] voters, Statutes 181(1)extrinsic factors such as the notoriety of the candidates' campaign and the char361k181(1) Most Cited Cases acter of the electorate. See In re Fifteen Voters, supra, 129 N.J.Super. [7] Statutes 188 at 300-01, 323 A.2d 521. Reliable evidence, 361k188extrinsic Most Cited Cases "which, in light of human experience might reasonably be expected to demonstrate intent expressed on the ballot but less than perfectly, should be searched to effectuate the 258 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.