The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 736 A.2d 104 816 1022 250A.2d Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 149 N.H. 105, A.2d 1022 (Cite as: 250 816 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) (Cite as: 149 N.H. 105, 816 A.2d 1022) Supreme Court Connecticut. the Supreme Court for the ofoffice of County AttorSteven the BORTNER ney." "Even assuming absence of a statutory right of appeal, this courtv.cannot be divested of its TOWN errors OF WOODBRIDGE et abuses, al. power to correct of law and other by No. 16114. writ of certiorari." Taylor v. Ballot Law Comm'n, 118 N.H. 671, 673, 392 A.2d 1203 (1978); see Argued June 11, 1999.76 N.H. 187, Dinsmore v. Mayor and Aldermen, Decided Aug. 189-90, 81 A. 533 (1911). 17, We1999. have adjudicated county election disputes in the past. See Murchie Unsuccessful write-in candidate for elementary v. Clifford, 76 N.H. 99, 100, 79 A. 901 (1911) board of education brought action against town, re(challenge to election results for county solicitor ofgistrars of voters, and successful candidates, chalfice); Stearns v. O'Dowd, 78 N.H. 358, 359, 101 A. lenging election results based on alleged voting ma31 (1917) (challenge to election results for county chine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial sheriff office). Furthermore, the form of the petition District of New Haven, Pittman, J., ordered new to this court is irrelevant to our review of Mcelection. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, Donough's legal claims, because "[t]he superintendBorden, J., held that: (1) trial court abused its dising power of the court over inferior tribunals does cretion in refusing to open evidence to consider not depend upon, and is not limited by, the technicelection records offered by defendants, and (2) new al accuracy of designation of legal forms of action." election was not warranted. Dinsmore, 76 N.H. at 190, 81 A. 533; see also Sheehan Mayor and Aldermen, 74 N.H. 445, 446Reversedv. and remanded with direction. 47, 68 A. 872 (1908). Parties are entitled to "the most convenient procedure for settlement Berdon, J., concurred and filed opinion. of their controversy." Dinsmore, 76 N.H. at 190, 81 A. West Headnotes 533. Therefore, we exercise our original jurisdic[1] Elections 8.1 tion in this case because "the parties desire and the 144k8.1 Most Cited Cases public need requires, a speedy determination of the Purpose of election statutes is to ensure the true and important issues in controversy." *110Monier v. most accurate count possible of votes for candidates Gallen, 122 N.H. 474, 476, 446 A.2d 454 (1982); in the election. see RSA 490:4 (1997). Accordingly, we treat McDonough's appeal as a petition for a writ of certior[2] Elections 227(8) ari. 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases When By individual is questioned, noalso votersettle is to [4][5] grantingballot certiorari review, we be disfranchised on a doubtful construction, and the parties' disagreement about the appropriate statutes tending to limit exerciseapply of ballot should be standard of review we should in this case. liberally construed in his or her favor. Contrary to McDonough's request that we conduct a de novo review of the challenged ballots, voter in[3] Elections 298(1) tent presents a question of fact, not a question of 144k298(1) Most Cited Cases law. See Broderick v. Hunt, 77 N.H. 139, 141, 89 Election laws generally vest primary responsibility A. 302 (1913). In the context of a writ of certiorfor ascertaining intent and will of voters on election ari, we will not conduct a de novo review of the officials, subject to court's appropriate scope of reevidence presented before the administrative tribunal. We will, however, review the BLC decision for legal errors with respect to jurisdiction, Page 1 Page 5 view when officials' determination is challenged in a judicialorproceeding. authority observance of the law, causing it to arrive at a conclusion which could not legally or reas[4] Elections onably be made or 227(1) causing it to act arbitrarily, ca144k227(1) Most Cited Cases priciously or with an unsustainable exercise of disNo losing candidate is entitled electoral equicretion. See Petition of Hoyt, to 143theN.H. 533, 534, valent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot some727 A.2d 1001 (1999); cf. **1027State v. Lambert, timesN.H. awarded a golfer nontournament play 147 295,to 296, 787in A.2d 175 (2001) when preceding shot was poorly played. (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard). [5] Elections 298(3) 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases III. Discussion (Formerly 144k227(1)) To secure judicial order for election, McDonough first argues thatnew the municipal BLC erroneously challenger not required to establish that, but for credited the ischallenged ballots to Coughlin based irregularities that ticket he hasRepublican establishedmarks. as a factual upon the straight He matter, he prevailed in violated election; the incontends thatwould by sohave doing, the BLC stead, court duty must ofbeany persuaded (1) there were fundamental electionthat official, which is errors in of rulings of election official or tosubstantial ascertain the intent the voter on each contested officials,With or substantial mistakes count of votes, ballot. respect to 172 of theinchallenged baland we (2) disagree. as a resultWe of those mistakes, relilots, do noterrors reach or a determination ability of result election, 97 as determined by elecwith respect to theofremaining challenged ballots. tion officials, is seriously in doubt. C.G.S.A. § A. General Legal Principles 9-328. [6] ago we advised: [6] Long Elections 305(2) In resolving election difficulties of this nature, 144k305(2) Most Cited Cases care must be taken that is not decided Although underlying factsthe arematter to be established by a on the basis ofofunwarranted technicalities. preponderance evidence and are subject onThe apgoal must be the ascertainment of the legally expeal to the clearly erroneous standard, ultimate depressed choice of the voters. The object offacts, elec-a termination of whether, based on underlying tion laws is to secure the rights of duly qualified new municipal election is called for, that is, whethto defeat violations them. Asofa statute means auto ervoters, there and werenot substantial the end of ascertaining the popular will, a statthorizing court to order new election that render reutory recount resort tointhe ballots liability of resultisofsimply electiona seriously doubt, is a themselves as the primary mixed question of fact and and law best that evidence is subjectofto the election. plenary review on appeal. C.G.S.A. § 9-328; PracOpinion of1998, the Justices, tice Book § 60-5. 116 N.H. 756, 759, 367 A.2d 209 (1976) (citations and quotations omitted). [7] Statutes "The cardinal rule181(1) for guidance ... in cases of this 361k181(1) Cited Cases nature is thatMost if the intent of the voter can be determined with reasonable certainty from an inspec[7] Statutes tion of the ballot, 188 in light of the generally known 361k188 Casesupon the election, effect conditionsMost *111Cited attendant must be given to that intent." Delahunt v. Johnston, 423 Mass. 731, 671 N.E.2d 1241, 1243 (1996) (quotation omitted). If the voter's intent "cannot 268 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.