The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 736 A.2d 104 879 A.2d 1174 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 250 Conn. 379 N.J.Super. 461,Conn. 879 A.2d (Cite as: 250 241,1174 736 A.2d 104) (Cite as: 379 N.J.Super. 461, 879 A.2d 1174) Supreme Court of Connecticut. 228k186 Most Cited Cases Steven BORTNER Objection to a summary judgment motion on the basis v. the resisting party to that it is premature requires TOWN OFspecificity WOODBRIDGE et al. sought, demonstrate with some the discovery No. 16114. and its materiality. Argued June [7] Pretrial Procedure 36.111, 1999. Decided Aug. 17, 1999. 307Ak36.1 Most Cited Cases Unsuccessful candidate for township board of commisUnsuccessful write-in candidatediscovery for elementary sioners was not entitled to additional regardboard of education brought action against town, reing whether elector who wrote in a vote for candidate, gistrars of voters, andhad successful candidates, chalwhich invalidated ballot, also voted electronically lenging election based on had alleged voting mafor candidate, whereresults the machines been cleared, chine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial there was no method to determine if the elector double of New and Haven, Pittman, J., ordered new votedDistrict for candidate, candidate challenged election election. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, under fast track statute that implicitly instituted a sumJ., held court abused dismaryBorden, proceeding thatthat: did (1) nottrial normally warrantitsfullcretion in refusing to open evidence to consider scale discovery. N.J.S.A. 19:29-2. election by defendants, and (2) new **1175 *463records Josephoffered D. Coronato, Toms River, argued election not warranted. the cause for was appellant (Mulvaney, Coronato & Brady, attorneys; Mr. Coronato, on the brief). Reversed and remanded with direction. Judith Andrejko, Deputy Attorney General, argued the Berdon, J., concurred and filed opinion. cause for respondent Ocean County Board of Elections (Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney, Patrick West Headnotes Dealmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. [1] Elections 8.1 Andrejko, on the brief). 144k8.1 Most Cited Cases Purpose of election statutes is to ensure the true and Laura M. Benson argued the cause for respondent most accurate count possible of votes for candidates Ocean County Clerk (Berry, Sahradnik, Kotzas, Riin the election. ordan & Benson, attorneys; Mr. Benson, on the brief). [2] Elections 227(8) Edmund F. Fitterer, Jr., Ship Bottom, argued the cause 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases for respondent Township of Long Beach (Shackleton & When individual ballot is questioned, no voter is to Hazeltine, attorneys; Richard J. Shackleton, on the be disfranchised on a doubtful construction, and brief). statutes tending to limit exercise of ballot should be liberally construed in his orargued her favor. Richard A. Grossman, Brick, the cause for respondent Ralph Bayard (Grossman, Kruttschnitt, [3] Elections 298(1) Heavey & Jacob, attorneys; Mr. Grossman, on the 144k298(1) Most Cited Cases brief). Election laws generally vest primary responsibility forJudges ascertaining intent and willand of voters on election Before STERN, WECKER S.L. REISNER. officials, subject to court's appropriate scope of reThe opinion of the court was delivered by *464 WECKER, J.A.D. Page 1 Page 2 view when officials' determination is challenged in a judicial proceeding. These consolidated appeals arise out of a May 11, 2004 municipal election in the Township of Long Beach, in [4] Elections 227(1) Peter L. Murphy, was an unOcean County. Plaintiff, 144k227(1)candidate Most Cited Cases successful in that election, having lost the poNo losing candidate is entitled the electoral equi- the sition he sought by one vote. IntoA-5899, we affirm valent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot someorder permitting a recheck of the voting machines at the times awarded to a and golfer in nontournament playsumrequest of the State, in A-5900, we affirm the when preceding shot was poorly played. mary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint. [5] Elections 298(3) I. 144k298(3) Most Cited Casesapparent from the record. These are the relevant facts (Formerly 144k227(1)) The ballot contained the names of six candidates for To secure judicial order for new Board municipal election, three positions on the Township of Commissionchallenger is not required to establish that, for apers. The sample ballot shows that six printed but names irregularities that he has established as a factual peared, as well as three spaces for potential write-in matter,The he three wouldincumbents, have prevailed election; Dianne invotes. Peter in L. Murphy, stead, court be persuaded thatran(1)asthere wereEach C. Gove, andmust Joseph H. Mancini, a slate. substantial errors in rulings of election official or the was listed on a separate line under Column D, with officials, or substantial mistakes in count of votes, caption "The Leadership Team You Can Trust" under and (2) as aThe result of challengers those errorswere or mistakes, relieach name. three separately listed. ability of result of election, as determined by elecRalph H. Bayard was listed under Column A with the tion officials, is Choice seriously doubt. C.G.S.A. § A. caption "People's for in a New Voice"; Robert 9-328. was listed under Column B; and William W. Palmer Buckley was listed under Column C with the caption [6] Elections 305(2) "Fair and Equal Treatment for Residents." The fifth 144k305(2) Most Cited Cases column on the ballot was labeled "Personal Choice," Although underlying facts are to be established by a and provided three lines for write-in votes. [FN1] preponderance of evidence and are subject on appeal to the clearly erroneous standard, ultimate deFN1. We use the term "write-in" throughout termination of whether, based on underlying facts, a this opinion, as used in the election statutes, new municipal election is called for, that is, whethe.g., N.J.S.A. 19:53A-5e, -7f, although the er there computer were substantial statute auscreen violations apparentlyofprovides for a thorizing"write-in" court to order new election that render recandidate's name to be entered by liability touching of result of in doubt, a theelection letters seriously of the name on a isvirtual mixed question of fact and law that is subject to keyboard on the screen. plenary review on appeal. C.G.S.A. § 9-328; Practice BookImmediately 1998, § 60-5.upon the close of the polls at 8 **1176 p.m., the 1,134 machine ballots and the thirty-three ab[7] Statutes sentee ballots that181(1) had been received by that time were 361k181(1) Most Cited tallied. At that point, theCases tally for each of the six candidates in the ballot stood as follows: [FN2] [7] Statutes 188 361k188FN2. MostPrintouts Cited Cases from each of the six computer voting machines used in the election, serial numbers 13363 through 13368, display the number of votes cast for each of the six candid- 276 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.