In re Ocean County Com’r of Registration for a Recheck of the Voting Machines for the May 11, 2004 Municipal Election 736 A.2d 104 879 250 A.2dConn. 1174 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 379 (Cite N.J.Super. 461, 879 A.2d 1174A.2d 104) as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 (Cite as: 379 N.J.Super. 461, 879 A.2d 1174) Supreme Courtalso of Connecticut. ates. Each printout shows the number of Steven write-in votes cast BORTNER on the machine, as well as v. typed in) candidate's the write-in (literally, TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE et al. name. No. 16114. Page 1 Page 3 view when officials' determination is challenged in a judicial proceeding. *465 [4] Elections 227(1) 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases No losing candidate is entitled to the electoral equivalent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot someJune 11, 1999. times 672 awarded to a golfer in nontournament play Robert Argued A. Palmer Aug. 17, 1999. when preceding shot was poorly played. DiAnne Decided C. Gove 550 Ralph H. Bayard 518 Unsuccessful write-in candidate for elementary [5] Elections 298(3) Peter L. Murphy 518 boardWilliam of education brought action against town, re144k298(3) Most Cited Cases W. Buckley 484 gistrars of voters, and successful candidates, chal(Formerly 144k227(1)) Joseph H. Mancini 376 lenging election results based on alleged voting maTo secure judicial order for new municipal election, chine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial challenger is not required to establish that, but for District of New Haven, ordered new irregularities he has established as a factual A total of five write-in votes Pittman, also had J., been cast: three ditional votesthat for any candidate were tallied, Bayard reelection. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, matter, he would have prevailed in election; in- one. for Tice Ryan, one for Jeff Seddon, and one for Peter L. ceived two additional votes and Murphy received Borden, held that: court was abused its disstead, courtfor must (1) names there were Murphy. TheJ.,write-in vote(1) fortrial Murphy rejected on The totals the be six persuaded candidatesthat whose appeared cretion refusing to open evidence to appeared consider substantial rulings of election official or the basis of in N.J.S.A. 19:49-5 because his name on the balloterrors were in recertified as follows: records offered by defendants, and (2)[FN3] new officials, or substantial mistakes in count of votes, as aelection candidate on the printed machine ballot. The ofelection laws or were amended wascounting not warranted. and (2) asFN4. a result those errors mistakes, reli-by L. Thuselection prior to any of the provisional ballots, 1999, c. 232 to provide for provisional ballots ability of result of election, as determined by elecplaintiff was tied with defendant Ralph Bayard for the Reversed and remanded with direction. to be is castseriously in the case of an unresolved tion officials, in doubt. C.G.S.A. §chalthird Commissioner position. lenge at the polls; the challenged voter may 9-328. Berdon, concurred and filedthe opinion. FN3.J.,We shall address rejection of the cast a paper ballot, which is to be sealed until [6] Elections write-in vote for Murphy in Part VI of this the right 305(2) to vote has been determined. See West Headnotes 144k305(2) Most 19:53C-1 Cited Cases opinion. N.J.S.A. through 20; see also N.J.S.A. [1] Elections 8.1 Although19:12-7(f); underlying facts are to be 19:31-11; established by a N.J.S.A. N.J.S.A. 144k8.1 Most Cited Cases Seven provisional ballots also were cast. [FN4] Six preponderance of evidence 19:48-3.2, -3.13. and are subject on apof election statutesone is towas ensure the true werePurpose subsequently counted; rejected on and the peal to the clearly erroneous standard, ultimate demost accurate count possible of votes for candidates ground that the provisional voter had recently moved to termination of whether, based on underlying facts, a in theTownship election. and was no longer a resident entitled Stafford new municipal election is called for, that is, whethto vote in Long Beach Township. When the six valid er there were substantial violations of statute au[2] Elections 227(8) provisional ballots were counted on May 17, and all adthorizing court to order new election that render re144k227(8) Most Cited Cases liability of result of election seriously in doubt, is a When individual ballot is questioned, no voter is to Robert A. Palmer mixed question of fact 677 and law that is subject to be disfranchised on a doubtful construction, and DiAnne C. Gove 552 plenary review on appeal. C.G.S.A. § 9-328; Pracstatutes tending to limit exercise of ballot should be Ralph H. Bayard tice Book 1998, § 60-5. 520 liberally construed in his or her favor. Peter Murphy 519 [7] Statutes 181(1) William W. Buckley 485 [3] Elections 298(1) 361k181(1) Most Cited Cases Joseph H. Mancini 377 5 144k298(1) Most Cited Cases FN5. Printouts from each of the six computer voting machines, serial numbers Election laws generally vest primary responsibility [7] Statutes 188 13363 through 13368, the number of votes cast for each of the six for ascertaining intent and willdisplay of voters on election 361k188 Most Cited Cases candidates. Each printout also shows officials, subject to court's appropriate scope of re- the number of write-in votes cast on the machine, as well as the name written in (actually typed in on the computer). *466 Bayard, having then received one vote more than Murphy, was promptly sworn in as a Commissioner, 277 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.