Kibbe v. Town of Milton 736 A.2d 104 700Conn. A.2d 241, 1224736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 250 142 N.H. 288, 700 A.2d (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 1224 736 A.2d 104) (Cite as: 700 A.2d 1224) Supreme Court of Connecticut. not be applied to disenfranchise voters because of Steven BORTNER technical irregularities. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 11. v. [10] Elections 186(1) TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE et al. 144k186(1) Most Cited Cases No. 16114. [10] ElectionsArgued227(8) June 11, 1999. 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases Decided Aug. 17, 1999. Application of doctrine that statutes regulating form Unsuccessful write-in candidate for to elementary of ballots or votes should not be used disenfranboard education brought action against town, re-is chise ofvoters because of technical irregularities gistrars andinsuccessful candidates, chal-is limited of to voters, situations which defect or deviation lenging results based minor. election Const. Pt. 1, Art. 11. on alleged voting machine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial [11] Towns 28 District of New Haven, Pittman, J., ordered new 381k28 Most Cited Cases election. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, Voters' J., useheld of stickers to trial cast write-in votesits in distown Borden, that: (1) court abused election was neither minor deviation nor technical cretion in refusing to open evidence to consider irregularity under statute election records offered by prohibiting defendants, attachment and (2) newof stickers to ballots, and thus did not substantially election was not warranted. comply with statute; accordingly, doctrine that statReversed and remanded direction. utes regulating form ofwith ballots or votes should not be used to disenfranchise voters because of technicBerdon, J., concurred opinion. Const. Pt. 1, al irregularities couldand notfiled be applied. Art. 11; RSA 659:65, subd. 2(b). West Headnotes [1] Elections [12] Elections 8.1227(8) 144k8.1 MostMost CitedCited CasesCases 144k227(8) Purpose of election statutes to ensure the true Even when voters' intent isisclear, if means theyand emmost accurate count possible of votes for candidates ployed to indicate their vote does not substantially incomply the election. with applicable statute, their attempt to vote is failure. [2] Elections 227(8) 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases [13] Elections 186(1) When individual ballot is questioned, no voter is to 144k186(1) Most Cited Cases beStatute disfranchised on a doubtful construction, providing that sticker votes "shall notandbe statutes tending to limit exercise of of ballot should be tabulated" is reasonable exercise legislative auliberally construed in his or her favor. thority; thus, applying statute to invalidate ballots of voters who used stickers to cast write-in votes in [3] Elections 298(1) town election did not 144k298(1) Most Cited Cases impermissibly disenfranchise those voters. Const. Election laws generally vest primary responsibility Pt. 1, Art. 11; RSA 659:65, subd. 2(b). for ascertaining intent and will of voters on election officials, subject to court's appropriate scope of re[14] Elections 5 144k5 Most Cited Cases Legislature is entitled to regulate time, place, and Page 1 Page 2 view when officials' determination is challenged in a manner judicial proceeding. of elections within state, and Supreme Court will enforce such regulations when they are [4] ElectionsConst.227(1) reasonable. Pt. 1, Art. 11. 144k227(1) Most Cited *1225 McKittrick LawCases Offices, North Hampton (J. No losingMcKittrick, candidate ison entitled to theand electoral equiJoseph the brief orally), for valent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot someplaintiff. times awarded to a golfer in nontournament play when preceding shot P.A., was poorly McNeill & Taylor, Doverplayed. (Lynne M. Dennis, on the brief, and Malcolm R. McNeill, Jr., on the [5] Elections brief and orally), 298(3) for defendants. 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases (Formerly 144k227(1)) BROCK, Chief Justice. To secure judicial order for new municipal election, The Superior (Fitzgerald, J.) ruled thatfor the challenger is notCourt required to establish that, but use of stickers bearing a particular candidate's name irregularities that he has established as a factual as write-in votes inhave a town electionindid not invalidmatter, he would prevailed election; inate the election of that candidate because the "clear stead, court must be persuaded that (1) there were intent of the voters" shouldofprevail over a statute substantial errors in rulings election official or prohibiting the attachment of stickers to of ballots. officials, or substantial mistakes in count votes, See(2) RSA (1996). plaintiff, reliMary and as 659:65, a result II(b) of those errorsThe or mistakes, G. Kibbe, an unsuccessful candidate in the election, ability of result of election, as determined by elecappeals this ruling. We reverse and remand. tion officials, is seriously in doubt. C.G.S.A. § 9-328. During a town election in the defendant Town of Milton (town) in 305(2) March 1996, the plaintiff ran for [6] Elections the position of selectman. 144k305(2) Most Cited CasesShe and one other candidate, "Chip" Gehres, two candidAlthough underlying factswere are tothe be only established by a ates for that position whoseand names the preponderance of evidence are appeared subject ononapprinted ballot. Just before the election, a third canpeal to the clearly erroneous standard, ultimate dedidate, Joan entered the racefacts, by statermination of Tasker whether,Ball, based on underlying a ging a write-in campaign. On election day, Ball disnew municipal election is called for, that is, whethstickers to votersviolations at the polls. Printedauon ertributed there were substantial of statute the stickers was "Joan Tasker Ball" with an "X" thorizing court to order new election that render re-to the rightofofresult the name to indicate a voteinfor Ball.isThe liability of election seriously doubt, a partiesquestion agree that the stickers precisely within mixed of fact and law fit that is subject to the contours blank C.G.S.A. write-in space on the balplenary reviewofontheappeal. § 9-328; Praclot. More than one hundred voters placed stickers tice Book 1998, § 60-5. in the write-in space provided on the ballot for the [7] Statutes 181(1) office of selectman. See RSA 669:23 (1996). 361k181(1) Most Cited Cases At some point during election day, a question was [7] Statutes raised as to the 188 legality of the sticker votes. Fol361k188 lowing Most adviceCited fromCases the town's attorney that the stickers were illegal under RSA 659:65, II(b), the election moderator declared the sticker votes invalid. Accordingly, when the votes for selectman 313 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.