The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 736 A.2d 104 736 250A.2d Conn.104 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d Law Rep. 1019 (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241,104, 736 137 A.2dEd. 104) (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) Supreme Court of Connecticut. erly to record write-in votes for unsuccessful canStevenboard BORTNER didate for elementary of education did not v. mistakes in count of justify grant of new election; OF WOODBRIDGE al. vote wereTOWN not substantial, and, even ifetsubstantial, No. 16114. evidence fell short of establishing that those mistakes rendered reliability of result of election, as reArgued June 11,seriously 1999. ported by election officials, in doubt. Decided Aug. 17, 1999. C.G.S.A. § 9-328. **105 *243 William C. Longa, Woodbridge, and Unsuccessful write-in candidate for elementary Donald W. Celotto, Jr., New Haven, for the appelboard of education brought action against town, relants (defendants). gistrars of voters, and successful candidates, challenging election L. results allegedwith voting ma**106 Barbara Cox,based NewonHaven, whom chine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial was William F. Gallagher, Syracuse, NY, for the District (plaintiff). of New Haven, Pittman, J., ordered new appellee election. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, Borden,CALLAHAN, J., held that: (1) abused its disBefore C.J.,trial andcourt BORDEN, BERcretionNORCOTT in refusing open JJ. evidence to consider DON, andtoKATZ, election records offered by defendants, and (2) new BORDEN, election wasJ. not warranted. This appealand concerns a contested municipal election Reversed remanded with direction. for the elementary board of education for the town J., concurred ofBerdon, Woodbridge. The and trialfiled courtopinion. rendered a judgment ordering a new election to be held, and we exWest Headnotes pedited the defendants' [FN1] appeal. Following [1] Elections 8.1 the filing *244 of simultaneous briefs and oral ar144k8.1 Most Cited Cases gument before this court, we announced the dePurpose election is tobench ensureontheJune true 11, and cision of ofthis court statutes from the most accurate count possible of votes for candidates 1999, reversing the judgment of the trial court and in the election. ordering that the results of the election were to stand, with a written opinion to be filed in due [2] Elections 227(8) course. [FN2] Hence, this opinion. 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases When individual is questioned, votercourt is to FN1. Theballot defendants in thenotrial be disfranchised on a doubtful construction, and were: the town of Woodbridge; the four statutes successful tending to limit exerciseinofthe ballot should in be candidates election liberallyquestion, construednamely, in his orBonna her favor. M. Greene, James M. Carolan, Eleanor Sanders Sheehy and [3] Elections 298(1) Marianne Vahey; Mary Lou Winnick, the 144k298(1) Most Cited Cases head moderator of the election; Stephanie Election laws generally vest primary responsibility Ciarleglio, the town clerk of Woodbridge; for ascertaining intent and will of voters on election Pamela Blessinger, the Democratic regisofficials, subject to court's appropriate scope of retrar of voters of Woodbridge; and L. Christine Laydon, the Republican registrar of voters of Woodbridge. All of the de- Page 1 Page 3 view when officials' determination is challenged in a judicial proceeding. fendants, with the exception of Vahey, have appealed. [4] Elections 227(1) 144k227(1) Casesof the this court anFN2.Most TheCited decision No losing candidate is entitled to the electoral nounced from the bench was as equifolvalent oflows: a "mulligan," which is free shot some"The judgment of athe trial court is times awarded golfer in nontournament reversed.to a The results of the electionplay of when preceding shot was poorly May 3, 1999, stand, andplayed. a written opinion will follow shortly." [5] Elections 298(3) 144k298(3) Most Cited The principal issue in Cases this appeal involves the (Formerly standard to be144k227(1)) applied under General Statutes § To secure judicial ordera for new municipal 9-328 [FN3] for *245 trial court to orderelection, a new challengerThe is not required**107 to establish for election. defendants appeal that, [FN4]but from irregularities that has established a factual the judgment of thehe trial court ordering as a new elecmatter, he wouldto have prevailed of in the election; intion, in response the complaint plaintiff, stead, court must persuaded that (1) there were Steven Bortner, thebesole unsuccessful candidate in substantial rulings of election or the election.errors [FN5]inThe defendants claimofficial that the officials, substantial(1)mistakes in one count trial court or improperly: found that of of thevotes, votandmachines (2) as a result of those errors mistakes, reliing was out of paper fororwrite-in voting ability aofsignificant result of election, determined during part of theasvoting hours;by (2)elecretion officials, seriouslyafter in doubt. C.G.S.A. fused to open theisevidence, its decision, to ad-§ 9-328. mit certain election records regarding that machine; (3) determined that a new election was justified [6] Elections pursuant to § 9-328;305(2) and (4) ordered a new election 144k305(2) Most Cited Cases *246 would be reat which all of the candidates Although underlying facts are to established quired to run, rather than just thebeplaintiff and by thea preponderance of evidence and are subject on apsuccessful candidate with the next closest number peal to the clearly We erroneous ultimate deof votes to him. reversestandard, the judgment of the termination of whether, based on underlying facts, trial court and remand the case with direction toa new municipal is called for, that is, whethrender judgmentelection for the defendants. er there were substantial violations of statute authorizingFN3. court toGeneral order new Statutes election that§ render re9-328 liability provides: of result of"Any election seriously in doubt, is a elector or candidate claimmixed question of fact law thatbyisany subject ing to have beenand aggrieved rulingto plenary of review on appeal. C.G.S.A. § 9-328; Pracany election official in connection with tice Book § 60-5. an1998, election for any municipal office or a primary for justice of the peace, or any [7] Statutes elector or 181(1) candidate claiming that there has 361k181(1) Cited Cases beenMost a mistake in the count of votes cast for any such office at such election or [7] Statutes 188 primary, or any candidate in such an elec361k188 Most Cited Cases tion or primary claiming that he is aggrieved by a violation of any provision of sections 9-355, 9-357 to 9-361, inclusive, 9-364, 9-364a or 9-365 in the casting of 172 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.