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 defined of Connecticut. only "under narrowly circumstances"; Steven Scheyd v. Bezrucik, 205BORTNER Conn. 495, 496-97, 535 A.2d 793 (1987); and v.for "limited types of OF WOODBRIDGE claims...."TOWN Id., at 502, 535 A.2d 793. et al. No. 16114. *255 Third, § 9-328 requires a court, in determin1999. to arrive at a ing whether to Argued order a June new 11, election, Decided Aug. 17, powerful 1999. sensitive balance among three interests, all of which are integral to our notion of demoUnsuccessful candidateelection for elementary cracy, but whichwrite-in in a challenged may pull board of education brought action against rein different directions. One such interesttown, is that gistrars of voters, and successful candidates, chaleach elector who properly cast his or her vote in the lenging is election based alleged votingCormaelection entitledresults to have thaton vote counted. chine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial respondingly, the candidate for whom that vote District was of New Haven, Pittman,and J., powerful ordered new properly cast has a legitimate inelection. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, terest in having that vote properly recorded in his or Borden, J., held that: (1) trial court abused its disher favor. When an election is challenged on the cretion refusing electors' to open votes evidence consider basis thatinparticular for atoparticular election records offered by defendants, and new candidate were not properly credited to him,(2)these election was pull not warranted. two interests in the direction of ordering a new election. The third such interest, however, is that Reversed and remanded with direction. of the rest of the electorate who voted at a challenged election, and arises fromopinion. the nature of an Berdon, J., concurred and filed election in our democratic society, as we explain in the discussion thatWest follows. That interest ordinarHeadnotes ily pull in the 8.1 direction of letting the election [1]will Elections results stand. 144k8.1 Most Cited Cases Purpose of election statutes is to ensure the true and An election is count essentially--and snapmost accurate possible ofnecessarily--a votes for candidates shot. It is preceded by a particular election camin the election. paign, for a particular period of time, which culminates on a particular date, namely, the officially [2] Elections 227(8) designated day.Cases In that campaign, the 144k227(8)election Most Cited various parties andballot candidates presumably concenWhen individual is questioned, no voter is to trate their resources--financial, political and personbe disfranchised on a doubtful construction, and al--on producing a victory on thatof date. that statutes tending to limit exercise ballotWhen should be date comes, the election the votes of those liberally construed in his records or her favor. electors, and only those electors, who were avail[3] Elections 298(1) able to and took the opportunity to vote--whether 144k298(1) Most Cited Cases by machine lever, write-in or absentee ballot--on Election laws generally vestelectors, primarymoreover, responsibility that particular day. Those orfor ascertaining intent by anda will of voters on election dinarily are motivated complex combination of officials, subject to court's appropriate scope of repersonal and political factors that may result in particular combinations of votes for the various candidates who are running for the various offices. Page 1 Page 11 view when officials' determination is challenged in a judicial proceeding. [4] *256 The snapshot captures, therefore, only the results of the election conducted on the officially [4] Elections designated election227(1) day. It reflects the will of the 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases people as recorded on that particular day, after that No losing candidate is entitled to the electoral equiparticular campaign, and as expressed by the electvalent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot someors who voted on that day. Those results, however, times awarded a golfertheinwill nontournament although in fact to reflecting of the peopleplay as when preceding shot was poorly played. expressed on that day and no other, under our democratic electoral system operate nonetheless to [5] Elections 298(3) vest power in the elected candidates for the dura144k298(3) Most Cited Cases tion of their terms. That is what we mean when we (Formerly 144k227(1)) say that one candidate has been "elected" and anTo secure judicial order for new municipal election, other "defeated." No losing candidate is entitled to challenger is not required to establish that, but for the electoral equivalent of a "mulligan." [FN15] irregularities that he has established as a factual matter, FN15. he would have prevailed in election; inA "mulligan" is "a free shot somestead, court be persuaded (1) there were timesmust awarded a golfer that in nontournament substantial errors in rulings of election or play when the preceding shot official has been officials,poorly or substantial mistakes in count of votes, played." Webster's Third New Inand (2) ternational as a result of those errors or mistakes, reliDictionary (1971). ability of result of election, as determined by election is seriously in doubt. C.G.S.A. **113officials, Moreover, that snapshot can never be du-§ 9-328. plicated. The campaign, the resources available for it, the totality of the electors who voted in it, [6] Elections 305(2) and their motivations, inevitably will be different a 144k305(2) Most Cited Cases second time around. Thus, when a court orders a Although underlying facts are to bea established by a new election, it is really ordering different elecpreponderance of evidence and are subject on aption. It is substituting a different snapshot of the peal to the clearlyfrom erroneous standard, deelectoral process that taken by ultimate the voting termination of whether, based on underlying facts, electorate on the officially designated election day. a new municipal election is called for, that is, whether there were all substantial violations statute auConsequently, of the electors whoofvoted at the thorizing courtdesignated to order new election thatelectors render refirst, officially election--3057 in liability of case--have result of election seriously in in doubt, is a the present a powerful interest the stamixedofquestion of fact and law that is subject bility that election because the ordering of a newto plenary review on appeal. 9-328; Pracand different election wouldC.G.S.A. result in §their election tice disfranchisement. Book 1998, § 60-5. The ordering of a new and day different election in effect disfranchises all of those [7] Statutes 181(1) who voted at the first election because their validly 361k181(1) Most Cited Cases cast votes no longer count, and the second election can never duplicate the complex combination of [7] Statutes 188 conditions under which they cast their ballots. 361k188 Most Cited Cases *257 All of these reasons strongly suggest that, although a court undoubtedly has the power to order a new election pursuant to § 9-328 and should do so 180 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.