The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 736 A.2d 104 736 104 250A.2d Conn. 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) Court of language Connecticut. the meaningSupreme of the statutory as applied to the facts of this Steven case, BORTNER including the question of v. does apply. In seekwhether the language actually TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE al. to the ing to determine that meaning, we et look No. 16114. words of the statute itself, to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the Argued 11, 1999. legislative policy it wasJune designed to implement, and Decided Aug. 17, 1999. to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general Unsuccessful write-in candidate for elementary subject matter. *259 ... Id.; Carpenteri-Waddington, board of education brought action against town, reInc. v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 231 gistrars of voters, and successful candidates, chalConn. 355, 362, 650 A.2d 147 (1994); United Illulenging election results based on alleged voting maminating Co. v. Groppo, 220 Conn. 749, 755-56, chine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial 601 A.2d 1005 (1992)." (Internal quotation marks District of New Haven, Pittman, J., ordered new omitted.) United Illuminating Co. v. New Haven, election. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, 240 Conn. 422, 431-32, 692 A.2d 742 (1997). Borden, J., held that: (1) trial court abused its discretion in asrefusing to opendoevidence to consider We begin, we ordinarily in interpreting statelection records offered by defendants, and new utes, with the statutory language. Section(2) 9-328 election in was not warranted. provides relevant part: "Such judge shall, on the day fixed for such hearing [on the plaintiff's comReversed and remanded with direction. plaint] and without unnecessary delay, proceed to hear the parties. If sufficient is shown, he Berdon, J., concurred and filedreason opinion. may order any voting machines to be unlocked or any ballot boxes toWest be opened and a recount of the Headnotes votes cast, including8.1 absentee ballots, to be made. [1] Elections Such judge shall thereupon, 144k8.1 Most Cited Cases if he finds any error in the rulingsofofelection the election official or any the mistake in Purpose statutes is to ensure true and the count of thecount votes,possible certify of thevotes resultforofcandidates his findmost accurate ing or decision in the election. to the Secretary of the State before the tenth day succeeding the conclusion of the hear[2] Elections ing. Such judge 227(8) may order a new election or 144k227(8) Cited Cases primary or a Most change in the existing election schedWhen individual ballot is questioned, no voter lanis to ule. ..." (Emphasis added.) The italicized be disfranchised on a doubtful construction, and guage makes clear that, as a predicate for the orderstatutes tending to limit exercise of ballot be ing of a new election under § 9-328, there should must be liberally construed in his or her favor. either (1) an error or errors "in the rulings of" an election official, or (2) a "mistake in the count of [3] Elections 298(1) the votes." [FN18] See also Scheyd v. Bezrucik, 144k298(1) Most Cited Cases supra, 205 Conn. at 503, 535 A.2d 793; Wrinn v. Election laws generally vest primary responsibility Dunleavy, 186 Conn. 125, 134 n. 10, 440 A.2d 261 for ascertaining intent and will of voters on election (1982). That language does not make clear, officials, subject to court's appropriate scope of rehowever, what standard must be met in order for the court to order a new election. Indeed, it does not state, either directly or by implication, how sig- Page 1 Page 13 view when officials' determination is challenged in a judicial nificant theproceeding. errors in the rulings or the mistakes in the count must be, and how likely it *260 was that [4]errors Elections 227(1) the or mistakes affected the result of the elec144k227(1) Most Cited Cases tion. No losing candidate is entitled to the electoral equivalent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot FN18. We discuss in greater detail in someparts times awarded to of a golfer in nontournament IV and V this opinion, whether, in play the when preceding shot was played. present case, therepoorly was either an erroneous ruling of an election official or a mistake [5] Elections in the count298(3) of the votes. 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases The (Formerly genealogy 144k227(1)) and legislative history of the statute, To secureoffer judicial order for however, guidance on new this municipal question. election, Until challenger is not to establish but for 1978, § 9-328 did required not authorize a judgethat, to order a irregularities has established as to a factual new election. that See he General Statutes (Rev. 1977) wouldIn have election;enin§matter, 9-328. he [FN19] 1978,prevailed *261 the in legislature stead,**115 court No. must78-125 be persuaded that (1) thereActs. were acted of the 1978 Public substantial rulings of election Section 9 oferrors PublicinAct 78-125 amendedofficial Generalor officials,(Rev. or substantial in count of other votes, Statutes to 1977) mistakes § 9-328 by, among and (2)adding as a result of those "Such errors judge or mistakes, relithings, the language: may order of resultorofprimary election, determined elecaability new election or as a change in thebyexisttionelection officials, is seriously doubt. C.G.S.A. ing schedule...." The in legislative history re-§ 9-328. this amendment, however, is unilluminatgarding ing. [FN20] [6] Elections 305(2) 144k305(2) Most Cited Cases FN19. General Statutes (Rev. to 1977) § Although underlying facts"Any are toperson be established 9-328 provides: claimingbytoa preponderance of evidence subject office, on aphave been elected toand any are municipal peal to or thenominated clearly erroneous standard, ultimate at a primary to the office deof termination of whether, basedbut on underlying justice of the peace, not to havefacts, beena new municipal is called for, that is,orwhethdeclaredelection so elected or nominated, any er therecandidate were substantial violations of statute for any such office claiming auto thorizing court to order new election render rehave been aggrieved by any that ruling of the liabilitymoderator of result ofatelection seriously in doubt, is a an election for any such ofmixed question fact and thatofisthe subject fice or a of primary for law justice peace,to plenary or review on appeal. C.G.S.A. § 9-328; Pracany such candidate claiming that there tice Book has1998, been§ a60-5. mistake in the count of votes cast for any such office at any such elec[7] Statutes 181(1) may, within ten days after tion or primary, 361k181(1) Most the date ofCited the Cases election or primary, bring his complaint to any judge of the superior [7] Statutes 188 court, in which he shall set out the claimed 361k188 Most Cited Cases errors of the moderator or the claimed errors in the count. Such judge shall forthwith order a hearing to be had upon such complaint, upon a day not more than five 182 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.