Bortner v. Town of Woodbridge 736 A.2d 104 736Conn. A.2d241, 104 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 250 250 Conn. 736241, A.2d736 104, 137104) Ed. Law Rep. 1019 (Cite as: 250241, Conn. A.2d (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) Supreme Court of Connecticut. for the court to be correct on its facts than to be Steven prompt and final in itsBORTNER decision. These documents v. the trial court was incorconclusively establish that TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE et al. rect in at least one of its critical factual findings. No. 16114. *267 Third, there was no special need for speed June and finality inArgued this case at 11, the 1999. time that the evidence Aug. 17, had 1999. was offered.Decided Only six days elapsed since the trial court's decision ordering a new election for Unsuccessful write-in elementary June 22, 1999, nearly candidate one month for away. Furtherboard of education brought action against town, more, there was nothing magical about that datere-for gistrars of voters, and successful candidates, the new election. No critical interests wouldchalhave lenging election results alleged evidence voting ma-rebeen undermined hadbased the on proffered chine malfunctions. Superior Court, Judicial quired some furtherThe delay in the ultimate decision District of New Haven, Pittman, J., new and, consequently, in a postponed ordered new election election. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, date. We consider the merits of this appeal, thereBorden, J., held (1) trial court abused itsvoting disfore, shorn of that: the trial court's finding that cretion in refusing to open evidence to consider machine number 107017 was out of paper for purelection records offered by defendants, new poses of recording write-in votes forand the(2) plaintiff election was a.m. not warranted. since 8:30 Reversed and remanded with IV direction. The defendants also claim that the trial court imBerdon, J., concurred and filed opinion. properly concluded that there had been an erroneous ruling or rulings by an election official or ofWest Headnotes within the 8.1 meaning of § 9-328. We agree. [1]ficials Elections 144k8.1 Most Cited Cases We have not heretofore defined the meaning of "rulPurpose of election statutes is to ensure the true and ings of the election official" as used in § 9-328. most accurate count possible of votes for candidates Moreover, neither § 9-328 nor any of the closely in the election. associated election statutes defines that phrase, nor any of the legislative history of § 9-328 give [2]does Elections 227(8) any indication that it was 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases intended to have some specialized meaning. may presume, therefore, When individual ballot isWe questioned, no voter is to that the legislature intended it to have its ordinary be disfranchised on a doubtful construction, and meaning **119 in the English language, as gleaned statutes tending to limit exercise of ballot should be from theconstrued context of liberally in its hisuse. or her favor. dictionaries 298(1) of the English language constitute [3]The Elections compendiums of the commonly accepted meanings 144k298(1) Most Cited Cases of words, depending on their contexts. Those dicElection laws generally vest primary responsibility offer intent the following meanings fortionaries ascertaining and willconsistent of voters on electionof the word "ruling," when it is used in the context officials, subject to court's appropriate scope of re-of an act of a governmental official. A "ruling," according to Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1971), is "an official or authoritative de- Page 1 Page 18 view when officials' determination is challenged in a cision, judicialdecree, proceeding. or statement ... a decision or rule of a judge or a court ... an *268 interpretation by an [4]administrative Elections agency 227(1)of the law under which it op144k227(1) Most Cited erates applicable to aCases given statement of facts...." No losing candidate is entitled to theDictionary electoral equiSimilarly, The American Heritage of the valent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot someEnglish Language (1969) defines a "ruling" as an times awarded toor a official golfer indecision." nontournament play "authoritative In addition, when preceding shot was poorly played. which may Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed.1990), be considered as a compendium of the accepted us[5] Elections 298(3) ages of words in the law, depending on their con144k298(3) Most Cited Cases texts, defines a "ruling," consistently with the non(Formerly 144k227(1)) legal dictionaries, as "[a] judicial or administrative To secure judicial order for new municipal election, interpretation of a provision of a statute, order, regchallenger is not required to establish that, but for ulation, or ordinance...." irregularities that he has established as a factual matter, he would havethread prevailed in election; in-is [12] The common of these definitions stead, be apersuaded (1) there official were that, court at themust least, ruling of that an election substantial errors in rulings of election official or must involve some act or conduct by the official officials, or substantial mistakes in count of votes, that (1) decides a question presented to the official, and a result of those errors regulation or mistakes, or (2) (2) as interprets some statute, or reliother ability of result of election, as determined by authoritative legal requirement, applicable electo the tion officials, is seriously in doubt. § election process. Given that commonC.G.S.A. thread, and 9-328. given the notion that we should not interpret § 9-328 beyond its narrowly defined circumstances [6] Elections 305(2) and its limited types of claims, we conclude that the 144k305(2) Most Cited Cases phrase "rulings of the election official" as used in § Although underlying facts are to be established by a 9-328 has that meaning. Moreover, there must be preponderance of evidence and are subject on apan "error in the rulings of the election official" in peal to the clearly erroneous standard, ultimate deorder to supply a basis for a new election under § termination of whether, based on underlying facts, a 9-328. (Emphasis added.) To summarize, therenew municipal election is called for, that is, whethfore: as one of the statutory predicates of a judicial er there were substantial violations of statute auorder for a new election under § 9-328, namely, "erthorizing court to order new election that render reror in the rulings of the election official," election liability of result of election seriously in doubt, is a officials must have engaged in conduct that incormixed question of fact and law that is subject to rectly either (1) decided a question presented to plenary review on appeal. C.G.S.A. § 9-328; Practhem applicable to the election process, or (2) intertice Book 1998, § 60-5. preted some statute, regulation or other authoritatlegal statement or requirement applicable to that [7]iveStatutes 181(1) process. Applying that definition, we conclude 361k181(1) Most Cited Cases that the trial court's determination that there were of election officials cannot stand. [7]erroneous Statutesrulings 188 361k188 Most Cited Cases [13] *269 The trial court determined that the errors in the rulings of election officials were "that election officials in a de facto manner ruled throughout 187 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.