The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 736 A.2d 104 736 250 A.2d Conn.104 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241,104, 736 A.2d 104) (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) Supreme Court of covers a situation in Connecticut. which votes that were BORTNER cast wereSteven improperly counted, but does not cover a situationv.in which votes were not TOWN WOODBRIDGE et al. the statcast, for OF whatever reason. First, No. 16114. utory language is broad enough to cover both situations. If otherwise validly cast June 11, 1999. ballotsArgued were not counted, the resulting total Decided Aug. 17, 1999. number of votes for each candidate may be regarded as a "mistake in the count of the Unsuccessful write-in candidate for elementary votes." Second, one of the purposes of the board of education brought action against town, restatute, namely, to ensure accuracy in the gistrars of voters, and successful candidates, chalelection process, suggests the broader inlenging election results based on alleged voting materpretation. chine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial Districtmachine of New number Haven, 143719 Pittman,was J., taken ordered Voting outnew of election. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, service at 6:50 a.m., less than one hour after the Borden, held that: (1) it trial abusedthat its dispolls had J., opened, because wascourt discovered the cretion in refusing to open evidence to consider write-in paper was not advancing properly. The election records offered by defendants, new evidence regarding this event was that,and as a(2)result election was not warranted. of that mechanical *273 failure, two write-in votes were lost. There was no evidence, however, and it Reversed and remanded with direction. could not be determined, whether either or both of those write-in votes were theopinion. plaintiff or for the Berdon, J., concurred andfor filed write-in candidate for the regional board of education. Thus, any factual finding that these two lost West Headnotes votes harmed the 8.1 plaintiff would rest on nothing [1] Elections more thanMost speculation. 144k8.1 Cited Cases Purpose of election statutes is to ensure the true and The regarding voting machine number most evidence accurate count possible of votes for candidates 150231 was as follows. At 1:40 p.m., there was a in the election. complaint regarding write-in votes, namely, that the paper was not advancing [2] Elections 227(8) properly. The election officials entered machine, 144k227(8) Most the Cited Cases tested the write-in mechanism, determined the papernowas advanWhen individual ballot isthat questioned, voter is to cing properly, initialed paper, construction, and left the mabe disfranchised on a the doubtful and chine in tending service.to limit At that time,ofitballot also should was disstatutes exercise be covered one vote the favor. plaintiff had been liberally that construed in hisfor or her crossed out. The significance of that cross-out was [3] Elections 298(1) not explained. There is no basis in the evidence, 144k298(1) Most Cited Cases however, for an inference that any mechanical failElection laws generally primary responsibility ure of the machine couldvest have crossed out a vote for ascertaining intent andplaintiff. will of voters on At election that had been cast for the [FN28] 2:50 officials, subject to court's appropriate scope of rep.m., there was **122 another complaint about the write-in mechanism of this machine. The record indicates that the public counter on the machine Page 1 Page 21 view when officials' determination is challenged in a judicial was off byproceeding. two digits. [FN29] The record also indicates, however, that the election *274 officials [4] Elections entered the machine227(1) and determined that the mech144k227(1) Most Cited Cases There also was evidanism was working properly. No losing candidate is entitled the electoral equience that at 3 p.m., there wastoanother complaint valent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot someabout the write-in mechanism, but the election offitimesdid awarded to the a golfer in nontournament cials not check machine at that time. In play adwhen preceding shot was poorly played. dition, there was undisputed evidence that this machine was checked twice at 6:35 p.m., and found to [5] Elections 298(3) be functioning properly. 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases (Formerly FN28.144k227(1)) In this connection, the trial court To secure judicial new municipal found that order "[t]hefor moderator of the election, election challenger is not required to establish that, but[the for specifically recalls that the first of irregularities that he has established as a factual complaints regarding voting machine nummatter, ber he would prevailed election; inin150231]have had to do with in a perceived stead, court must persuaded that vote (1) there ability to becast a write-in for were [the substantial errors in rulings of election official or plaintiff]; that is not specifically recorded officials,byorher substantial mistakes in count of votes, but I credit her testimony in that reand (2) as a result those errors or mistakes, religard." Theoftranscript indicates, however, ability ofthat result of election, as determined by electhe moderator simply acknowledged tion officials, seriously doubt. C.G.S.A.out§ that lineisfive, the lineinwith the crossed 9-328. vote, was one of the two lines on which an elector could have voted for the plaintiff. [6] Elections 305(2) We have examined fully the testimony of 144k305(2) Most Cited Cases Mary Lou Winnick, the moderator of the Although underlying facts are to be established by a election, and can find no other testimony preponderance of evidence and are subject on apregarding her recollection of a perceived peal to the clearly erroneous standard, ultimate deinability by an elector to vote for the termination of whether, based on underlying facts, a plaintiff. We therefore disregard that pornew municipal election is called for, that is, whethtion of the finding. er there were substantial violations of statute authorizingFN29. court This to order new election that arender remeant that there was discrepliability ancy of result of election seriously in doubt, is of two between the total number ofa mixed question of fact law that is subjectand to electors who hadand entered the machine, plenary the review appeal.ofC.G.S.A. § 9-328; totalonnumber votes cast on the Pracmatice Book 1998, § 60-5. chine. The evidence indicates a number of reasons unconnected with any malfunc[7] Statutes 181(1) tion of the write-in mechanism that would 361k181(1) Most Cited Cases account for such a discrepancy, such as an official entering the machine to check its [7] Statutes 188 functioning. On 361k188 Most Cited Casesthe basis of the evidence in the record, it would be speculative to infer that this discrepancy was connected to lost votes for the plaintiff. 190 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.