Kibbe v. Town of Milton 736 A.2d 104 700 A.2d 1224 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 142 N.H. 288, 700 A.2d 1224 (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) (Cite as: 700 A.2d 1224) authority,Supreme and thusCourt doesofnot impermissibly disenConnecticut. franchise the voters in this case. Steven BORTNER v. Accordingly, weOF defer to the legislature's TOWN WOODBRIDGE et al. determination that the attachment of stickers to ballots No. 16114. should be prohibited. Cf. Opinion of the Justices (Furlough), 135 N.H.June 625,11, 634-35, Argued 1999.609 A.2d 1204, 1210 (1992) Decided (noting that typically defer to Aug.courts 17, 1999. legislative judgment as to necessity and reasonableUnsuccessful write-in candidate for elementary ness of particular measures). Recognizing that the board of education brought action against town, reuse of stickers has been both "lauded for facilitating gistrars of voters, and successful candidates, chalvoting and denounced as conducive to fraud and lenging election based onthat alleged voting maconfusion," we results are convinced "[t]he propriety chine malfunctions. The Court, Judicial of stickers is a matter for Superior legislative, not judicial[,] District of New Haven, J., ordered new determination." Allen v.Pittman, State Board of Elections, election. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, 268 F.Supp. 218, 220 (E.D.Va.1967), vacated on Borden, J., held that: court its disother grounds, 393 (1) U.S.trial 544, 89 abused S.Ct. 817, 22 cretion in refusing to open evidence to consider L.Ed.2d 1 (1969). Pursuant to RSA 659:65, II(b), election records (2) newIf the sticker votesoffered shouldby notdefendants, have been and counted. election was isnottowarranted. the statute achieve a more liberal result in a case such as this, where the equities appear to Reversed and remanded with direction. weigh heavily in favor of the voters, this must be accomplished by legislative action and not by judiBerdon, J., concurred and filed opinion. cial decree. See Wilkes, 101 N.H. at 423, 145 A.2d at 170-71; see also v. Fuller, 96 N.H. 323, WestColby Headnotes 326, 76 A.2d 509,8.1 511-12 (1950). The decision of [1] Elections the superior is reversed, and the case is re144k8.1 Most court Cited Cases mandedoffor proceedings with Purpose election statutesconsistent is to ensure thethis trueopinand ion. accurate count possible of votes for candidates most in the election. Reversed and remanded. [2] Elections 227(8) All concurred. 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases When individual ballot is questioned, no voter is to 142 N.H. 288, 700 A.2d 1224 be disfranchised on a doubtful construction, and statutes tending to limit exercise of ballot should be END OF DOCUMENT liberally construed in his or her favor. [3] Elections 298(1) 144k298(1) Most Cited Cases Election laws generally vest primary responsibility for ascertaining intent and will of voters on election officials, subject to court's appropriate scope of re- Page 1 Page 6 view when officials' determination is challenged in a judicial proceeding. [4] Elections 227(1) 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases No losing candidate is entitled to the electoral equivalent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot sometimes awarded to a golfer in nontournament play when preceding shot was poorly played. [5] Elections 298(3) 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases (Formerly 144k227(1)) To secure judicial order for new municipal election, challenger is not required to establish that, but for irregularities that he has established as a factual matter, he would have prevailed in election; instead, court must be persuaded that (1) there were substantial errors in rulings of election official or officials, or substantial mistakes in count of votes, and (2) as a result of those errors or mistakes, reliability of result of election, as determined by election officials, is seriously in doubt. C.G.S.A. § 9-328. [6] Elections 305(2) 144k305(2) Most Cited Cases Although underlying facts are to be established by a preponderance of evidence and are subject on appeal to the clearly erroneous standard, ultimate determination of whether, based on underlying facts, a new municipal election is called for, that is, whether there were substantial violations of statute authorizing court to order new election that render reliability of result of election seriously in doubt, is a mixed question of fact and law that is subject to plenary review on appeal. C.G.S.A. § 9-328; Practice Book 1998, § 60-5. [7] Statutes 181(1) 361k181(1) Most Cited Cases [7] Statutes 188 361k188 Most Cited Cases 317 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.