The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 736 A.2d 104 628 N.W.2d 336 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 628 N.W.2d 336, 2001 SD 62 (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) (Cite as: 628 N.W.2d 336, 2001 SD 62) too long and there was parking. The Supreme Courtinadequate of Connecticut. trial court heard evidence that some potential voters Steven BORTNER had waited to vote between v. forty-five minutes and an hour and a half.OF The court also heard testimony TOWN WOODBRIDGE et al. that some potential voters had gone to the voting No. 16114. area a few times during the day only to find the votArgued June 11, 1999. ing lines to be same or of greater length. The record Decided Aug. 17,71999. reflects that those in line at the p.m. polling closing time were allowed to vote, and after 7 p.m. over Unsuccessful write-in candidate for elementary four hundred residents voted until the last in line board of education brought action against town, revoted at approximately 8:30 p.m. The record also gistrars of voters, and successful candidates, chalreflects that some potential voters had to park a lenging election results based on alleged voting mablock and a half from the polling area. chine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial District New J., ordered [2][3][4]of **7 TheHaven, purposePittman, of an election contestnew is election. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, to challenge "the election process itself." Larson, Borden, J., held that:n. (1) trial basic court question abused its 262 N.W.2d at 753, 1. The in disan cretion in refusing to open evidence to consider election contest is whether the election, despite irelection records offered and (2) new regularities, resulted in a by freedefendants, and fair expression of election warranted. the will ofwas thenot voters. Id. (citing Green v. Ind. Con- sol. School Dist. No. 1, 252 Minn. 36, 89 N.W.2d Reversed and remanded with direction. 12 (Minn 1958)). Therefore, Contestants must show not only voting but also show Berdon, J., concurred irregularities, and filed opinion. those irregularities to be so egregious that the will of the voters was suppressed. West Headnotes [1] Elections 8.1 [5][6] **8 Contestants have not pointed to one vot144k8.1 Most Cited Cases ing statute or ordinance thatis City has violated in Purpose of election statutes to ensure the true and conducting this special election. The trial court remost accurate count possible of votes for candidates jected argument, as do we, that SDCL 12-14-4 in the the election. applies to the case at hand. SDCL 12-14-4 provides: [2] Elections 227(8) In all precincts board of county commission144k227(8) Most the Cited Cases ers shall adjust ballot the size any precinct at which When individual is of questioned, no voter is to was unreasonable waiting time imposed bethere disfranchised on a doubtful construction, and upon the voters at the last preceding general elecstatutes tending to limit exercise of ballot should be tion. Under ordinary liberally construed in his circumstances, or her favor. more than thirty minutes waiting time is deemed unreason[3] Elections able waiting time298(1) except at the time when the 144k298(1) polls close.Most Cited Cases Election lawsCity generally vest primary responsibility *339 Rather, is governed by SDCL 9-13-36, for ascertaining which provides: intent and will of voters on election officials, subject toiscourt's appropriate of of reIf a municipality divided into wardsscope and all the wards use the same polling places, the governing body of the municipality may appoint a Page 1 Page 3 view when officials' determination is challenged in board for all of the wards. The a single judicialelection proceeding. election board appointed pursuant to this section [4] Elections shall consist of a 227(1) minimum of one judge and two 144k227(1) clerks.... IfMost all Cited of theCases wards are voting on an No losing candidate is entitled the electoral equiidentical ballot, a single ballotto box and one pollvalent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot somebook may be used for all wards. times awarded to a itgolfer in nontournament This statute makes clear that the legislature play exwhen preceding shotCity was to poorly pressly permits the use played. one polling place and one election board. This Court fails to see [5] Elections 298(3) how long lines or inadequate parking equate to vot144k298(3) Most Cited Cases ing irregularities to the level of not being a "free (Formerly 144k227(1)) and fair expression of the people." Mere inconTo secure judicial order for new municipal election, venience or delay in voting is not enough to overchallenger is not required to establish that, but for turn an election. Without proof of a violation of irregularities that he has established as a factual state or local election law, there is no showing that matter, he would have prevailed in election; inthe trial court's findings are clearly erroneous. stead, court must be persuaded that (1) there were substantial errors of that election or [7][8][9][10] **9 Itinisrulings also true beforeofficial we conofficials, or substantial mistakes in count of votes, duct a "but for" analysis to determine whether the and (2) outcome as a result of have thosebeen errors or mistakes, relielection may different had those ability of result of election, as determined by elec"disinfranchised" been able to vote, Contestants tion show, officials, seriously that in doubt. must as a is prerequisite, voting C.G.S.A. irregularit-§ 9-328. ies exist. [FN1] See Abbott v. Hunhoff, 491 N.W.2d 450, 452 (S.D.1992). Although election officials [6] Elections 305(2) may have misjudged voter turnout, an election that 144k305(2) Most Cited Cases culminates in "a free and fair expression of the will Although underlying facts are to be established by a of the voters should not be overturned due to the preponderance of evidence and are subject on apmistakes or neglect of an election official." Becker peal to the clearly erroneous standard, ultimate dev. Pfeifer, 1999 SD 17, ¶ 27, 588 N.W.2d 913, 920 termination of whether, based on underlying facts, a (Amundson, J. concurring in result). While Connew municipal election is called for, that is, whethtestants cited numerous alleged voting irregularities er there were substantial violations of statute auin their complaint, they failed to prove such irreguthorizing court to order new election that render relarities at trial. [FN2] liability of result of election seriously in doubt, is a mixed question of iffact that is voting subjectir-to FN1. Even we and werelaw to assume plenary regularities review on appeal. § 9-328; Pracexisted C.G.S.A. which rose to the level tice Book 1998, § 60-5. of not being a "free and fair expression of the voters," counsel for Contestants con[7] Statutes 181(1) ceded in his argument to the trial court that 361k181(1) Most Cited Cases "who knows how many people showed up on election [7] Statutes 188day." This statement reveals that counsel no idea how many poten361k188 Most Cited has Cases tial voters left the lines without voting or how they would have voted. "[A]n election will not be overturned upon the mere 240 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.