The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 736 A.2d 104 816 1022 250A.2d Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 149 N.H. 105, A.2d 1022 (Cite as: 250 816 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) (Cite as: 149 N.H. 105, 816 A.2d 1022) Supremeattorney Court ofgeneral, Connecticut. Fitch, II, assistant on the brief), Steven BORTNER for the State. v. Douglas, TOWN Monzione, Leonard & Garvey, OF WOODBRIDGE et al.P.C., of Concord (Charles G. No. Douglas, III and C. Kevin Le16114. onard on the brief, and Mr. Douglas orally), for John Coughlin. Argued June 11, 1999. Decided Aug. 17, 1999. Richard J. Lehmann, senate legal counsel, and Unsuccessful candidate forbyelementary Betsy B. Miller,write-in house legal counsel, brief for board of education brought action against rethe President of the New Hampshire Senatetown, and the gistrars of of the voters, successfulHouse candidates, chalSpeaker Newand Hampshire of Represlenging election entatives, as amiciresults curiae.based on alleged voting machine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial Law Office of Joshua Gordon, Concord District of New Haven, L.Pittman, J., of ordered new (Joshua Gordon byappealed. brief), for New Hampelection.L.Defendants ThetheSupreme Court, shire Citizens Alliance for trial Action, amicusitscuriBorden, J., held that: (1) courtasabused disae. cretion in refusing to open evidence to consider election records offered by defendants, and (2) new NADEAU, J. election was not warranted. The petitioner, Peter McDonough, appeals a deReversed and remanded with direction. cision of the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission (BLC)J.,affirming New Hampshire Berdon, concurredthe and filed opinion. Secretary of State's certification of his opponent, John CoughWest lin, as the winner of the Headnotes November 5, 2002 election [1] Hillsborough Elections 8.1 for County Attorney. McDonough 144k8.1 Cases also asks Most us to Cited exercise our original jurisdiction to Purpose his of election statutes is to ensureabout the true and address constitutional concerns New most accurate countticket possible of votes candidates Hampshire straight voting laws.forWhile this in the election. appeal was pending, we temporarily *107 enjoined Coughlin from taking the oath of office. See RSA [2] Elections 227(8) 653:10 (1996). We vacate the injunction and af144k227(8) Most Cited Cases firm. When individual ballot is questioned, no voter is to disfranchised on a doubtful construction, and I.beBackground statutes tending to limit exercise of ballot should be The following facts in were to the BLC and liberally construed his presented or her favor. are relevant to this appeal. McDonough and [3] Elections 298(1) Coughlin were the two candidates for Hillsborough 144k298(1) MostinCited Cases 2002. McDonough County Attorney November Election laws generally vestDemocratic primary responsibility was the incumbent and the candidate, for ascertaining intent will of voters on election while Coughlin was theand Republican candidate. Beofficials, to court's scope ofrerecause the subject initial vote countappropriate showed Coughlin ceived 226 more votes than McDonough, the secretary of state declared Coughlin the winner of the election. See RSA 659:81 (1996). McDonough 266 Page 1 Page 3 view when officials' determination is challenged in a judicial aproceeding. requested recount, which the secretary of state conducted. See RSA 660:1-:6 (1996). The re[4] Elections 227(1) margin of victory to 126 count reduced Coughlin's 144k227(1) Most 660:5 Cited Cases votes. See RSA (1996). The secretary of No losing candidate is entitled the electoral equistate certified Coughlin as thetowinner, see RSA valent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot some660:6, and McDonough appealed to the BLC. times awarded to aThe golfer nontournament play See RSA 665:6, II. BLCinheld a two-day evidwhen preceding shot was poorly played. entiary hearing and reviewed 269 ballots that were contested from the secretary of state's recount. [5] Elections 298(3) See RSA 665:9 (1996). 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases (Formerly 144k227(1)) All of the ballots require a voter to make appropriTo marks, secure by judicial for new municipal election, ate fillingorder in ovals or arrows on the balchallenger is not required to establish that, but for lot, to be read by an optical scanning machine. (A irregularities that he has established as a factual sample ballot follows this opinion.) All of the balmatter, prevailed in election; inlots havehethewould same have layout, which begins with instead, court mustvoter be persuaded thatthe (1)ballot, there were structions to the for marking folsubstantial errors in rulings of election official lowed by three columns for voting by party, votingor officials, or substantial mistakes in count of quesvotes, on candidates and voting on constitutional and (2)See as RSA a result of those(1996). errors or mistakes, relitions. 656:4-:14 ability of result of election, as determined by electioninstructions officials, is doubt. C.G.S.A. § The on seriously the ballotsinprovide: 9-328. INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS: 1. To vote, complete the oval ... opposite your [6] Elections choice like this....305(2) 144k305(2) Most Cited Cases Ticket **1025 2. To Vote a Straight Although underlying facts are to the be established by a Complete the oval ... opposite political party preponderance of evidence and are subject on apof your choice, like this ... if you wish to vote for peal to the clearly erroneous ultimate deall candidates running in thatstandard, party. If you vote termination of whether, based on underlying facts, a straight ticket, but wish to vote for one or morea new municipal election is called is, whethindividual candidates, you mayfor, do that so, and your ervote there were substantial violations of statute aufor an individual candidate will override the thorizing court to order render restraight party vote for new that election office. that However, if liability of result of election seriously in doubt, is a you vote for one candidate for an office where mixed question of fact and lawbethat is subject more than one candidate is to elected, be sureto plenary on appeal. § 9-328; Practo votereview individually for C.G.S.A. all candidates of your tice Book 1998, § 60-5. choice for that office, because your straight ticket vote will not be counted. [7] Statutes 181(1) 3. To Vote a Split Ticket 361k181(1) Most Cited Cases If you do not wish to vote for all candidates running in the same188 party, complete the oval ... op[7] Statutes posite the names of the candidates for whom you 361k188 Most Cited Cases wish to vote like this.... *108 4. To Vote by Write-in If you wish to vote for candidates whose names © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.