In re Ocean County Com’r of Registration for a Recheck of the Voting Machines for the May 11, 2004 Municipal Election 736 A.2d 104 879250 A.2dConn. 1174241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 379(Cite N.J.Super. 461, 879 241, A.2d736 1174 as: 250 Conn. A.2d 104) (Cite as: 379 N.J.Super. 461, 879 A.2d 1174) Supreme Courtcould of Connecticut. deadlines, or rules arguably have been enacted to Steven BORTNER address the same concerns or to accomplish the same v. purpose is not a proper consideration for this court. TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE et al. Plaintiff's secondary argument with respect to the abNo. 16114. sentee ballots is that one or more actually may have JuneOcean 11, 1999. been delivered toArgued the *472 County Board of Decided 17,at1999. Elections before the polls Aug. closed 8 p.m., but "sat on someone's desk." That argument is nothing more than Unsuccessful write-in candidate part, for and elementary unsupported speculation on plaintiff's does not board of education brought action against town, remerit further discussion. gistrars of voters, and successful candidates, challenging election results V. based on alleged voting machine contends malfunctions. The Superior Judicial Plaintiff that the rejection of Court, one provisional District of New Haven, Pittman,ofJ., ballot calls into question the validity theordered electionnew reselection. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, ults. We fail to see any basis for that contention. InBorden, J., held that: (1) Statement trial court abused its discluded in the Township's of Undisputed cretion in refusing to open evidence to judgment consider Facts, submitted in support of its summary election records offered by defendants, and vote (2) new motion, is the fact that the rejected provisional was was not warranted. castelection by a person who had moved to Stafford Township and was no longer a resident of Long Beach Township Reversedday. andMurphy remanded direction.to or challenge on election didwith not respond that Statement of Fact, which is therefore deemed estabBerdon, J., concurred and filed opinion. lished. See R. 4:46-2(b). Plaintiff's request for discovery respecting the procedure which the provisional balWestbyHeadnotes lots[1] were considered, 8.1 including the six that were counElections ted,144k8.1 likewiseMost appears to without basis. Cited be Cases Purpose of election statutes is to ensure the true and VI. most accurate count possible of votes for candidates Murphy's contentions, raised in Point III of his brief, in the election. warrant further discussion. Murphy contends that the one[2] write-in vote cast 227(8) for him was improperly declared Elections void144k227(8) and not counted. Most Cited Cases When individual ballot is questioned, no voter is to Where voting machines are used in an election, write-in be disfranchised on a doubtful construction, and ballots are subject to N.J.S.A. 19:49-5, which provides: statutes tending to limit exercise of ballot should be Ballots voted for any person whose name does not apliberally construed in his or her favor. pear on the machine as a nominated candidate for office are herein referred [3] Elections 298(1)to as irregular ballots. [[[ [FN12]] Such irregular 144k298(1) Most Citedballot Cases shall be written or affixed in or upon the receptacle or device provided on Election laws generally vest primary responsibility the for intent that purpose. Novoters irregular ballot for machine ascertaining and will of on election shall be voted for any person for any office whose officials, subject to court's appropriate scope of rename appears on the machine as a nominated candidate for that office ... any irregular ballot so voted shall not be counted. Page 1 Page 7 view when officials' determination is challenged in a judicial FN12. proceeding. N.J.S.A. 19:47-1 provides the following definition: "Irregular ballot means a vote cast, [4] Elections by or on 227(1) a special device, for a person whose 144k227(1) Most Cited name does Cases not appear on the ballots." No losing(Emphasis candidate added). is entitled to the electoral equivalent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot sometimes awardedadded]. to a golfer in nontournament play [Emphasis when shot was poorly played. *473 preceding That unambiguous statutory direction is consistent with the rule applicable to write-in votes where paper [5] Elections 298(3) 19:15- 28; it is, however, more ballots are used, N.J.S.A. 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases explicit in directing that such improperly cast write-in (Formerly 144k227(1)) votes not be counted. [FN13] To secure judicial order for new municipal election, challengerFN13. is notN.J.S.A. required19:15-28 to establish that, but for provides, in pertinent irregularities part: that he has established as a factual matter, he would inhave in prevent election;any in-voter Nothing thisprevailed Title shall stead, court must be persuaded (1)the there were from writing or pasting that under proper title of substantial errors in rulings election personal official or office in the columnof designated choice officials, the or substantial mistakes inperson count of votes, for name or names of any or persons and (2) aswhom a result thosetoerrors or mistakes, relihe of desires vote whose name or names ability of are result election, asthe determined notof printed upon ballot forby theelecsame oftion officials, seriously fice orisoffices .... in doubt. C.G.S.A. § 9-328. [Emphasis added.] [6] Elections 305(2) **1181 [5] Murphy argues that neither the instructions 144k305(2) Mostballots Cited Cases on the sample mailed to registered voters, nor Although underlying facts are to be established by a sufthe instructions on the voting machines themselves, preponderance of evidence are subject on ofap-a canficiently warn voters not to and write-in the name peal to the clearly erroneous ultimate de- The didate whose name appears standard, on the printed ballot. termination whether, ballot based for on underlying Long BeachofTownship the May 11,facts, 2004a elecnew election is called is, whethtion municipal included this general notice for, withthat respect to write-in ervotes: there were substantial violations of statute authorizing court toAnorder new election that render "WARNING! improperly cast write-in voterewill be liability of void. result Be of sure election in doubt, a in deemed that seriously your write-in vote is cast mixed question of CHOICE fact and law thaton is the subject the PERSONAL column same to line as plenary review appeal. 9-328; the office foron which you C.G.S.A. are casting§ the writePracin vote." tice 60-5.the sample ballot mailed to voters TheBook ballot1998, itself§(and in advance) clearly explained how to enter a write-in [7] Statutes 181(1) vote. But it did not warn that a write-in vote for a can361k181(1) Most Cited Caseson the printed ballot would didate whose name appears be an "improperly cast" vote that would be "deemed [7] Statutes 188 void" and not counted. 361k188 Most Cited Cases We first note that the obvious purpose of N.J.S.A. 19:49-5 is to prevent a voter from casting two votes for the same candidate--once by marking the printed name 281 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.