The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 736 A.2d 104 879 A.2d 1174 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 379 N.J.Super. 461, 879 A.2d 1174 (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) (Cite as: 379 N.J.Super. 461, 879 A.2d 1174) and a second time by writing same name. We also Supreme Courtinofthe Connecticut. note that the voter who improperly wrote in Murphy's Steven BORTNER name on the ballot--just likev.every person--is charged with knowledge of theOF law; N.J.S.A. 19:49-5 clearly and TOWN WOODBRIDGE et al. unambiguously invalidates write-in vote for Murphy No.the16114. in these circumstances. Even in the context of the CrimArgued June 11,far 1999. inal Code, where violations incur more severe con17, 1999. of behaviors sequences, we holdDecided personsAug. to knowledge prohibited by the Code, without requiring a copy of the Unsuccessful write-in candidate for elementary Code to be provided to each person. board of education brought action against town, reand successful however, candidates, chal*474gistrars Neitherofofvoters, those considerations, negates lenging election results basedofon alleged voting the strong public policy in favor protecting every macitJudicial izen'schine right malfunctions. to vote, and toThe haveSuperior his or herCourt, vote counted. New Pittman, J., ordered new LittleDistrict is moreof basic to Haven, the concept of a democracy. election. Defendants appealed. The Court, A citizen's constitutional right to vote Supreme for the candidheld that:necessarily (1) trial court abused disateBorden, of his orJ.,her choice includes theits corolcretion in refusing to open evidence to consider lary right to have that vote counted at full value election recordsoroffered by defendants, andalso (2) new without dilution discount. That principle enelection was warranted. compasses "thenot right of all qualified electors to vote for [a write-in candidate] by such means." To preReversed and remanded with direction. serve those rights, our state election laws are designed to deter fraud, safeguard the secrecy of the Berdon, J., concurred and filed opinion. ballot, and prevent disenfranchisement of qualified voters. In furtherance of Headnotes those goals, we have held West that is our duty to construe elections laws liberally. [1]it Elections 8.1 [In144k8.1 re Petition of Gray-Sadler, Most Cited Cases 164 N.J. 468, 474-75, 753 A.2d 1101 (2000)statutes (internal andtrue quotaPurpose of election is tocitations ensure the and tion marks omitted) (emphasis most accurate count possibleadded).]. of votes for candidates in the election. Legislative findings and declarations recently set forth describe "a consensus that the nation's electoral system [2] Elections 227(8) needs144k227(8) improvements to ensure that every eligible voter Most Cited Cases has When the opportunity vote, that every no votevoter willis be individual to ballot is questioned, to counted that should beoncounted, and that no legal vote be disfranchised a doubtful construction, and will statutes be canceled a fraudulent N.J.S.A. tending by to limit exercise of vote." ballot should be 19:61-1b (enacted by L.in2004, 88,favor. § 1 as part of the liberally construed his orc.her Voting Opportunity and Technology Enforcement Act, [3] Elections N.J.S.A. 19:61-1 to - 8,298(1) adopted in accordance with the 144k298(1) Most Cited Cases federal "Help America Vote Act of 2002," Pub.L. Election laws generally vest 107-252, 42 U.S.C.A. § 15481.1). primary responsibility for ascertaining intent and will of voters on election In Gray-Sadler, the problem arose from a combination officials, subject to court's appropriate scope of reof confusing instructions and an awkward mechanism for casting a write-in vote. See Gray-Sadler, supra, 164 N.J. at 472, 753 A.2d 1101. Numerous write-in votes for Page 1 Page 8 view when officials' determination is challenged in three challengers, enough to change the result, were a judicial proceeding. placed **1182 on the wrong lines on the ballot and [4] Elections 227(1) were rejected on that ground pursuant to the last sen144k227(1) Most 19:49-5 Cited Cases tence of N.J.S.A. ("An irregular ballot must be No losing candidate is entitled themachine, electoralor equicast in its appropriate place ontothe it shall valent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot somebe void and not counted."). The Court ordered a new times awarded to alargely golferbecause in nontournament play did municipal election, the polling place when preceding shot was poorly not provide the instructions with played. respect to write-in voting, or a model voting machine as required by N.J.S.A. [5] Elections 298(3) 19:50-3. Gray-Sadler, supra, 164 N.J. at 478-79, 753 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases A.2d 1101. (Formerly 144k227(1)) To secure order for new municipal election, difThe facts injudicial Gray-Sadler, however, are significantly challenger not required establish that, but for ferent from isthose before us.toThe first significant differirregularities that he has established as a factual ence is that the *475 three challengers in that case were matter, he would have in not election; write-in candidates whoseprevailed names did appear inon the stead, court must persuaded that (1) therevigorously were printed ballot, andbe who had campaigned substantial in rulings of election official or against the errors incumbents for mayor and for two council officials, or substantial mistakes in count of votes, positions. The only names that appeared on the printed and (2)machine as a result of those or mistakes, reli- ofvoting ballot were errors the incumbents in each ability of result of election, as determined by elecfice. Thus the second sentence of N.J.S.A. 19:49-5, the tion officials, is seriously in not doubt. C.G.S.A. § sentence that controls here, was implicated in Gray9-328. Sadler. [6] Elections 305(2) Because the write-in candidates' names were not on the 144k305(2) Cited Cases ballot in thatMost case, there was no risk that counting a Although underlying facts be established by write-in vote would result are in to double-counting anya one preponderance of evidence and are subject on ap- advoter's vote. And that is the precise risk implicitly peal to the clearly erroneous standard, ultimate de- by dressed by N.J.S.A. 19:49-5 and explicitly addressed termination of whether,which basedprovides on underlying facts, a N.J.S.A. 19:53A-3(f), that the statutory new municipal election is called for, that is, whethrequirements for "[e]very electronic voting system, coner thereof were substantial of statute ausisting a voting device inviolations combination with automatic thorizing court to order new election render retabulating equipment, ... shall [be that designed to] ... liability of result of election seriously in doubt, is a [p]revent the voter from voting for the same person mixed question of fact and law that is subject to more than once for the same office." plenary review on appeal. C.G.S.A. § 9-328; PracThe Court1998, in Gray-Sadler distinguished between voter tice Book § 60-5. carelessness and circumstances beyond the voter's con[7] Statutes 181(1) trol. 361k181(1) Most Cited Cases "We do not believe that the Legislature intended N.J.S.A. 19:49-5 to be applied in a manner that would [7] Statutes 188 frustrate the free expression of the voters' will when 361k188 Most Cited Cases the incorrect placement of the write-in vote is the result of mistakes or problems beyond the voters' control." [Gray-Sadler, supra, 164 N.J. at 477, 753 A.2d 1101.] 282 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.