Bortner v. Town of Woodbridge 736 A.2d 104 736 A.2d 104 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) if the statutory have been met, the Supremerequirements Court of Connecticut. court should exercise and restraint in decidSteven caution BORTNER ing whether to do so. v. A proper judicial respect for the electoral process mandates no less. TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE et al.With these principles in mind,No. therefore, 16114. we turn to the dispositive issues of this appeal. Argued June 11, 1999. Decided Aug.II17, 1999. We next address the burden that § 9-328 places on Unsuccessful write-in for election. elementary a plaintiff who seeks tocandidate secure a new The board of education brought action against town, redefendants claim that the plaintiff was obligated to gistrars of that, voters, successful chalestablish as and a result of any candidates, proven irregularitlenging election results on he alleged voting ies cognizable by thebased statute, would havemawon chine malfunctions. Superior Judicial the election, that is, The he would haveCourt, received at least District of New fifty-seven moreHaven, votes Pittman, than he J., didordered receivenew and, election. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, therefore, would have received more votes than Borden, heldplaintiff, that: (1) although trial court itson disGreene.J., The notabused offering apcretion in refusing to open evidence to consider peal [FN16] any standard under the statute, [FN17] election by defendants, claims records that the offered trial court was justifiedand on(2) thenew facts election warranted. of this was case not in ordering a new election. Reversed and remanded direction. FN16. In his with complaint in the trial court, the plaintiff alleged that but for the various Berdon, J., concurred and filed opinion. electoral improprieties, "there is a substantial likelihood that the result of [the] elecWest Headnotes tion would have been different." (Emphasis [1] Elections 8.1 added.) appeal, however, the plaintiff 144k8.1 Most Cited On Cases does not revive claiming Purpose of election statutesthis is tostandard, ensure the true andinstead that "the malfunctions of the voting most accurate count possible of votes for candidates machines' write-in functions so compromin the election. ised the integrity of the voting process that it was impossible to make an accurate [2] Elections 227(8) count of the votes intended to be cast for 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases [the plaintiff]." When individual ballot is (Emphasis questioned,added.) no voter is to be disfranchised on a doubtful construction, and FN17.toThe defendant instead, onbe the statutes tending limit exerciserelies, of ballot should languagein found in favor. a different statute, liberally construed his or her namely, General Statutes § 9-329a, which governs 298(1) challenges to primary elections. [3] Elections plaintiff 144k298(1)The Most Cited argues Cases that the legislature, by including a mandate in § 9-329a that a new Election laws generally vest primary responsibility election may be ordered only the for ascertaining intent and will of voters on when election court determines that "the result officials, subject to court's appropriate scope of of such reprimary might have been different," and not including similar language in § 9- 328, "has clearly signaled that the challenger to Page 1 Page 12 view when officials' determination is challenged in the municipal election need not prove that a judicial proceeding. the result would have been different [4] Elections without 227(1) the mistake in the count or erro144k227(1)neous Mostrulings." Cited Cases We need not decide in the No losing present candidate is entitled thetwo electoral equicase whethertothe statutes convalent of atain "mulligan," which is a free shot somethe same or different standards. Intimes awarded a golfer nontournament stead,to we decidein the question ofplay the when preceding shot burden was poorly played. on the lanplaintiff's by focusing guage and legislative history of the statute [5] Elections 298(3) at issue in this case, namely, § 9-328, as 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases well as the role that this statute plays in the (Formerly 144k227(1)) overall electoral process. To secure judicial order for new municipal election, challenger is not establish butnotforre[5][6] *258 Werequired concludetothat § 9-328that, does irregularities that he has established as a factualorquire a challenger, in order to secure a judicial matter, he would have prevailed in election; der for a new election, to establish that, but forinthe stead, court must persuaded that (1) as there were irregularities thatbehe has established a factual substantial rulings of election or matter, heerrors wouldinhave prevailed in theofficial election. officials, or substantial mistakes in count of votes, We conclude instead that, in order for a court to and (2) as the a result of those or and mistakes, overturn results of an errors election order arelinew ability of result of election, as determined by elecelection pursuant to § 9-328, the court must be pertion officials, is there seriously doubt. C.G.S.A. suaded that: (1) were in substantial violations§of 9-328. the requirements of the statute, which we discuss in more detail in parts IV and V of **114 this opin[6] Elections 305(2) ion; and (2) as a result of those violations, the reli144k305(2) Most Cited Cases ability of the result of the election is seriously in Although underlying facts are to be established by a doubt. We conclude further that, although the unpreponderance of evidence and are subject on apderlying facts are to be established by a preponderpeal to the clearly erroneous standard, ultimate deance of the evidence and are subject on appeal to termination of whether, based on underlying facts, a the clearly erroneous standard; see Practice Book § new municipal election is called for, that is, wheth60-5; the ultimate determination of whether, based er there were substantial violations of statute auon those underlying facts, a new election is called thorizing court to order new election that render refor--that is, whether there were substantial violaliability of result of election seriously in doubt, is a tions of the statute that render the reliability of the mixed question of fact and law that is subject to result of the election seriously in doubt--is a mixed plenary review on appeal. C.G.S.A. § 9-328; Pracquestion of fact and law that is subject to plenary tice Book 1998, § 60-5. review on appeal. [7] Statutes 181(1) [7][8] The determination of the standard to be ap361k181(1) Most Cited Cases plied under the statute presents a question of statinterpretation. [7]utory Statutes 188 "The process of statutory interpretation involves reasoned search for the inten361k188 Most Cited aCases tion of the legislature. Frillici v. Westport, 231 Conn. 418, 431, 650 A.2d 557 (1994). In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, 181 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.