Bortner v. Town of Woodbridge 736 A.2d 104 736250 A.2d 104 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 Conn. 250(Cite Conn. A.2d 104, 137 Ed. 104) Law Rep. 1019 as:241, 250736 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) Supreme Courtdays of Connecticut. nor less than three from the making of BORTNER such order,Steven and shall cause notice of not less than three nor v.more than five days to OFany WOODBRIDGE al. be TOWN given to candidate or et candidates whose electionNo. or 16114. nomination may be affected by the decision upon such hearing, Argued 11, or 1999. and to any otherJune party parties whom Decided Aug. 17, 1999. such judge deems proper parties thereto, of the time and place for the hearing upon Unsuccessful write-in candidate for elementary such complaint. Such judge or, in case of board of education brought action against town, rehis inability, a judge designated by the gistrars of voters, and successful candidates, chalchief judge of the superior court, shall, on lenging election results based on alleged voting mathe day fixed for such hearing and without chine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial unnecessary delay, proceed to hear the District of New Haven, Pittman, J., ordered new parties. If sufficient reason is shown, he election. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, may order any voting machines to be unBorden, J., held that: (1) trial court abused its dislocked or any ballot boxes to be opened cretion in refusing to open evidence to consider and a recount of the votes cast, including election records offered by defendants, and (2) new absentee ballots, to be made, and he shall election was not warranted. thereupon, if he finds any error in the rulingsand of the moderator any mistake in the Reversed remanded withordirection. count of the votes, certify the result of his finding or decision theopinion. secretary of the Berdon, J., concurred andto filed state before the tenth day succeeding the West conclusion of the Headnotes hearing. Such certific[1] Elections 8.1 ate of such judge of his finding or decision 144k8.1 Most Citedand Cases shall be final conclusive upon all quesPurpose of election statutes ensure tions relating to errorsisintothe rulingthe oftrue suchand most accurate count possible of votes for candidates moderators and to the correctness of such in the count, election. and shall operate to correct the returns of such moderators or presiding of[2] Elections 227(8) ficers, so as to conform to such finding or 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases decision, except that this section shall not When individual ballot is questioned, no voter is to affect the right of appeal to the supreme be disfranchised on a doubtful construction, and court for the reservation of questions statutes tending to limit exercise of ballot should be arising thereon, and it shall not prevent liberally construed in his or her favor. such judge from reserving such questions of law, by consent [3] Elections 298(1)of all parties, for the advice of the supreme court. Such judge 144k298(1) Most Cited Cases may, if necessary, issue his writ responsibility of mandaElection laws generally vest primary mus, requiring for ascertaining intentthe andadverse will ofparty votersand on those election under him to deliver to the complainant officials, subject to court's appropriate scope the of reappurtenances of such office, and shall cause his finding and decree to be entered on the records of the superior court in the Page 1 Page 14 view when officials' determination is challenged in a judicial proceeding. proper county." [4] Elections 227(1) FN20. The only reference in the legislative 144k227(1) Cited Act Cases historyMost of Public 78- 125 to the newly No losing entitled was to thethe electoral equiaddedcandidate judicialis power followvalenting: of a"Sections "mulligan," which is some6 through 12aoffree the shot bill clatimes rify awarded to a golferofin the nontournament play the provisions election laws when with preceding shot poorly played. respect to was access to the courts by persons aggrieved by rulings of election offi[5] Elections 298(3) they make it clear that cials. In general, 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases any voter, including of course, the candid(Formerly 144k227(1)) ates themselves may apply to an appropriTo secure judicial new municipal ate court for order relief for from a ruling of anelection, elecchallenger is not required to establish that, but for tion official either before or after an elecirregularities that he has established as a factual tion or primary. The sections further matter,make he clear wouldthat have prevailed in election; the court may order appro- instead,priate court remedies must be persuaded there or were including athat new(1) election substantial errors in rulings of election official primary, where warranted by the facts." or officials, or substantial count votes, 21 H.R. Proc., Pt.mistakes 4, 1978 in Sess., p. of 1456, and (2) as a result those errors or mistakes, reliremarks of ofRepresentative Elmer W. abilityLowden. of result of election, as determined by election officials, is seriously in doubt. C.G.S.A. § In 9-328. 1987, the legislature again amended § 9-328 as part of an omnibus election law bill entitled, "An Elections Judicial 305(2) Act[6]concerning Hearings concerning Ab144k305(2) Most Cited sentee Ballots." See Cases Public Acts 1987, No. Although underlying facts Act are to be established 87-545. Section 3 of Public 87-545 amended by § a preponderance of evidence and are subject on 9-328 by adding language that specifically broughtappeal its to the clearly erroneous standard, ultimate within terms fraudulent conduct and other im-determination of whether, based on underlying facts, proprieties in the casting of absentee ballots. a new municipal election is called that of is,Repwheth[FN21] The legislative debate in thefor, House er there were substantial violations of statute resentatives directly addressed the standard thatauthorizing new render must be met court underto§ order 9- 328 in election order forthat a judge to reliability of result of election seriously in doubt, order a new election. [FN22] That debate **116 in-is a mixeda question fact and lawthat, that although is subjecta to dicates legislativeof intent *262 plenary who review on appeal. § 9-328; Praccandidate challenges an C.G.S.A. election need not netice Book 1998, § 60-5. cessarily prove that he would have won the election but for the improprieties that he established, *263 [7] Statutes 181(1) he would be required, in the language of the debate, 361k181(1) Most Cited Cases to prove that there were "substantial violations [that] might change [7] ... Statutes 188the results, and ... if unclear, but361k188 ... substantial, the could order a new elecMost Citedjudge Cases tion ... if he believed that the election was so compromised that that was the best ... remedy." 30 H.R. Proc., Pt. 30, 1987 Sess., pp. 11,023-24, re- 183 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.