The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 736 A.2d 104 736 250 A.2d Conn.104 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241,104, 736 A.2d 104) (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) of Connecticut. the day thatSupreme they didCourt not need to continue to inspect Steven the voting machines in BORTNER use in order to ensure that v. the mechanics, in parthere were not problems with TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE et the al. view of ticular of the write-in votes...." Thus, in No.election 16114. officials' failure the trial court, the throughout the day to continue to inspect the voting Argued June 11, 1999. machines in use for the purpose of ensuring that Decided Aug. 17, 1999. there were not mechanical problems with those machines, constituted an erroneous ruling. [FN25] Unsuccessful write-in candidate for elementary board ofFN25. education action against reThatbrought this was a basis of town, the trial gistrars court's of voters, and successful candidates, chaldetermination that there had been lenging election results based maerroneous rulings by on thealleged electionvoting officials chine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial is reinforced by the following passage in District the of New Pittman, decision: J., ordered"The new court'sHaven, memorandum election.paper Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, was not advancing on [voting] maBorden, chine J., held that: (1) trial courtThe abused its disnumber 143719. decision at cretion that in refusing to open evidence to consider point was to take that machine out of election service records and offered by defendants, (2) that new replace it, but thatand issue election early was not in warranted. the day affecting certainly one candidate more than others--in other Reversed and remanded with direction. words, there was only one candidate that on and paper at opinion. that point or that Berdon,depended J., concurred filed kind of paper--it seems to me should have served as West someHeadnotes sort of notice to the election officials [1] Elections 8.1that scrutiny of the mechanics all of the Cases machines needed to be under144k8.1 of Most Cited throughout theisday with some care." Purpose taken of election statutes to ensure the true and most accurate count possible of votes for candidates Such failure, if it existed, however, did not constiin theaelection. tute an erroneous ruling. It did not decide, either explicitly or implicitly, a question presented to the [2] Elections 227(8) election officials regarding 144k227(8) Most Cited Casesthe election process, and it individual did not interpret statute, regulation When ballot isany questioned, no voter is or to other authoritativeonlegal statementconstruction, or requirement be disfranchised a doubtful and applicable to thattoprocess. It **120 cannot be restatutes tending limit exercise of ballot should be garded anything in more than exercise of elecliberallyasconstrued his or herthe favor. tion day discretion regarding the proper mechanical [3] Elections 298(1)machines, a subject that is functioning of the voting 144k298(1) Most Cited Cases to the authority of committed in the first instance Election laws generally vest the primary the election officials. Given broadresponsibility and plenary for ascertaining andunder will ofour voters on election powers of those intent officials statutes generofficials, subject to court's appropriate scope of really, and given the narrow and circumscribed bases for judicial intervention under § 9-328, the exercise of that discretion must be given a wide berth. Al- Page 1 Page 19 view when officials' determination is challenged in a judicial proceeding. though judicial hindsight regarding whether that discretion was properly exercised might in an ex[4] Elections treme case provide227(1) the *270 basis for a conclusion 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases it cannot convert its that votes were miscounted, No losing candidate is entitled to the electoral equiexercise into a ruling by the officials. valent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot sometimesplaintiff's awarded to a golfer nontournament play The reliance on inWrinn v. Dunleavy, when preceding was poorly supra, 186 Conn.shot at 138-39, 440 played. A.2d 261, is misplaced. In that case, the election officials improp[5] Elections 298(3)absentee ballots that were erly counted twenty-six 144k298(3) Most Cited invalid because theyCases had been improperly (Formerly mailed. Id., at144k227(1)) 130, 440 A.2d 261. We held that To secure judicial order for new of municipal election, the "ruling" was the counting those improper challenger is not required to establish that, for ballots. Id., at 139, 440 A.2d 261. In thatbut case, irregularities that he has established as a factual however, by counting those invalid ballots, the matter, officials he wouldimplicitly have prevailed in election; inelection had interpreted the prostead, court must beStatutes persuaded that (1) there were visions of General § 9-146 regarding the substantial errors in rulings of election official or casting and mailing of absentee ballots. See id., at officials, or substantial mistakes in count of votes, 145, 440 A.2d 261. Thus, Wrinn does not, as the and (2) asargument a result of those errors reliplaintiff's suggests, standorformistakes, the proposiability of result of election, as determined by election that any act or failure to act by election offition that officials, is seriously in doubt. C.G.S.A. cials is relevant to the election process will suf-§ 9-328. fice as a "ruling" within the meaning of § 9-328. Cf. In re Election for Second Congressional Dis[6] Elections 305(2) trict, supra, 231 Conn. at 607, 653 A.2d 79 144k305(2) Most Cited Cases (election officials ruled, on recanvass, that absentee Although underlying facts are to be established by a ballot envelopes not originally opened should be preponderance of evidence and are subject on apopened and ballots counted); see also Lobsenz v. peal to the clearly erroneous standard, ultimate deDavidoff, supra, 182 Conn. at 113, 438 A.2d 21 termination of whether, based on underlying facts, a (interpretation of minority representation statutes new municipal election is called for, that is, whethby election moderator constituted ruling by that ofer there were substantial violations of statute auficial). Indeed, such a suggestion is foreclosed by thorizing court to order new election that render reour decision in Scheyd v. Bezrucik, supra, 205 liability of result of election seriously in doubt, is a Conn. at 503, 535 A.2d 793, wherein we stated: mixed question of fact and law that is subject to "[T]he review provided by [General Statutes] § plenary review on appeal. C.G.S.A. § 9-328; Prac9-325 is available only when the original complaint tice Book 1998, § 60-5. actually states a cause of action cognizable under [General Statutes]181(1) §§ 9-324, 9-328, or 9-329a. [7] Statutes Such a complaint must 361k181(1) Most Cited concern Cases a ruling of an election official or a mistake in the count of votes.... A plaintiff may not 188 use these sections to challenge a [7] Statutes law or regulation 361k188 Most Citedunder Cases which the election or primary election is held by claiming aggrievement in the election official's obedience to the law. In such a case the plaintiff may well be aggrieved by 188 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.