Bortner v. Town of Woodbridge 736 A.2d 104 736Conn. A.2d 241, 104 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 250 250 Conn. 736241, A.2d736 104,A.2d 137 104) Ed. Law Rep. 1019 (Cite as: 250241, Conn. (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) Court the law orSupreme regulation, butofheConnecticut. or she is not aggrieved BORTNER by the election Steven official's rulings which are in conv. formity *271 with the law." (Citation omitted; inTOWN OF WOODBRIDGE et al. ternal quotation marks omitted.) No. 16114. V Arguedby June 11, 1999. Erroneous rulings election officials do not, Decidedthe Aug. 1999. for a judicial however, constitute only17, predicate order for a new election under § 9-328. The other Unsuccessful write-in candidate for in elementary predicate is that there was a "mistake the count board of education brought action against reof the votes." The trial court determinedtown, that there gistrars of voters, and successful candidates, chalwas such a mistake. We next address, therefore, lenging electionofresults based on alleged ma-it the propriety that determination andvoting whether chine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial justified a new election. District of New Haven, Pittman, J., ordered new election. Defendants appealed. The by Supreme Court, The basis for that determination the trial court Borden, held that: trial court its diswas thatJ., there were (1) several votingabused machines that cretion refusing properly to open evidence to consider did notin function in recording write-in election records and the (2) new votes for the offered plaintiff.by defendants, Specifically, court election wasatnot6:50 warranted. found that a.m., on voting machine number 143719, the paper for recording write-in votes was Reversed and remanded direction.however, that, not advancing. It iswith undisputed, upon being informed of this problem and checking Berdon, J., concurred and filed opinion. the complaint, the election officials took this machine out of service replaced it with alternate Westand Headnotes voting machine 8.1 number 76263. The court also [1] Elections found that voting machine number 150231 had a 144k8.1 Most Cited Cases significant problem throughout day.theThis Purpose of election statutes is to the ensure true proband lem included reports to election officials concernmost accurate count possible of votes for candidates machine at 1:40 p.m., 2:50 p.m. and 3 p.m., ining thethis election. with the first of these complaints involving "a perceived inability to cast a write-in **121 vote" for [2] Elections 227(8) the plaintiff. court also found that at 3 p.m., 144k227(8) MostThe Cited Cases this machine was not is checked despite complaint When individual ballot questioned, no avoter is to it, andonthat "[n]otwithstanding the evidbeconcerning disfranchised a doubtful construction, and ence that the machine checked ... it should never constatutes tending to limit was exercise of ballot be tinued to functioninadequately." liberally construed his or her favor.In addition, the court found that voting machine number 106949 [3] Elections had a paper jam 298(1) at 4:45 p.m., and was then taken 144k298(1) Most Cited Cases out of service. Finally, with respect to voting maElection laws generally responsibility chine number 107017, vest shornprimary of the improper findfor intenthave and discussed, will of voters election ingascertaining that we already the on court found officials, subject court's appropriate of rethat at 6:30 *272top.m. the machine hadscope no paper for write-in candidates and was taken out of service. [FN26] Page 1 Page 20 view when officials' determination is challenged in a judicial proceeding. FN26. When we inquired at oral argument before this court, the parties could not ex[4] Elections plain to 227(1) us how a voting machine could 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases have "no paper" for purposes of recording No losing write-in candidatevotes. is entitledIttoistheundisputed electoral equithat, valent of mechanically, a "mulligan," which is a free shot somethe write-in process takes times awarded to follows. a golfer inInnontournament place as the back of theplay mawhen preceding shot was poorly played. chine there is a continuous roll of paper on which such votes are recorded. It is un[5] Elections 298(3) disputed that each machine was equipped 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases with such a roll of paper. When a voter (Formerly 144k227(1)) wished to cast a write-in vote, he lifted a To secure judicial order for new municipal election, metal slot cover, causing the paper behind challenger is not required to establish that, but for the cover to advance to, presumably, a irregularities that he has established as a factual blank place on the roll. He then wrote in matter, he would have prevailed in election; inthe name of the candidate, and closed the stead, court must be persuaded that (1) there were slot cover. Given this mechanism, we substantial errors in rulings of election official or were able to understand how a machine, officials, or substantial mistakes in count of votes, because of a malfunction, could fail to adand (2) as a result of those errors or mistakes, relivance the paper to a blank place. It was ability of result of election, as determined by elecdifficult to understand, however, how there tion officials, is seriously in doubt. C.G.S.A. § could be no paper behind the metal slot 9-328. cover. The transcript discloses, however, that, when the election officials dis[6] Elections 305(2) covered, with respect to a particular ma144k305(2) Most Cited Cases chine, that there behind Although underlying facts was are to"no be paper" established bythe a slot cover, they assumed that there was preponderance of evidence and are subject on ap- a jamerroneous that had standard, produced ultimate that circumpeal to thepaper clearly destance. This may account for the mechantermination of whether, based on underlying facts, a ical conundrum "no for, paper" there new municipal election is of called thatwhere is, whethis a substantial continuous violations roll of paper. In auany er there were of statute event, the defendants have not raised this thorizing court to order new election that render reas a ground of appeal. liability ofapparent result ofconundrum election seriously in doubt, is a mixed question of fact and law that is subject to [14][15] We agree with the plaintiff that a mechanplenary review on appeal. C.G.S.A. § 9-328; Pracical failure of a machine properly to record write-in tice Book 1998, § 60-5. votes may constitute a "mistake in the count of the votes," within the meaning of § 9-328. [FN27] We [7] Statutes 181(1) conclude, however, these mistakes were not 361k181(1) Most Citedthat Cases substantial, and that as a result of them the reliabilityStatutes of the result 188 of the election was not placed seri[7] ously in Most doubt.Cited Cases 361k188 FN27. We reject, therefore, the defendants' argument that the statutory language only 189 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.