736 A.2d 104 650 250 S.W.2d 510241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 Conn. 650 (Cite S.W.2d Ed. Law 354 104) as:510, 25011 Conn. 241,Rep. 736 A.2d (Cite as: 650 S.W.2d 510) Deffebach v. Chapel Hill Independent School District Page 1 Page 3 the record we conclude that such findings of fact are supporSupreme Court ted by competent evidence and of areConnecticut. therefore binding on this Steven BORTNER court. City Bank of Wellington v. Wellington I.S.D., et al., v. 173 S.W.2d 738 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1943) affirmed, TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE al. 142 Tex. 344, 178 S.W.2d 114 (Tex.1944); et Vandyke v. AusNo.(Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 16114. tin I.S.D., 547 S.W.2d 354 1977, no writ); Redman v. Bennett, 401 S.W.2d 891 Argued June 11, 1999. (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1966, no writ). Decided Aug. 17, 1999. when officials' is challenged in [6]view Appellants complaindetermination that "home made" paper absentee a judicial ballots wereproceeding. voted by the first six absentee voters. We have examined one of these ballots (plaintiff's exhibit No. 19) and [4] Elections 227(1) find no merit to the complaint. It clearly sets forth the pro144k227(1) Most Cited Cases position and gives an opportunity to vote both for and No losing candidate is entitled to the electoral equiagainst the issuance of the bonds. valent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot somegolfer in nontournament play [7]times In ourawarded opinion to thea most serious complaint urged by apwhen preceding was poorly played. pellants is that 425shot voters who appeared at the polls without The appellants do not allege nor complain on appeal of any Unsuccessful write-in candidate for elementary fraudulent conduct on the part of either the election officials board of education brought action against town, reor voters in the election. gistrars of voters, and successful candidates, challenging on alleged voting ma[2][3][4] It iselection our dutyresults here tobased examine the record to determchine malfunctions. Superior Judicial ine whether the will of theThe majority of theCourt, qualified electors District of participating New Haven,in Pittman, J., was ordered newby of said District the election thwarted election. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, the irregularities found to exist in the election process. It is held that: court abused its to disclearBorden, that theJ., election laws(1) willtrial be strictly enforced precretion in refusing to open evidence to consider vent fraud, but liberally construed to effectuate the will of election records offered defendants, andv.(2) new the voters at the election beingbycontested. Prado Johnson, warranted. 625 election S.W.2d was 368 not (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1981, writ presenting to the election officials a current voter registra[5] Elections 298(3) tion certificate were permitted to vote without being re144k298(3) Most Cited Cases quired to make the affidavit required by Article 8.07 of the (Formerly 144k227(1)) Texas Election Code. However, compliance with the proviTo secure judicial order for new municipal election, sions of that article have also been held to be directory and challenger is not required to establish that, but for not mandatory. Walker v. Thetford, 418 S.W.2d 276 irregularities that he has established as a factual (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The former matter, he would have prevailed in election; inversion of Article 8.07, Texas Election Code, referred to stead, court must be persuaded that (1) there were poll tax receipts rather than voter registration certificates, substantial errors in rulings of election official or but in all other respects was virtually identical with the officials, or substantial mistakes in count of votes, present Article 8.07, and hence we believe that Walker v. and (2) as a result of those errors or mistakes, reliThetford, supra, is still authority for the proposition just ability of result of election, as determined by elecstated. tion officials, is seriously in doubt. C.G.S.A. § 9-328. [8][9] Appellants have the burden of establishing that, be- dism'd). Indeed, it has been stated that the purpose of the Reversed and remanded with direction. election code and election laws in general is to prohibit serious error, fraud, mistake andand corruption, and "... not be used Berdon, J., concurred filed opinion. as an instrument of disfranchisement for irregularities of procedure." Fugate West v. Johnson, Headnotes 251 S.W.2d 792 (Tex.Civ.App.--San 1952, no writ). The general [1] Elections Antonio 8.1 rule 144k8.1 is that, absent a showing Most Cited Casesof fraud or a reliable indication Purpose that the will of the majority been the expressed of election statutes has is tonot ensure true andin a fair most manner, the court andcandidates enforces as accurate countliberally possibleconstrues of votes for directory the provisions of the election code and other in theonly election. election laws which are not by their own terms clearly man[2] Id. Elections datory. at 793; Prado227(8) v. Johnson, supra at 370. 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases [5] The trial court's unchallenged findings demonstrate When individual ballot is questioned, no voter is tothat notice properly on given in accordance with Article be was disfranchised a doubtful construction, and 20.04(e), Texas Education Code, and that absentee voting statutes tending to limit exercise of ballot should be was liberally commenced as contemplated by favor. Subdivision 4c of Artconstrued in his or her icle 5.05, Texas Election *513 Code. Subdivision 4c [3] Elections 298(1) provides in pertinent part: "Whenever ... any election ... lawCited Cases fully144k298(1) called for aMost date which does not permit the full period Election laws generally vest primary for absentee voting, (see generally, Article responsibility 5.05) the voting ascertaining and will of voters on election shallfor begin as soon intent as possible after the ballots become officials, available ...." subject to court's appropriate scope of re- cause of the irregularities shown, the true result of the elec[6] Elections 305(2) tion was changed. Wright v. Board of Trustees, 520 S.W.2d 144k305(2) Most Cited Cases 787 (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1975, writ dism'd); Frias v. Although underlying facts are to be established by a Board of Trustees, 584 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso preponderance of evidence and are subject on ap1979, no writ). We have considered each complaint presenpeal to the clearly erroneous standard, ultimate deted by the appellants in their brief and conclude that they termination of whether, based on underlying facts, a have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) new municipal election is called for, that is, wheththat there were any illegal votes sufficient to change the reser there were substantial violations of statute auult of said election; and (2) that a determination of the true thorizing court to order new election that render rewill of the majority of the qualified voters participating in liability of result of election seriously in doubt, is a said election is impossible. mixed question of fact and law that is subject to plenary review on appeal. PracAppellants also argue that theC.G.S.A. decision §in9-328; Peek v. Harvey, ticeS.W.2d Book 1998, 60-5. 599 674 § (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1980, writ dism'd), is controlling here, and that the trial court should [7] Statutes 181(1) have followed Peek and declared the bond election void be361k181(1) Most Cited Cases cause of the irregularity that 425 citizens were permitted to vote the bond election [7] in Statutes 188 who did not present current voter registration certificates and who were not sworn as to their 361k188 Most Cited Cases qualification by the election officials. We do not agree that Peek v. Harvey, supra, supports the position of the appel- © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 197