In re Election Contest as to Watertown Special Referendum Election of October 26, 1999 736 A.2d 104 628 N.W.2d 336 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 628 N.W.2d 336, 2001 SD 62 (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) (Cite as: 628 N.W.2d 336, 2001 SD 62) mathematical possibility that the results Supreme Court of Connecticut. could haveSteven been changed, when the possibBORTNER ilities all combine v.to repel any such conclusion." Buonanno v. Distefano, TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE et al. 430 A.2d 765, 770No. (R.I.1981). 16114. Likewise, Contestants have provided no evidence that Argued June 11, 1999. anyone was turned away. To the contrary, Decided Aug.that 17, those 1999. still in line the evidence shows after 7 p.m. were still permitted to cast Unsuccessful write-in candidate for elementary their vote. In an election contest, the conboard of education brought action against town, retestants clearly have the burden of proof, gistrars of voters, and successful candidates, chalwhich they have failed to meet. Larson, lenging election results based on alleged voting masupra. chine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven,cite Pittman, ordered303 new FN2. Contestants Ury v.J.,Santee, election. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, F.Supp. 119 (N.D.Ill.1969) as being "reBorden, J., heldsimilar" that: (1)totrial markably the court case atabused hand. its Ap-discretionpellant in refusing to open evidence to consider Brief, p. 23. The Ury case is not election records by defendants, anddistin(2) new binding onoffered this Court and is easily election was not warranted. guishable. The Ury case was brought under 28 USC § 1983, and the district court Reversed and remanded with direction. determined that there were equal protectionJ.,and due process violations due to the Berdon, concurred and filed opinion. town's organization of available voting places. Not onlyHeadnotes was this action brought West solely under 8.1 SDCL ch 12- 22, no claims of [1] Elections equal protection or due process have been 144k8.1 Most Cited Cases forwarded by statutes Contestants. The facts andand Purpose of election is to ensure the true circumstances of Ury are also dissimilar to most accurate count possible of votes for candidates the case at hand. In Ury, the traffic and in the election. lines near the voting booths required police [2] Elections intervention.227(8) No such intervention was 144k227(8) Mosthere. CitedInCases necessary addition, the village in When Ury individual ballot is questioned, no to voter is to was not relying on state law combe disfranchised on a doubtful construction, bine voting wards. Here, the City em-and statutes tending to limit exercise ballot should ployed SDCL 9-13-36 to of combine voting be liberally construed his orlocation. her favor. It logically wards to one in voting follows that there was no effective [3] Elections 298(1) deprivation of the right to vote as claimed 144k298(1) Most Cited Cases by Contestants. Moreover, in its complaint, Election laws generally vest primary responsibility Contestants alleged that the Mayor was for ascertaining intent and will of voters on election biased in favor of the ballot measures; that officials, subject to court's appropriate scope of repoll watchers for Hospital delayed and hindered voter access to the ballot box; that voters were allowed to wear Page 1 Page 4 view when officials' determination is challenged in stickers in support of the measures, but a judicial proceeding. those opposed had to remove their stickers; [4] Elections 227(1) that poll workers encouraged those in favor 144k227(1) CitedtoCases of the Most measures remain in line, but disNo losing candidate is entitled to the electoral couraged those against the measures to equido valentthe of asame. "mulligan," which is a free shot someThese allegations, if proven, times could awardedconstitute to a golfervoting in nontournament play irregularities. when preceding shotevidence was poorly However, no wasplayed. presented to the trial court to prove same, nor were these [5] Elections 298(3) allegations ever argued to this Court. 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases Therefore, it is obvious they have been (Formerly 144k227(1)) dropped from the litigation. To secure judicial order for new municipal election, challenger is not **10 Therefore, we required affirm. to establish that, but for irregularities that he has established as a factual *340 **11heMILLER, Chiefprevailed Justice, and SABERS,inmatter, would have in election; KONENKAMP, and be GILBERTSON, constead, court must persuaded thatJustices, (1) there were cur.substantial errors in rulings of election official or officials, or substantial mistakes in count of votes, 628and N.W.2d 2001ofSD 62 errors or mistakes, reli(2) as336, a result those ability of result of election, as determined by elecEND OF DOCUMENT tion officials, is seriously in doubt. C.G.S.A. § 9-328. [6] Elections 305(2) 144k305(2) Most Cited Cases Although underlying facts are to be established by a preponderance of evidence and are subject on appeal to the clearly erroneous standard, ultimate determination of whether, based on underlying facts, a new municipal election is called for, that is, whether there were substantial violations of statute authorizing court to order new election that render reliability of result of election seriously in doubt, is a mixed question of fact and law that is subject to plenary review on appeal. C.G.S.A. § 9-328; Practice Book 1998, § 60-5. [7] Statutes 181(1) 361k181(1) Most Cited Cases [7] Statutes 188 361k188 Most Cited Cases 241 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.