In re Gray-Sadler 736 A.2d 104 753 A.2d 1101 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 164 N.J. 468, 753 A.2d 1101 (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, 736 A.2d 104) (Cite as: 164 N.J. 468, 753 A.2d 1101) sparse and confusing. One testified that the Supreme Court of witness Connecticut. confusion was Steven so great it actually prevented her BORTNER from casting a write-inv.vote, and another testified that sheTOWN lost the opportunity to vote OF WOODBRIDGE et al.when she stepped out of the No. booth to ask an election official 16114. for instructions about write-in votes. The Board of June Elections alsoArgued disclosed for11, the1999. first time that it had Decided Aug. rejected votes, contrary to 17, both1999. the notation on the return sheet that no votes were rejected and the siUnsuccessful write-in candidate for elementary lence of the recount report concerning rejected board of education brought action against town, revotes. gistrars of voters, and successful candidates, challenging election results based ordered on alleged votingof maThe trial court subsequently a review the chine The Superior Court, Judicial papermalfunctions. rolls and discovered that there were sixtyDistrict of Newvotes, Haven, Pittman, J., ordered new four write-in either hand-written or affixed election. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, by sticker, that had not been counted by election ofBorden, held that: were (1) trial court its disficials. J.,Forty-nine placed onabused the voting macretion in refusing to open evidence to consider chine in *474 spaces that did not specify any ofelection by defendants, and (2) new fice. records Of thoseoffered forty-nine, fifteen votes were for election was notnineteen warranted. Gray-Sadler, for Sturgis, and fifteen for Geiger. The Board **1105 deemed those fortyReversed and remanded with direction. nine votes void. Another fifteen votes were placed in spaces designatedandfor offices that were not Berdon, J., concurred filed opinion. sought by petitioners (e.g., Gray-Sadler was placed twice in general West assembly spaces and six times in Headnotes borough council spaces). Those votes were coun[1] Elections 8.1 ted as votes for those 144k8.1 Most Cited Casesoffices, not the offices for which petitioners running. Purpose of electionwere statutes is to ensure the true and most accurate count possible of votes for candidates court concluded that serious irregularities inThe the trial election. in the conduct of the election denied qualified write-in voters their "constitutional right to vote for [2] Elections 227(8) any person they chose." 144k227(8) Most Cited CasesBecause the voting machinesindividual were not ballot accompanied by proper mechanical When is questioned, no voter is to as specified N.J.S.A. 19:48-1(l ), andand bebemodels, disfranchised on ain doubtful construction, cause voting instructions were not provided to each statutes tending to limit exercise of ballot should be voter inconstrued the manner required by N.J.S.A. 19:50-3, liberally in his or her favor. the court voided the results for the offices of mayor [3] Elections 298(1) and borough council and ordered a special election 144k298(1) Cases appeal, the Appellate to be held.Most OnCited emergency Election laws generally primary responsibility Division reversed. Wevest granted petitioners' request for will of voters on election forascertaining certificationintent and and cross-petitions filed by Camofficials, subject appropriate of re-of den County and to thecourt's Attorney General scope in respect the appropriate procedures in the event of a new election. 163 N.J. 398, 749 A.2d 371 (2000). Page 1 Page 4 view when officials' determination is challenged in II a judicial proceeding. [1] A citizen's constitutional right to vote for the [4] Elections 227(1) candidate of his or her choice necessarily includes 144k227(1) Most Cited the corollary right to Cases have that vote counted " 'at No losing candidate is entitled the electoral equifull value without dilution or to discount.' " Reynolds valent of a "mulligan," which is a free shot somev. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 n. 29, 84 S.Ct. 1362, times to aL.Ed.2d golfer in nontournament play 1378 awarded n. 29, 12 506, 524 n. 29 (1964) when preceding was poorly (quoting Southshot v. Peters, 339 played. U.S. 276, 279, 70 S.Ct. 641, 643, 94 L.Ed. 834, 838 (1950) (Douglas, [5] Elections 298(3) J., dissenting)). That principle also encompasses 144k298(3) Most Cited Cases "the right of all qualified electors to vote for [a (Formerly 144k227(1)) write-in candidate] by such means." Sadloch v. AlTo secure judicial order for new municipal election, lan, 25 N.J. 118, 128, 135 A.2d 173 (1957); see challenger is not required to establish that, but for also Stevenson v. Gilfert, 13 N.J. 496, 503-04, 100 irregularities that he has established as a factual A.2d 490 (1953) (discussing right to cast write-in matter, he would have prevailed in election; invote for any person). To preserve those rights, our stead, court must be persuaded that (1) there were state election laws are designed to deter *475 fraud, substantial errors in rulings of election official or safeguard the secrecy of the ballot, and prevent disofficials, or substantial mistakes in count of votes, enfranchisement of qualified voters. Cf. In re and (2) as a result of those errors or mistakes, reliByron, 165 N.J.Super. 468, 474, 398 A.2d 599 (Law ability of result of election, as determined by elecDiv.1978) (concerning purpose of election laws in tion officials, is seriously in doubt. C.G.S.A. § relation to absentee ballots), aff'd, 170 N.J.Super. 9-328. 410, 406 A.2d 982 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 82 N.J. 280, 412 A.2d 786 (1979). In furtherance of [6] Elections 305(2) those goals,Most we have that it is our duty to con144k305(2) Citedheld Cases strue elections laws liberally. Wene v. Meyner, Although underlying facts are toSee be established by a 13 N.J. 185, 197, 98 A.2d 573 (1953) (citing preponderance of evidence and are subject onChief apJustice Vanderbilt's opinion in Kilmurray v. Gilfert, peal to the clearly erroneous standard, ultimate de10 N.J. 435,of440, 91 A.2d 865on(1952)). termination whether, based underlying facts, a new municipal election is called for, that is, whethA. er there were substantial violations of statute auAmong the grounds for contesting an election set thorizing court to order new election that render reforth in N.J.S.A. 19:29-1, subsections (e), (f), and liability of result of election seriously in doubt, is a (g) are applicable to this appeal. Those subsecmixed question of fact and law that is subject to tions provide, in relevant part, that voters may chalplenary review on appeal. C.G.S.A. § 9-328; Praclenge an election, tice Book 1998, § 60-5. e. When ... legal votes [have been] rejected at the sufficient181(1) to change the result; [7] polls Statutes f. For any error by Cases any board of canvassers in 361k181(1) Most Cited counting the votes or declaring the result of the [7] election, Statutes if such 188 error would change the result; [or] Most Cited Cases 361k188 g. For any other cause which shows that another was the person legally elected. All three petitioners claim that write-in votes 257 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.