Reale v. Bysiewicz

6 A.3d 1138, 298 Conn. 808, 2010 Conn. LEXIS 401
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedOctober 21, 2010
DocketSC 18698
StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.3d 1138 (Reale v. Bysiewicz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Reale v. Bysiewicz, 6 A.3d 1138, 298 Conn. 808, 2010 Conn. LEXIS 401 (Colo. 2010).

Opinion

Opinion

EVELEIGH, J.

The plaintiffs, Daniel Reale and The Reale Deal for Congress, brought a complaint pursuant to General Statutes § 9-323, 1 as amended by P.A. 10-43, § 5, effective October 1, 2010, against the defendants, Susan Bysiewicz, the secretary of the state, and her staff. 2 By their complaint entitled “Emergency Petition for Injunctive Relief,” the plaintiffs seek an order requiring the defendant to: (1) place Reale’s name on the ballot as the Libertarian candidate for Connecticut’s Second Congressional District (Second District) in the November, 2010 general election; and (2) hire an inde *811 pendent agency to audit her election records and security protocols. The plaintiffs claim that because the defendant initially, inadvertently, published Reale’s name as a candidate for the Second District on the “voter guide” website mandated by General Statutes § 9-4a, 3 he was officially “placed on the ballot.” As a result, they further argue that the defendant has no statutory authority to “remove” his name from the ballot.

The record reveals the following facts and procedural history. The complaint was filed in the Supreme Court pursuant to § 9-323 on October 8, 2010. Thereafter, on October 13, 2010, this court ordered all parties: (1) to file any stipulations of fact by October 18, 2010; (2) to file any motions, proposed findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law by October 19, 2010; and (3) to appear in court for a hearing on October 21, 2010. On October 21, 2010, this court conducted a hearing and listened to the testimony of witnesses, as well as the arguments of both Reaie and Robert W. Clark, an attorney representing the defendants. As a preliminary matter, the court denied Reale’s motion to strike certain documents filed by the defendants on the grounds that the documents were filed late. The court ruled that the documents were timely filed since there were no stipulations of fact filed in the case. After hearing the matter, the court issued an oral decision denying both *812 the plaintiffs’ motion to strike and the petition for injunctive relief. The court further indicated that a written opinion would follow. This is that opinion.

Pursuant to General Statutes § 9-379, “[n]o name of any candidate shall be printed on any official ballot at any election except the name of a candidate nominated by a major or minor party unless a nominating petition for such candidate is approved by the Secretary of State as provided in sections 9-453a to 9-454p, inclusive.” Only those parties that meet the definition of a major party or a minor party under General Statutes § 9-372 (5) and (6), respectively, are entitled to a place on the ballot for a state or district office by way of party nomination. The plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Reale was nominated by a major or minor party or that he obtained and timely filed the requisite number of signatures to secure aplace on the ballot as apetitioning candidate for the Second District pursuant to General Statutes § 9-453a.

Pursuant to § 9-372 (5), a “ ‘[m]ajor party’ ” is defined as: “(A) a political party or organization whose candidate for Governor at the last-preceding election for Governor received, under the designation of that political party or organization, at least twenty per cent of the whole number of votes cast for all candidates for Governor, or (B) a political party having, at the last-preceding election for Governor, a number of enrolled members on the active registry list equal to at least twenty per cent of the total number of enrolled members of all political parties on the active registry fist in the state . . . .” The Libertarian Party does not qualify as a major party pursuant to the wording of the statute.

Section 9-372 (6) defines a “ ‘[m]inor party,’ ” for purposes of General Statutes § 9-452, as “a political party or organization which is not a major party and whose candidate for the office in question received at the last- *813 preceding regular election for such office, under the designation of that political party or organization, at least one per cent of the whole number of votes cast for all candidates for such office at such election . . . .” As indicated in the official statement of vote records maintained by the defendant’s office, in the last regular election for the Second District, which took place in November, 2008, no candidate ran under the Libertarian Party designation and no Libertarian Party candidate received votes for that office. As a result, the Libertarian Party is not a minor party in the Second District for purposes of § 9-452. Reale, therefore, could not have obtained a place on the ballot through either the major party or the minor party nominating procedures.

In view of the fact that Reale was neither nominated by a major party or a minor party, he could only have obtained a place on the ballot as the Libertarian Party candidate for the Second District as a petitioning candidate under § 9-453a et seq. Pursuant to that statutory scheme, Reale had to petition onto the ballot under the Libertarian Party name. See General Statutes §§ 9-453a and 9-453b. In addition, the chairman or secretary of the Libertarian Party had to file a statement endorsing Reale as its candidate for the Second District. See General Statutes § 9-453o (b). Next, Reale had to apply to the defendant for nominating petitions prior to August 4, 2010, pursuant to § 9-453b. Each of these requirements was met in this case.

After receiving his petitions, Reale or eligible circula-tors had to obtain the valid signatures of registered voters within the Second District in an amount equal to 1 percent of the total votes cast for Second District candidates in 2008. General Statutes § 9-453d. 4 Based *814 upon the 2008 election figures set forth in the official statement of vote, Reale had to obtain 3231 signatures from individuals registered to vote in the Second District. In addition, the petition pages containing the requisite number of signatures had to be filed with the defendant or the appropriate town clerks on or before the ninetieth day before the regular election, in this case, August 4, 2010. At the time petition pages are submitted, the town clerk or the defendant, as the case may be, must also provide circulators with a receipt indicating the number of pages so submitted and the date upon which such pages were submitted. General Statutes § 9-453k (c). The town clerks are then required to review the petition pages to determine whether all of the signatures are valid and otherwise meet all of the statutory criteria. General Statutes § 9-453k (d). Within two weeks of receiving petition pages, the respective town clerks axe required to forward all petitions they have received, with their official certifications and markings indicating which signatures were rejected as invalid, to the defendant. General Statutes § 9-453n. The defendant, in turn, tabulates all of the valid signatures.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 A.3d 1138, 298 Conn. 808, 2010 Conn. LEXIS 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reale-v-bysiewicz-conn-2010.