Walton v. Burdick
This text of 439 A.2d 942 (Walton v. Burdick) 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.
Opinion
This action is a challenge to the procedure used by the defendants, who are the selectmen, registrars of voters and moderator of the town of Griswold, to form a police tax district. The district was to be composed of the town of Griswold excluding the borough of Jewett City which lies within the town. Pursuant to General Statutes § 7-3251 a petition by twenty or more voters who [202]*202did not reside within a city or borough of the town was presented to the board of selectmen. At a special town meeting called by the selectmen to act on the petition, qualified taxpayers who did not reside in the town were allowed to vote on the petition. This meeting was adjourned for eight days, until April 80,1980, when another vote was taken by paper ballot. The town moderator ruled that nonresident taxpayers would again be eligible to vote.
The plaintiff, a resident of the town and of the proposed district, began this action on April 24, 1980, to enjoin the defendants from conducting the April 30, 1980, vote and from proceeding any further in the matter. By agreement of the parties two issues were to be determined: (1) may a qualified taxpayer, as defined by General Statutes § 7-6,2 who is not a town resident vote at a meeting called to consider the establishment of a police tax district; and (2) may a referendum be held on the proposed establishment of a tax district pursuant to § 7-325. The trial court resolved both issues in the negative and rendered appropriate equitable relief in the plaintiff’s favor. The defendants have appealed, claiming that both issues were wrongly decided.
The defendants’ contention that any voter as defined by § 7-6 is entitled to participate in the [203]*203§ 7-325 organizational meeting fails in light of the plain legislative directive to the contrary. The procedure for organizing a police district is set forth in § 7-325. An organizational meeting must be called upon the petition of twenty or more “voters, as defined by section 7-6,” of a town. The term “voters” is defined in § 7-6 to include both electors and qualified taxpayers. A petitioner need not reside in nor own taxable property in the proposed district. Petitioners under § 7-325 may not, however, reside within a city or borough of the town. Participation at the organizational meeting called to act on the petition is limited by the statute to “voters residing within” the area of the proposed district. The purpose of the meeting is to determine whether to create the proposed district. Once the petition is approved, the organizing voters may then proceed to name the district and to choose necessary officers to hold office until the first annual meeting of the district. On the basis of § 7-325, we conclude that only voters3 residing within the area of the proposed district may vote at the organizational meeting.
To avoid this result, the defendants contend that the words “residing within such specified limits” do not modify or restrict the word “voters,” but rather serve only to limit participation at the organizational meeting to electors and nonresident qualified taxpayers who own property within the boundaries of the proposed district. This view is plainly unwarranted by the clear language of § 7-325.
[204]*204The defendants’ second contention on appeal is that the question of whether the police tax district is to he created can he the subject of a referendum. Eelying on the definition of “referendum” in § 9-1 (n),4 the defendants argue that the creation of a police district is “a question or proposal which is submitted to a vote of the electors or voters, as the case may he, of a municipality at a meeting of such electors or voters pursuant to section 7-7.”5 General Statutes § 9-1 (n) (3). We agree with the [205]*205trial court that, because no police tax district exists until a petition is approved at the § 7-325 meeting, no municipality or other body politic exists for purposes of either § 9-1 (n) (3) or § 7-7. Section 7-325 details a cogent, comprehensive mechanism that is well tailored to meet the needs of local residents attempting to form a body politic. The interjection of referendum procedures into the formation process, as suggested by the defendants, finds no support in the statutory scheme.
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
439 A.2d 942, 184 Conn. 200, 1981 Conn. LEXIS 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walton-v-burdick-conn-1981.