§ 9-329a — (Formerly Sec. 9-449). Contests and complaints in connection with any primary.

Connecticut § 9-329a

• Jurisdiction: Connecticut
• Title 9: Elections
• Ch. 149: Elections and Primaries: Contested

Text

(a) Any (1) elector or candidate aggrieved by a ruling of an election official in connection with any primary held pursuant to (A) section 9-423, 9-425 or 9-464, or (B) a special act, (2) elector or candidate who alleges that there has been a mistake in the count of the votes cast at such primary, or (3) candidate in such a primary who alleges that he is aggrieved by a violation of any provision of sections 9-355, 9-357 to 9-361, inclusive, 9-364, 9-364a or 9-365 in the casting of absentee ballots at such primary, may bring his complaint to any judge of the Superior Court for appropriate action. In any action brought pursuant to the provisions of this section, the complainant shall file a certification attached to the complaint indicating that a copy of the complaint has been sent by first-class mail or delivered to the State Elections Enforcement Commission. If such complaint is made prior to such primary such judge shall proceed expeditiously to render judgment on the complaint and shall cause notice of the hearing to be given to the Secretary of the State and the State Elections Enforcement Commission. If such complaint is made subsequent to such primary it shall be brought, not later than fourteen days after such primary, or if such complaint is brought in response to the manual tabulation of paper ballots, described in section 9-320f, such complaint shall be brought, not later than seven days after the close of any such manual tabulation, to any judge of the Superior Court. (b) Such judge shall forthwith order a hearing to be held upon such complaint upon a day not more than five nor less than three days after the making of such order, and shall cause notice of not less than three days to be given to any candidate or candidates in any way directly affected by the decision upon such hearing, to such election official, to the Secretary of the State, the State Elections Enforcement Commission and to any other person or persons, whom such judge deems proper parties thereto, of the time and place of the hearing upon such complaint. Such judge shall, on the day fixed for such hearing, and without delay, proceed to hear the parties and determine the result. If, after hearing, sufficient reason is shown, such judge may order any voting tabulators to be unlocked or any ballot boxes to be opened and a recount of the votes cast, including absentee ballots, to be made. Such judge shall thereupon, if he finds any error in the ruling of the election official, any mistake in the count of the votes or any violation of said sections, certify the result of his finding or decision to the Secretary of the State before the tenth day following the conclusion of the hearing. Such judge may (1) determine the result of such primary; (2) order a change in the existing primary schedule; or (3) order a new primary if he finds that but for the error in the ruling of the election official, any mistake in the count of the votes or any violation of said sections, the result of such primary might have been different and he is unable to determine the result of such primary. (c) The certification by the judge of his finding or decision shall be final and conclusive upon all questions relating to errors in the ruling of such election official, to the correctness of such count, and, for the purposes of this section only, such alleged violations, and shall operate to correct any returns or certificates filed by the election officials, unless the same is appealed from as provided in section 9-325 . In the event a new primary is held pursuant to such Superior Court order, the result of such new primary shall be final and conclusive unless a complaint is brought pursuant to this section. The clerk of the court shall forthwith transmit a copy of such findings and order to the Secretary of the State.

Legislative History

(June, 1955, S. 608d; November, 1955, S. N93; 1958 Rev., S. 9-121; 1963, P.A. 17, S. 73; 1969, P.A. 622, S. 1; P.A. 78-125, S. 12; P.A. 82-426, S. 7, 14; P.A. 83-583, S. 5, 6; P.A. 84-511, S. 7, 15; P.A. 86-164, S. 1, 2; P.A. 87-203, S. 1; 87-545, S. 4; P.A. 95-88, S. 7; P.A. 97-154, S. 3, 27; P.A. 03-241, S. 7; P.A. 07-194, S. 4; P.A. 10-43, S. 6; P.A. 11-20, S. 1.) History: 1963 act restated prior provisions; 1969 act clarified application of section as to who may bring complaint and expanded the remedies available; P.A. 78-125 further clarified who may bring complaint and provided for expeditious handling of complaint made prior to primary and deleted provision for substitution of judge; in 1979 Sec. 9-449 transferred to Sec. 9-329a; P.A. 82-426 amended section to apply to paper ballots and absentee ballots, to allow judge to change primary schedule and to order new primary; P.A. 83-583 required a complainant to send or deliver a copy of the complaint to the state elections commission and required a judge to give notice of a hearing to the secretary of the state and the state elections commission; P.A. 84-511 changed name of elections commission to elections enforcement commission; P.A. 86-164 changed time limit for appeal from 3 to 5 days; P.A. 87-203 changed time limit for appeal from 5 to 10 days; P.A. 87-545 allowed candidate to bring complaint under this section if he claims that he is aggrieved by violation of any provision of Secs. 9-355, 9-357 to 9-361, inclusive, 9-364, 9-364a or 9-365 in casting of absentee ballots; P.A. 95-88 changed time within which a complaint shall be brought from 10 to 14 days; P.A. 97-154 divided section into Subsecs., inserted Subdiv. and Subpara. indicators in Subsec. (a), adding Subdiv. (1)(B) re primary held pursuant to a special act, effective July 1, 1997 (Revisor's note: In Subsec. (a)(2) the word “or” in the phrase “candidate or who” was deleted editorially by the Revisors for grammatical correctness); P.A. 03-241 deleted reference to Sec. 9-424 and made technical changes in Subsec. (a)(1), effective January 1, 2004, and applicable to primaries and elections held on or after that date; P.A. 07-194 amended Subsec. (a) to add deadline for filing of complaint if complaint is brought in response to manual tabulation of paper ballots authorized pursuant to Sec. 9-320f and make a technical change, effective July 5, 2007; P.A. 10-43 amended Subsec. (a) to replace requirement that complainant send by first-class mail or hand-deliver a copy of complaint to State Elections Enforcement Commission with requirement that complainant file a certification attached to complaint indicating that a copy of complaint has been sent by first-class mail or delivered to said commission; pursuant to P.A. 11-20, “machines” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “tabulators” in Subsec. (b), effective May 24, 2011. Cited. 186 C. 125; 205 C. 495; 220 C. 682; 231 C. 602. Court has no authority to postpone a general election in an action pursuant to section under any circumstances. 284 C. 793; Id., 805; Id., 815; Id., 823. When election statute mandates certain procedures, and election official has failed to apply or to follow those procedures, such conduct implicitly constitutes an incorrect interpretation of requirements of statute and, therefore, is a ruling of an election official; ordinary rules of evidence apply in election contests; there is no special obligation for a court to exercise its discretion in favor of admitting evidence. 285 C. 618. Before a court is able to ascertain whether there was any official action that constituted a ruling, evidence must be presented as to reason for alleged violation of election law or who was responsible for such violation; an improper ruling by election official re appointment of official counters does not entitle plaintiff to new election if cause of unreliability in election results is an alleged miscount, rather than ruling; as a general rule, a recount of vote is appropriate remedy when plaintiff has alleged simple counting mistake under Subsec. (a) rather than far more drastic remedy of new primary election in absence of any showing that recount would have been futile or otherwise inappropriate. Id., 657. Acceptance of petitions with a purportedly incorrect address for one candidate would not constitute a “ruling of an election official”. 329 C. 293. Section plainly and unambiguously furnishes a remedy for disputes arising from federal congressional primaries, and a federal congressional primary is one for “district office” under section. 336 C. 432. Under former section, respondents were deprived of right to vote in a Democratic party primary, but court could not order new election as it had to act in strict conformity with statute which authorized recount only. 28 CS 85. Subsec. (a): Trial court correctly determined that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a claim pursuant to Subdiv. (1) because plaintiffs had no specific personal interest that was affected by improprieties complained of. 334 C. 73. Subsec. (b): Despite requirement that parties be heard “without delay”, if plaintiff's failure to correctly cite section as basis for action does not prevent defendants from adequately preparing for trial, then defendant may not prevail on a motion to dismiss based on such failure. 285 C. 618. Provision authorizing court to order new primary election if court finds that result of primary might have been different but for the improprieties complained of, without any limits on the timing of such an order, implicitly authorizes judge to order new general election if first general election is invalidated by operation of judge's order invalidating primary election; Trial court properly found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the reliability of the primary was seriously in doubt under the portion of the Subsec. that provides that the trial court may order a new primary if the trial court finds that, but for a mistake in the vote count, the result of such primary might have been different and the trial court is unable to determine the result of such primary. 334 C. 73.