Connecticut § 9-63 Court appeal of discretionary erasure or exclusion.

Connecticut Statutes

§ 9-63 — Court appeal of discretionary erasure or exclusion.

Connecticut § 9-63

Title 9Elections

Ch. 143Electors: Qualifications and Admission

This text of Connecticut § 9-63 (Court appeal of discretionary erasure or exclusion.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-63 (2026).

Text

Any elector whose name has been removed from an enrollment list in the manner provided in sections 9-60 and 9-61, and any elector whose application to have his name placed upon an enrollment list has been refused, and who is aggrieved thereby, may, within ten days after such removal or refusal, bring a petition before any judge of the Superior Court, setting forth that the name of the petitioner has been unjustly or improperly removed from such list or excluded therefrom, as the case may be, and praying for an order directing such registrar or deputy registrar by whom such name was removed or excluded to restore such name or place the same upon such list. A recognizance shall be attached to the petition, with proper surety, in a sum not less than fifty dollars, conditioned that the petitio

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

Any elector whose name has been removed from an enrollment list in the manner provided in sections 9-60 and 9-61, and any elector whose application to have his name placed upon an enrollment list has been refused, and who is aggrieved thereby, may, within ten days after such removal or refusal, bring a petition before any judge of the Superior Court, setting forth that the name of the petitioner has been unjustly or improperly removed from such list or excluded therefrom, as the case may be, and praying for an order directing such registrar or deputy registrar by whom such name was removed or excluded to restore such name or place the same upon such list. A recognizance shall be attached to the petition, with proper surety, in a sum not less than fifty dollars, conditioned that the petitioner will prosecute such action to effect and pay all proper costs of the adverse party in case he fails therein. Such petition shall be returnable not more than six days from the date thereof, and to the same shall be attached a citation commanding such registrar or deputy registrar in the name of the state to appear and show cause why such name should not be restored to such list or placed thereon. A true copy of such petition shall be served upon such registrar or deputy registrar at least four days before the return day thereof, and the judge before whom such petition is returnable shall assign the same for a hearing at the earliest practicable date; and if, upon due hearing thereof, he finds that the petitioner is entitled to relief, such judge shall issue an order directing such registrar or deputy registrar to forthwith restore the name of such elector to the list from which it was removed or to place the name of such elector upon the list applied for, as the case may be; and any registrar or deputy registrar who fails to obey such order shall be deemed guilty of contempt and may be fined not more than one hundred dollars.

Legislative History

(1949 Rev., S. 1179; 1953, S. 564d; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 166; 1971, P.A. 870, S. 18; P.A. 74-183, S. 183, 291; P.A. 76-436, S. 162, 681; P.A. 83-475, S. 15, 43.) History: 1959 act placed jurisdiction of petition of circuit rather than municipal court which was abolished; 1971 act deleted reference to superior court as having jurisdiction of petition; P.A. 74-183 deleted judge of circuit court for the circuit wherein case arises from having jurisdiction of petition, effective December 31, 1974; P.A. 76-436 deleted common pleas and substituted superior court for jurisdiction of petition, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 83-475 added reference to exclusion of applicant for enrollment. Remedy provided is an original judicial proceeding and not an appellate review of the registrar's acts; it is a special statutory proceeding in nature of a mandamus; burden of proof is on plaintiff. 124 C. 271. Although denominated an appeal, the proceeding is not an appeal from an administrative officer but in the nature of mandamus to compel the performance of a public duty; the issue is not whether decision was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion but whether applicant is entitled as a matter of right to have his name restored. 144 C. 1. Cited. 4 CA 339. Cited. 16 CS 1; 31 CS 89.