329 Conn. 293
Conn.2018Background
- Democratic Town Committee members in Hartford are elected by district; candidates must appear on the party's last completed enrollment list in that district to be eligible.
- Candidate consent forms (name, address, office sought, signed consent) are submitted to the registrar, who types that name and address onto petition forms used to collect signatures. Registrars certify and verify petition pages under statutory rules.
- The Arciniega slate and Peterson slate each qualified for a primary; Arciniega sued to disqualify Peterson signatures; Peterson intervened and counterclaimed under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-329a alleging Arciniega candidate Jacqueline Nadal listed an incorrect address on her consent form.
- Peterson argued circulators knew or should have known the address was incorrect and that registrars/clerks should have rejected the petitions; trial court rejected Peterson’s counterclaim on the merits.
- The Supreme Court considered whether Peterson had statutory standing under § 9-329a as an elector or candidate "aggrieved by a ruling of an election official," and whether acceptance of petitions with a candidate address error constituted such a "ruling."
- The Court held there was no statutory or mandatory procedure requiring rejection of petitions where a candidate’s preprinted address on the consent form was allegedly incorrect, and therefore acceptance of those petitions did not constitute a "ruling of an election official." Peterson lacked standing; counterclaim dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether acceptance of petitions bearing a candidate's incorrect address is a "ruling of an election official" under § 9-329a | Peterson: Circulators knew/should have known address was wrong; registrars accepting such petitions effectively ruled unlawfully and must be subject to challenge under § 9-329a | Arciniega/defendants: No statute required registrars to reject petitions for that defect; acceptance did not amount to a "ruling" that statutorily aggrieves Peterson | Held: No — acceptance was not a "ruling of an election official;" Peterson lacked standing and counterclaim must be dismissed |
| Whether statutes (§§ 9-412, 9-368c, 9-410) required invalidation of petitions circulated with incorrect candidate address | Peterson: §§ 9-412/9-368c govern circulator conduct and make such petitions invalid when circulators misrepresent contents | Arciniega/defendants: Those statutes govern circulator eligibility and certification after receiving preprinted petition; they do not require rejection for a preprinted candidate address error | Held: Statutes do not mandate rejection for a candidate address mismatch; registrar may not reject elector signatures solely for address differences if voter identity can be verified |
| Whether a registrars' failure to verify candidate residence on consent form could be treated like other procedural statutory violations (e.g., absentee ballots) to create aggrievement | Peterson: Procedural failure to ensure correctness of addresses should be treated as a ruling similar to counting invalid absentee ballots | Arciniega/defendants: No comparable statutory mandate imposes on registrars the duty to verify candidate residence on consent forms | Held: Distinction upheld — unlike absentee-mailing rules, no statutory procedure triggered imputed erroneous ruling here |
| Appropriate remedy for perceived defect in petition/address requirements | Peterson: Court should invalidate slate or petitions with incorrect address | Arciniega/defendants: Remedies lie in other processes (§ 9-329b removal, Secretary of the State review) or legislative/administrative change | Held: Court dismissed counterclaim for lack of statutory standing; suggested administrative or legislative avenues for change |
Key Cases Cited
- Caruso v. Bridgeport, 285 Conn. 618 (Conn. 2008) (discusses meaning of "ruling of an election official" under election statutes)
- Wrinn v. Dunleavy, 186 Conn. 125 (Conn. 1982) (counting invalid absentee ballots constituted a "ruling" giving standing under election-contest statute)
- Bortner v. Woodbridge, 250 Conn. 241 (Conn. 1999) (articulates two-part test for what constitutes a ruling by an election official)
- Keeley v. Ayala, 328 Conn. 393 (Conn. 2018) (statutory-mandate failures can constitute rulings even without formal adjudication)
- Price v. Independent Party of CT–State Central, 323 Conn. 529 (Conn. 2016) (applies and clarifies the "ruling" standard in election contexts)
- Gonzalez v. Surgeon, 284 Conn. 554 (Conn. 2007) (registrar must presume candidates bona fide; no procedure for registrar to determine bona fides)
- Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, 289 Conn. 522 (Conn. 2008) (treats the "ruling" requirement as jurisdictional in election challenges)