Feehan v. Marcone
204 A.3d 666
| Conn. | 2019Background
- In the Nov. 6, 2018 election for Connecticut's 120th assembly district, about 76 voters at Bunnell High School were given 122nd-district ballots by mistake and may have been unable to vote for the 120th district representative. A moderator fixed the error during the day and logged the incident.
- Initial count: Young 5,217; Feehan (plaintiff) 5,199; Palmer 55. Statutory recanvass produced Young 5,222; Feehan 5,209 (13-vote margin).
- Feehan sued state officials and sought declaratory relief, a new election, and an injunction preventing the state canvassers from declaring a winner; he later added § 1983 federal due process and equal protection claims.
- Defendants (including intervenor Young) moved to dismiss, arguing the Connecticut Constitution’s elections clause (Art. III, §7) gives the House exclusive jurisdiction over legislative election contests; trial court dismissed part of the complaint but granted a temporary injunction halting canvass and declaration.
- Connecticut Supreme Court (this opinion) held the elections clause vests exclusive jurisdiction in the state House for this type of legislative election contest, concluded § 9-328 (municipal contest statute) does not apply to state legislative seats, and found plaintiff’s federal claims insufficiently pleaded (no intentional state conduct). The injunction was vacated and dismissal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Connecticut's elections clause (Art. III §7) prevents courts from adjudicating this legislative election contest | Elections clause only makes each house final judge of returns (tally) but does not preclude courts from adjudicating procedural irregularities or ordering equitable relief (new election) | Clause vests exclusive authority in each legislative house to judge elections/qualifications of its members; judicial intrusion would upset separation of powers | Held: Clause divests courts of jurisdiction over this contest; exclusive jurisdiction lies with the House (absent statute permitting court role) |
| Whether General Statutes § 9-328 (municipal election contest statute) authorizes court jurisdiction here | § 9-328 is broad and, combined with § 9-372(7) definition of “municipal office,” covers single-town assembly districts so it applies to 120th district | Statutory scheme and definitions show § 9-328 governs municipal offices only (public officials of municipality); § 9-372 definitions do not apply to § 9-328; applying plaintiff’s view creates arbitrary disparities | Held: § 9-328 does not apply to state legislative elections; it does not confer jurisdiction over this case |
| Whether federal supremacy / § 1983 claims override the elections clause and permit state-court adjudication | Federal constitutional claims (vote denial/equal protection) under § 1983 must be heard in state courts; supremacy clause forbids state constitutional/structural limitations from blocking federal claims | If federal claim exists, state courts still should apply federal standards; but federal jurisprudence requires intentional or purposeful state action for due process/equal protection voting claims; plaintiff alleged a mistake, not intent | Held: Even assuming supremacy allowed court jurisdiction, Feehan failed to plead a colorable federal constitutional claim (no allegation of intentional or discriminatory state action); dismissal upheld |
| Whether trial court properly issued temporary injunction enjoining canvass/declaration | Injunction was necessary to preserve status quo and protect House jurisdiction; trial court may grant temporary equitable relief incident to preserving rights | Because courts lack jurisdiction over the election contest, they lack authority to enjoin the ministerial statutory duty of canvassers; injunction exceeded court's limited powers | Held: Trial court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin canvass/declaration; injunction vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1972) (upheld state recount procedures as not usurping Senate's final power to judge elections)
- Morgan v. United States, 801 F.2d 445 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (federal elections clause precludes judicial review of House's judgment in contested elections)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (U.S. 2000) (equal protection concerns where varying standards produced disparate counting)
- Shannon v. Jacobowitz, 394 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005) (federal courts limit intervention in state/local election disputes absent intentional or discriminatory state action)
- Powell v. Power, 436 F.2d 84 (2d Cir. 1970) (errors in election administration do not alone establish due process violations; intent required)
- State ex rel. Morris v. Bulkeley, 61 Conn. 287 (Conn. 1892) (when constitution appoints a single tribunal to declare results, other authorities may not interfere)
- Selleck v. Common Council, 40 Conn. 359 (Conn. 1873) (use of “final” in judicially vesting election-judging authority divests courts of jurisdiction)