328 Conn. 393
Conn.2018Background
- After an initial Democratic primary (Sept 12, 2017) produced a disputed tiebreaking absentee ballot, the parties agreed to vacate results and hold a court-supervised special primary on Nov 14, 2017. A court-appointed moderator (Medina) oversaw the special primary.
- Plaintiff Keeley (losing candidate) challenged the Nov 14 results under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-329a, alleging multiple absentee ballot improprieties that could undermine the outcome.
- Facts found at trial: a Bridgeport police officer (Nicola) collected 14 absentee ballots at the direction of partisan actors (party chair Testa and candidate DeFilippo) and delivered them to the town clerk; 12 other absentee ballots arrived stamped but without postmarks after suspicious mail handling; and supervised absentee balloting at Northbridge nursing home resulted in no votes being cast.
- Trial court invalidated the 14 ballots collected via Nicola and the 12 unpostmarked ballots, and concluded supervised balloting at Northbridge violated statutory duties; it ordered a new special primary because the invalidated ballots exceeded the winner’s margin.
- Defendants reserved certified questions and appealed, arguing (inter alia) that § 9-140b does not bar third parties from arranging police pickup, that ballots lacking postmarks could still be "mailed," and that Northbridge procedures complied with statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 9-140b allows partisan third parties to arrange police pickup/designee | Keeley: statute and history require the voter to choose the designee and bar partisan involvement | Defendants: statute contains no explicit prohibition; any person may request pickup on voter’s behalf | Court: voter must designate designee; partisan-directed pickups violate § 9-140b; 14 ballots invalidated |
| Whether absentee ballots bearing stamps but no postmarks were "mailed" under § 9-140b(c) | Keeley: circumstantial evidence (absence of postmarks, false mailroom statements, unsecured commingling) showed they were not mailed | Defendants: lack of postmark does not necessarily mean ballots weren’t mailed | Court: factual finding not clearly erroneous that 12 unpostmarked ballots were not mailed; those ballots invalidated |
| Whether supervised absentee balloting at Northbridge complied with §§ 9-159q/9-159r | Keeley: registrars failed statutory duties (did not canvass residents/deliver applications), so residents were disenfranchised | Defendants: statutes place burden on voters to apply; registrars were not required to notify or canvass; no applications were submitted | Court: defendants correct; statutes do not require proactive notice or pre-voting canvass by registrars; trial court erred on this point |
| Whether trial court misallocated burden of proof or improperly rejected valid votes, warranting reversal | Keeley: met civil standard and showed substantial statutory violations that cast doubt on results | Defendants: court shifted burden to them and invalidated valid votes | Court: no reversible error on burden allocation given two sets of validly invalidated ballots; overall judgment affirmed (new primary ordered) |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons-Cook v. Bridgeport, 285 Conn. 657 (Connecticut Supreme Court) (standard for vacating primary results under § 9-329a and review standards)
- Wrinn v. Dunleavy, 186 Conn. 125 (Connecticut Supreme Court) (absentee statute requirements are mandatory; noncompliance invalidates ballots)
- Bortner v. Woodbridge, 250 Conn. 241 (Connecticut Supreme Court) (caution in judicial intrusion into elections; limited remedies)
- Dombkowski v. Messier, 164 Conn. 204 (Connecticut Supreme Court) (invalidating ballots for statutory noncompliance even without fraud)
- Caruso v. Bridgeport, 285 Conn. 618 (Connecticut Supreme Court) (what constitutes a "ruling of an election official" for § 9-329a challenges)
- Lyme Land Conservation Trust, Inc. v. Platner, 325 Conn. 737 (Connecticut Supreme Court) (standards for review of factual findings and circumstantial evidence)