334 Conn. 73
Conn.2019Background
- 2019 Bridgeport Democratic primary for mayor: Ganim defeated Moore by 270 votes (5304–5034), including numerous absentee ballots.
- Plaintiffs (registered Democratic voters) alleged widespread absentee ballot improprieties (misrepresenting eligibility, improper collection/handling, missing/altered applications) and sued under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-329a(a)(1) (aggrieved by a ruling) and (a)(2) (mistake in count), seeking a new primary under § 9-329a(b).
- Trial court dismissed the (a)(1) claims for lack of standing (plaintiffs lacked a specific personal injury), denied dismissal of (a)(2) claims, and after a two-week bench trial found irregularities but concluded plaintiffs failed to show the result was unreliable; judgment for defendants.
- Plaintiffs obtained certification under § 9-325 and filed an expedited appeal the day before the general election; they also argued the appeal was justiciable (not moot) because court could order remedial relief.
- The Supreme Court held the appeal was not moot (court can order a new general election if it invalidates the primary), affirmed dismissal of (a)(1) claims for lack of standing, and affirmed the trial court’s denial of relief under (a)(2)/(b) because plaintiffs failed to show the result’s reliability was seriously in doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Justiciability/mootness: Can court grant relief after the general election? | Appeal not moot; court can order a new primary (and by implication a new general election) if it invalidates the primary before the general election or nunc pro tunc. | Not argued in detail; implicitly that relief could be unavailable after general election. | Not moot: court may order a new general election if invalidation of primary would render the general election invalid. |
| Standing under § 9-329a(a)(1): Must plaintiffs show classical aggrievement? | Statutory standing suffices (zone-of-interests); any elector aggrieved by a ruling may sue—plaintiffs need not show a specific personal injury. | Plaintiffs must show classical aggrievement: a specific, personal, legal interest specially and injuriously affected (not a generalized grievance). | Held for defendants: plaintiffs lacked standing under (a)(1); a generalized claim that the election was unfair is insufficient. |
| Standard for ordering new primary under § 9-329a(b): Is plaintiff required to show a different outcome? | Plaintiffs read the standard as requiring only (1) substantial violations and (2) that the result’s reliability is seriously in doubt (Bortner standard), not proof that a different winner probably would have prevailed. | Trial court applied correct standard—court must find the result might have been different and be unable to determine the outcome; reliability must be seriously in doubt. | Court adopted Bortner-guided interpretation: “might have been different” means the election’s reliability is seriously in doubt due to substantial violations; proof that irregularities actually affected outcome is required. |
| Application to facts: Did plaintiffs prove the result was seriously in doubt? | Evidence of systemic absentee ballot abuses (solicitation, ballot collection, altered applications, paid distributors) rendered the result unreliable. | Even with irregularities, plaintiffs failed to show by preponderance that the unreliability posed a serious risk the outcome would change. | Held for defendants: trial court’s factual findings were unchallenged and plaintiffs failed to show a serious risk the result would have differed; no new primary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caruso v. Bridgeport, 285 Conn. 618 (Conn. 2008) (interpreting § 9-329a and confirming the “seriously in doubt” standard for ordering a new primary)
- Caruso v. Bridgeport, 284 Conn. 793 (Conn. 2007) (construing limits on postponing general elections under § 9-329a)
- Bortner v. Woodbridge, 250 Conn. 241 (Conn. 1999) (establishing two-part test: substantial violations and that result’s reliability is seriously in doubt)
- Penn v. Irizarry, 220 Conn. 682 (Conn. 1991) (clarifying meaning of “might have been different” and emphasizing inability to determine outcome)
- Bauer v. Souto, 277 Conn. 829 (Conn. 2006) (discussing relief when mechanical undercount affects at-large elections)
- Keeley v. Ayala, 328 Conn. 393 (Conn. 2018) (affirming that improper absentee handling can require a new primary)
- Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. New London, 282 Conn. 791 (Conn. 2007) (explaining classical vs. statutory aggrievement and standing principles)