Markley v. State Elections Enforcement Commission, 339 Conn. 96

Background

On Feb. 14, 2018 the State Elections Enforcement Commission issued a final decision finding candidates Markley and Sampson violated Citizens’ Election Program rules and imposed fines; the plaintiffs filed a petition for reconsideration the same day.
Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-181a(a)(1) the agency had 25 days to decide whether to reconsider; the commission took no action and the petition was therefore constructively denied by operation of law on March 11, 2018.
Despite that constructive denial, the commission’s executive director placed the petition on the agenda of a special meeting held March 23, 2018; the commission voted to deny the petition at that meeting and mailed notice on March 28.
The plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal in Superior Court on May 7, 2018 under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183; the commission moved to dismiss as untimely, arguing the 45-day appeal clock began on March 11 (constructive denial).
The trial court granted dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the commission acted within the 40-day window for sua sponte reconsideration under § 4-181a(a)(2), the plaintiffs’ appeal was timely under § 4-183(c)(3).
The Court emphasized (1) the commission’s March 23 action gave the appearance of lawful sua sponte reconsideration, (2) treating it as such avoids penalizing plaintiffs for the agency’s error, and (3) strong state policy favors resolution on the merits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an agency may act to reconsider within 40 days sua sponte after a petition is constructively denied under § 4-181a(a)	§ 4-181a(a)(2) allows the agency to decide to reconsider within 40 days regardless of a petition	Once § 4-181a(a)(1) produced a constructive denial, the agency lacked authority to act and its March 23 vote was a mistake	Agency may lawfully reconsider sua sponte up to 40 days; March 23 action could be treated as such
Which § 4-183(c) 45‑day trigger governs — denial by operation of law vs. mailing after reconsideration	Appeal timely under § 4-183(c)(3): 45 days runs from mailing of decision made after reconsideration (notice of March 28)	Appeal untimely: § 4-183(c)(2) 45‑day period ran from March 11 constructive denial	§ 4-183(c)(3) governs here because the March 23 action was properly viewed as timely sua sponte reconsideration; appeal was timely
Whether the trial court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction because the appeal was filed after the constructive denial	Trial court had jurisdiction because the appeal was filed within 45 days of the commission’s action/notice after reconsideration	Trial court lacked jurisdiction because plaintiffs did not file within 45 days of the March 11 constructive denial	Trial court erred; jurisdiction existed and case remanded for merits
Whether the Supreme Court may consider the plaintiffs’ statutory‑interpretation argument raised more clearly on appeal	Argument is intertwined with the jurisdictional claim and may be reviewed; jurisdictional issues warrant consideration	Argument was not preserved below and should be rejected	Court considered the argument because it was intertwined with the preserved jurisdictional claim and implicated subject‑matter jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Trinity Christian School v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 329 Conn. 684 (discusses plenary review of subject‑matter jurisdiction and statutory limits on administrative appeals)
Dorry v. Garden, 313 Conn. 516 (construing pleadings favorably on jurisdictional motion to dismiss)
Glastonbury Volunteer Ambulance Assn., Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 227 Conn. 848 (failure to timely appeal under § 4-183 deprives court of jurisdiction)
Tolly v. Dept. of Human Resources, 225 Conn. 13 (statutory filing deadlines for administrative appeals are jurisdictional)
Roncari Industries, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 281 Conn. 66 (presumption that public officials perform duties lawfully)
Sena v. American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc., 333 Conn. 30 (jurisdictional rules cannot be conferred by parties or trial court)
Feehan v. Marcone, 331 Conn. 436 (strong presumption in favor of jurisdiction)
Fedus v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 278 Conn. 751 (policy preference to resolve disputes on the merits when possible)
Jobe v. Commissioner of Correction, 334 Conn. 636 (distinguishing claims from arguments for preservation rules)
Rosato v. Rosato, 255 Conn. 412 (recognition that unique factual circumstances produce limited precedential value)