(a) The Secretary of the State, by virtue of the office, shall be the Commissioner of Elections of the state, with such powers and duties relating to the conduct of elections as are prescribed by law and, unless otherwise provided by state statute, the Secretary's regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions, if in written form, and any order issued under subsection (b) of this section, shall be presumed as correctly interpreting and effectuating the administration of elections and primaries under this title, except for chapters 155 to 158, inclusive, and shall be executed, carried out or implemented, as the case may be, provided nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the right of appeal provided under the provisions of chapter 54. Any such written instruction or opinion shall be labeled as an instruction or opinion issued pursuant to this section, as applicable, and any such instruction or opinion shall cite any authority that is discussed in such instruction or opinion.
(b) During any municipal, state or federal election, primary or recanvass, or any audit conducted pursuant to section 9-320f, the Secretary of the State may issue an order, whether orally or in writing, to any registrar of voters or moderator to correct any irregularity or impropriety in the conduct of such election, primary or recanvass or audit. Any such order shall be effective upon issuance. As soon as practicable after issuance of an oral order pursuant to this subsection, the Secretary shall reduce such order to writing, cite within such order any applicable provision of law authorizing such order and cause a copy of such written order to be delivered to the individual who is the subject of such order or, in the case that such order was originally issued in writing, issue a subsequent written order that conforms to such requirements. The Superior Court, on application of the Secretary or the Attorney General, may enforce by appropriate decree or process any such order issued pursuant to this subsection.
(1953, S. 505d; P.A. 84-319, S. 46, 49; P.A. 15-224, S. 3; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 15-5, S. 445.)
History: P.A. 84-319 established presumption concerning secretary's regulations, rulings, instructions and opinions; P.A. 15-224 changed “chapter 155” to “chapters 155 to 158, inclusive” re exception for presumption of correct interpretation and effectuation, added requirement that regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions be “executed, carried out or implemented, as the case may be”, and added requirement that Secretary of the State label written instruction or opinion as issued pursuant to section and cite authority discussed therein, effective July 7, 2015; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 15-5 designated existing provisions as Subsec. (a) and amended same by adding reference to order issued under Subsec. (b), and added Subsec. (b) re order to correct irregularity or impropriety issued to registrar of voters or moderator, effective January 1, 2016.
See Sec. 3-87 re publication of election laws.
The Secretary of the State is, by virtue of the office, Commissioner of Elections. 31 CS 447.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
31
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1961–2024 · leading case:
Bysiewicz v. Dinardo, 6 A.3d 726 (Conn. 2010).
Bysiewicz v. Dinardo, 6 A.3d 726 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 10× “The plaintiff's statutory responsibilities as the secretary of the state include acting as the commissioner of elections pursuant to General Statutes §§ 9-3 [5] and 9-4. [6] *731 In that capacity, she is authorized to issue, and has issued, "[regulations], declaratory rulings,…”
State v. Haselden, 577 S.E.2d 594 (N.C. 2003).
· cites it 4× “C.G.S. § 9-3 by not inquiring whether Sexton's citizenship rights had been restored.”
State v. Cummings, 543 S.E.2d 849 (N.C. 2001).
· cites it 6× “Specifically, the trial court asked whether any prospective juror: (1) lived outside of Robeson County, (2) was under the age of eighteen, (3) had served on a jury within the last two years, or (4) had been convicted of a felony or been declared mentally incompetent without…”
State v. Cummings, 648 S.E.2d 788 (N.C. 2007).
· cites it 2× “C.G.S. § 9-3 (2005). Determinations of whether a juror would follow the law as instructed are best left to the trial judge, who is actually present during voir dire and has an opportunity to question the prospective juror.”
State v. Elliott, 628 S.E.2d 735 (N.C. 2006).
· cites it 2× “C.G.S. § 9-3 (2001). However, a prospective juror over that age may, when summoned, request an exemption.”
Hallas v. Town of Windsor, 562 A.2d 499 (Conn. 1989).
· cites it 4× “” The central issue below was whether the defendants had violated § 9-3 of the town charter when the town council made appropriations to fund the two road construction projects, known as “Griffin Road North Extension” and “Corporate Drive,” without the approving vote of the town…”
Cyr v. Town of Coventry, 582 A.2d 452 (Conn. 1990).
· cites it 5× “In addition, on three separate occasions the town submitted a sewer funding resolution to a town referendum in accordance with § 9-3 (e) of the Coventry town charter. 6 Each resolution was defeated.”
Arciniega v. Feliciano, 184 A.3d 1202 (Conn. 2018).
· cites it 2× “9 The judgment is reversed with respect to the counterclaim and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment dismissing the counterclaim; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.”
State v. Tirado, 599 S.E.2d 515 (S.C. 2004).
“C.G.S. § 9-3 (2003). In addition, N.C.G.S.”
State v. Smith, 532 S.E.2d 773 (N.C. 2000).
· cites it 2× “But under the facts of this case, it is impossible to see how defendant was prejudiced. This prospective juror’s subsequent responses reveal that his own inability to understand English made him unqualified to serve as a juror under N.”
State v. Tirado, 599 S.E.2d 515 (N.C. 2004).
“C.G.S. § 9-3 (2003). In addition, N.C.G.S.”
State v. Payne, 402 S.E.2d 582 (N.C. 1991).
· cites it 2× “C.G.S. § 9-3. Eight prospective jurors responded to this inquiry and were excused by the trial court prior to voir dire by counsel.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.