Any elector or candidate claiming to have been aggrieved by any ruling of any election official in connection with an election for any municipal office or a primary for justice of the peace, or any elector or candidate claiming that there has been a mistake in the count of votes cast for any such office at such election or primary, or any candidate in such an election or primary claiming that he is aggrieved by a violation of any provision of sections
9-355,
9-357 to
9-361, inclusive,
9-364,
9-364a or
9-365 in the casting of absentee ballots at such election or primary, may bring a complaint to any judge of the Superior Court for relief therefrom. In any action brought pursuant to the provisions of this section, the complainant shall send a copy of the complaint by first-class mail, or deliver a copy of the complaint by hand, to the State Elections Enforcement Commission. If such complaint is made prior to such election or primary, such judge shall proceed expeditiously to render judgment on the complaint and shall cause notice of the hearing to be given to the Secretary of the State and the State Elections Enforcement Commission. If such complaint is made subsequent to such election or primary, it shall be brought not later than fourteen days after such election or primary, except that if such complaint is brought in response to the manual tabulation of paper ballots, authorized pursuant to section
9-320f, such complaint shall be brought not later than seven days after the close of any such manual tabulation, to any judge of the Superior Court, in which he shall set out the claimed errors of the election official, the claimed errors in the count or the claimed violations of said sections. Such judge shall forthwith order a hearing to be had upon such complaint, upon a day not more than five nor less than three days from the making of such order, and shall cause notice of not less than three nor more than five days to be given to any candidate or candidates whose election or nomination may be affected by the decision upon such hearing, to such election official, the Secretary of the State, the State Elections Enforcement Commission and to any other party or parties whom such judge deems proper parties thereto, of the time and place for the hearing upon such complaint. Such judge shall, on the day fixed for such hearing and without unnecessary delay, proceed to hear the parties. If sufficient reason is shown, he may order any voting tabulators to be unlocked or any ballot boxes to be opened and a recount of the votes cast, including absentee ballots, to be made. Such judge shall thereupon, if he finds any error in the rulings of the election official or any mistake in the count of the votes, certify the result of his finding or decision to the Secretary of the State before the tenth day succeeding the conclusion of the hearing. Such judge may order a new election or primary or a change in the existing election schedule. Such certificate of such judge of his finding or decision shall be final and conclusive upon all questions relating to errors in the ruling of such election officials, to the correctness of such count, and, for the purposes of this section only, such claimed violations, and shall operate to correct the returns of the moderators or presiding officers, so as to conform to such finding or decision, except that this section shall not affect the right of appeal to the Supreme Court and it shall not prevent such judge from reserving such questions of law for the advice of the Supreme Court as provided in section
9-325. Such judge may, if necessary, issue his writ of mandamus, requiring the adverse party and those under him to deliver to the complainant the appurtenances of such office, and shall cause his finding and decree to be entered on the records of the Superior Court in the proper judicial district.
(1949 Rev., S. 527; 1953, S. 806d; 1957, P.A. 526, S. 7; 1963, P.A. 163; P.A. 74-109, S. 8, 11; P.A. 78-125, S. 9; P.A. 83-583, S. 4, 6; P.A. 84-511, S. 6, 15; P.A. 87-545, S. 3; P.A. 95-88, S. 6; P.A. 07-194, S. 5; P.A. 11-20, S. 1.)
History: 1963 act reduced time within which a complaint may be brought from 60 to 10 days after the election and conformed procedure to be followed to that for contests in state offices; P.A. 74-109 changed reference to “election” to the office of justice of the peace to “nominated of a primary” and conformed the other references to that office accordingly, effective upon adoption of Senate Joint Resolution No. 22 of the 1973 session as an amendment to the constitution of Connecticut; P.A. 78-125 clarified application of section to “elector or candidate claiming to have been aggrieved by any ruling of any election official in connection with an election”, provided for expeditious handling of complaint made prior to election or primary and where complaint is made subsequent to election or primary, for notice to election official, further provided that judge may order a new election or primary or a change in the existing election schedule, deleted qualification of “for the reservation of questions arising therefrom” to the right of appeal to the supreme court and also deleted the qualification “by consent of all parties” from “reserving such questions of law” and cross referenced Sec. 9-325, and deleted provision for substitution in case judge unable to serve; P.A. 83-583 required a complainant to send or deliver a copy of the complaint to the state elections commission and required a judge to give notice of a hearing to the secretary of the state and the state elections commission; P.A. 84-511 changed name of elections commission to elections enforcement commission; P.A. 87-545 allowed candidate to bring complaint under this section if he claims that he is aggrieved by violation of any provision of Secs. 9-355, 9-357 to 9-361, inclusive, 9-364, 9-364a or 9-365 in casting of absentee ballots; P.A. 95-88 changed time within which a complaint shall be brought from 10 to 14 days; P.A. 07-194 added deadline for filing of complaint if complaint is brought in response to manual tabulation of paper ballots authorized pursuant to Sec. 9-320f and made technical changes, effective July 5, 2007; pursuant to P.A. 11-20, “machines” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “tabulators”, effective May 24, 2011.
Information should show relator's election; alleged errors must appear to be injurious; certificate of judge is conclusive. 51 C. 113. Provision is constitutional. Id.; 102 C. 588. Appeal to Supreme Court carries stay of execution. 62 C. 488. Quo warranto is a means to oust an illegal incumbent, but not to induct the rightful person. 66 C. 294; 102 C. 595. Facts held to justify order of judge that ballot boxes be opened; mere irregularities in arrangement of polling places not enough to invalidate election. 75 C. 50. Pleading; after ballots recounted, errors in interlocutory rulings immaterial. 85 C. 396; 102 C. 587. Petition fails in case of first selectman if vote is found to be a tie. 91 C. 371. Cited. 101 C. 735. Judge should embody decision in judgment file. 104 C. 398. Cited. 124 C. 276. Defendant, not being a member of one of two parties polling largest and next largest vote, was not eligible for office. 136 C. 632. Proper procedure to question validity of form of absentee ballot used. 145 C. 648. Section held to confer right of judicial appeal from moderator's rulings or recanvass; prior invoking of Sec. 9-311a no bar. 155 C. 68, 73, 74. In case brought by minority representatives under Sec. 9-167a, held Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over November, 1967, election of New Haven board of aldermen ordered by the U.S. district court as election was a creature of the district court and it was that court's prerogative to determine what candidates were elected. 156 C. 253. Cited. 175 C. 545. The bare existence in statute of authority to order a new election does not require the court to proceed as if that remedy were to be implemented; since a new election was not sought by the parties or contemplated by the court, it was not necessary to include as parties candidates whose election was not affected by the suit. 182 C. 111. Cited. 186 C. 125. Constitutional claims not included in provisions for expedited judicial procedures. 205 C. 495. Cited. 225 C. 378; 231 C. 602. Court should exercise caution and restraint in deciding whether to order new election; two-part standard established for such decisions; plenary scope of review of trial court decision is appropriate, no special need for speed and finality for trial court decision under circumstances of this case; “rulings of the election official” defined, and “mistake in the count of the votes” interpreted and applied. 250 C. 241. Municipality is not indispensable to court's subject matter jurisdiction over challenge to a municipal election. 277 C. 829. An election for a seat in the state House of Representatives is not one for a “municipal office”, as defined in Sec. 9-372(7), subject to challenge under section. 331 C. 436.
Cited. 8 CS 234; 10 CS 258. Statutory petition does not preclude plaintiff from seeking to have writ of mandamus issued. 18 CS 72. Cited. 21 CS 482.
Notes of Decisions
Bortner v. Town of Woodbridge, 736 A.2d 104 (Conn. 1999).
· cites it 49× “The principal issue in this appeal involves the standard to be applied under General Statutes § 9-328 3 for *245 a trial court to order a new election.”
Feehan v. Marcone, 204 A.3d 666 (Conn. 2019).
· cites it 31× “3 We conclude that the elections clause gives our state House of Representatives exclusive jurisdiction over **441 this election contest, and we disagree with the plaintiff's claims that (1) General Statutes § 9-328, 4 which governs contested elections *672 for "municipal…”
Caruso v. City of Bridgeport, 941 A.2d 266 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 23× “In his original complaint, the plaintiff stated that he was bringing the action pursuant to General Statutes § 9-328, governing contests in general elections, but he later clarified in his second amended complaint that he was bringing the action pursuant to § 9-329a.”
Scheyd v. Bezrucik, 535 A.2d 793 (Conn. 1987).
· cites it 23× “” General Statutes § 9-328, as amended by Public Acts 1987, No.”
Bauer v. Souto, 896 A.2d 90 (Conn. 2006).
· cites it 10× “The plaintiff brought this action pursuant to General Statutes § 9-328,* * 4 challenging the results of the Novem *833 ber 8, 2005 election for the council.”
Lazar v. Ganim, 334 Conn. 73 (Conn. 2019).
· cites it 7× “, 836–37 (trial court found that, as result of malfunctioning machine, ‘‘all those who voted for [the plaintiff] in district eleven did not have their vote[s] counted’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]). Under § 9-328, as under § 9-329a (a) (2), there is no requirement that a…”
Hurlbut v. Lemelin, 230 A.2d 36 (Conn. 1967).
· cites it 9× “On October 13, 1965, Hurlbut presented a petition to a judge of the Superior Court, under § 9-328 of the General Statutes (Rev. to 1964), in which he set out claimed errors of the moderator and claimed errors in the count.”
Anderson v. Ludgin, 400 A.2d 712 (Conn. 1978).
· cites it 4× “The plaintiff thereupon filed a petition in the Superior Court to compel the city defendants to declare and certify her election, pursuant to General Statutes § 9-328. [2] *549 The trial court concluded that § 9-167a was applicable to legislative bodies such as the council, but…”
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, 958 A.2d 709 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 6× “5 The Supreme Court previously has construed the phrase “ruling of [an] election official,” as used in General Statutes §§ 9-328 and 9-329a, 6 to mean “some act *527 or conduct by the official that .”
Arciniega v. Feliciano, 184 A.3d 1202 (Conn. 2018).
· cites it 3× “2d 104 (1999) (interpreting same phrase in different provision of statutory scheme governing election contest, General Statutes § 9-328 ). Other cases have adopted a holistic view of the statutory requirement, treating this question as jurisdictional.”
Lobsenz v. Davidoff, 438 A.2d 21 (Conn. 1980).
· cites it 22× “Relying on General Statutes § 9-328, [1] *114 the plaintiff sought first a writ of mandamus ordering the defendants Thiemann and Hyde to declare the plaintiff elected to the board rather than the defendant Davidoff, and second, a court certification stating that the plaintiff…”
Price v. Indep. Party of CT, 147 A.3d 1032 (Conn. 2016).
· cites it 2× “2d 104 (1999) ("as a predicate for the ordering of a new election under [General Statutes] § 9-328, there must be either [1] an error or errors 'in the rulings of' an election official, or [2] a 'mistake in the count of the votes' ").”
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.