Sec. 9-63. Court appeal of discretionary erasure or exclusion.
Sec. 9-63. Court appeal of discretionary erasure or exclusion. Any elector
whose name has been removed from an enrollment list in the manner provided in sections
9-60 and 9-61, and any elector whose application to have his name placed upon an
enrollment list has been refused, and who is aggrieved thereby, may, within ten days
after such removal or refusal, bring a petition before any judge of the Superior Court,
setting forth that the name of the petitioner has been unjustly or improperly removed
from such list or excluded therefrom, as the case may be, and praying for an order
directing such registrar or deputy registrar by whom such name was removed or excluded
to restore such name or place the same upon such list. A recognizance shall be attached
to the petition, with proper surety, in a sum not less than fifty dollars, conditioned that
the petitioner will prosecute such action to effect and pay all proper costs of the adverse
party in case he fails therein. Such petition shall be returnable not more than six days
from the date thereof, and to the same shall be attached a citation commanding such
registrar or deputy registrar in the name of the state to appear and show cause why such
name should not be restored to such list or placed thereon. A true copy of such petition
shall be served upon such registrar or deputy registrar at least four days before the return
day thereof, and the judge before whom such petition is returnable shall assign the same
for a hearing at the earliest practicable date; and if, upon due hearing thereof, he finds
that the petitioner is entitled to relief, such judge shall issue an order directing such
registrar or deputy registrar to forthwith restore the name of such elector to the list from
which it was removed or to place the name of such elector upon the list applied for, as
the case may be; and any registrar or deputy registrar who fails to obey such order shall
be deemed guilty of contempt and may be fined not more than one hundred dollars.
(1949 Rev., S. 1179; 1953, S. 564d; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 166; 1971, P.A. 870, S. 18; P.A. 74-183, S. 183, 291; P.A. 76-436, S. 162, 681; P.A. 83-475, S. 15, 43.)
History: 1959 act placed jurisdiction of petition of circuit rather than municipal court which was abolished; 1971 act
deleted reference to superior court as having jurisdiction of petition; P.A. 74-183 deleted judge of circuit court for the
circuit wherein case arises from having jurisdiction of petition, effective December 31, 1974; P.A. 76-436 deleted common
pleas and substituted superior court for jurisdiction of petition, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 83-475 added reference to
exclusion of applicant for enrollment.
Remedy provided is an original judicial proceeding and not an appellate review of the registrar's acts; it is a special
statutory proceeding in nature of a mandamus; burden of proof is on the plaintiff. 124 C. 271. Although denominated an
appeal, the proceeding is not an appeal from an administrative officer but in the nature of mandamus to compel the
performance of a public duty. The issue is not whether the decision was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion but whether
the applicant is entitled as a matter of right to have his name restored. 144 C. 1.
Cited. 4 CA 339.
Cited. 16 CS 1. Cited 31 CS 89.