Sec. 9-328. Contests and complaints in election of municipal officers and nomination of justices of the peace.
Sec. 9-328. Contests and complaints in election of municipal officers and nomination of justices of the peace. 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 machines 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.)
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.
Information should show relator's election. Alleged errors must appear to be injurious. Certificate of judge is conclusive.
51 C. 113. 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. Cited. 101 C. 735. This provision is
constitutional. 51 C. 113; 102 C. 588. Judge should embody decision in judgment file. 104 C. 398. See note to section 9-302. Petition fails in case of first selectman if vote is found to be a tie. 91 C. 371. 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 section 9-311a no bar. 155 C. 68, 73, 74. In case brought the minority
representatives under section 9-167a, held supreme court had no jurisdiction over November, 1967, election of New Haven
board of aldermen ordered by the United States 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. Cited. 182 C. 111 (dissent).
The bare existence in the 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. Id. Cited. 186 C. 125. Constitution claims not
included in provisions for expedited judicial procedures. 205 C. 495. Cited. 225 C. 378. Cited. 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.
Cited. 8 CS 234. Cited. 10 CS 258. Statutory petition does not preclude plaintiff from seeking to have writ of mandamus
issued. 18 CS 72. Cited. 21 CS 482.