Keeley v. Ayala, 328 Conn. 393

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed a challenge to the results of a Bridgeport Democratic municipal primary involving alleged absentee-ballot improprieties. The court held that partisan individuals could not direct a police officer to retrieve absentee ballots, that certain unpostmarked ballots were not mailed as required by statute, and that supervised absentee voting at a nursing home failed to comply with applicable requirements. Although the trial court applied the burden of proof incorrectly, the Supreme Court affirmed the order for a new primary because substantial statutory violations left the reliability of the election results seriously in doubt.

Holdings

1. General Statutes § 9-140b requires the absentee voter, rather than a partisan third party, to select or appoint an authorized designee to return the ballot. The fourteen ballots retrieved and returned by a police officer at the direction of partisan individuals were not returned in substantial compliance with the statute and were properly invalidated.
2. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that twelve stamped but unpostmarked absentee ballots were not sent by the United States Postal Service and therefore were not 'mailed' within the meaning of § 9-140b (c). The ballots were properly invalidated.
3. The statutes governing mandatory supervised absentee balloting at institutions do not require town officials to notify institutional residents that supervised balloting will occur or to approach residents to determine whether they want absentee-ballot applications. The absence of those actions did not establish a statutory violation.
4. Because the twenty-six properly invalidated absentee ballots exceeded Herron's eighteen-vote margin over Keeley, the reliability of the special-primary result was seriously in doubt, and a new special primary was required under § 9-329a.

Questions Presented

1. Whether General Statutes § 9-140b prohibits a party official or candidate from directing a police officer to retrieve absentee ballots from electors and deliver them to the town clerk.
2. Whether twelve absentee ballots bearing stamps but lacking postmarks were 'mailed' within the meaning of General Statutes § 9-140b (c).
3. Whether supervised absentee balloting at Northbridge Health Care Center complied with General Statutes §§ 9-159q and 9-159r.
4. Whether the trial court improperly allocated the burden of proof in determining that the reliability of the special-primary result was seriously in doubt.

Disposition

affirmed