7 Myths About Contesting Election Night Outcomes in Connecticut

    It’s rare, but it happens. And sure enough, it did recently in Bridgeport, Conn.: a court-ordered redo of a mayoral election after allegations of misconduct that led state legislators to consider changes to the voting system.

    Like all states, Connecticut has strict laws regarding elections—and even more stringent laws for contesting election night outcomes. Yet, misconceptions about these laws, fueled by high-profile court cases and media narratives, are widespread in political campaigns or those seeking legal representation in election matters.

    Misinterpretations of election law in Connecticut lead to false impressions and distorted views of the election process and how to best challenge election results. Several already abound. Below are seven myths and the reality of each:

     

    Myth: Uniform Election Processes Across Connecticut

    The notion that election processes, from voting by mail to voter registration, are uniform across Connecticut is a common misconception.

    Connecticut’s 169 cities and towns function independently, leading to varied interpretations and executions of state election laws. The Secretary of the State’s office is responsible for interpreting election law and who’s eligible to vote. Still, local practices can differ significantly, sometimes leading to issues like refusing secure drop box delivery or mismanagement at polling places​​.

     

    Myth: Legal Disputes Always End in Court

    The need for court involvement in election disputes is only sometimes necessary. The American Arbitration Association emphasizes the benefits of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods in resolving election-related disagreements, including vote counting and post-election audits. These approaches offer quicker and more cost-effective solutions compared to litigation.

    Campaigns need to explore these alternative avenues of resolution for more minor or technical conflicts.

     

    Myth: Any Voter Can Challenge Results for Any Reason

    In Connecticut, the law does not allow just any voter to challenge election results on any ground. The legal framework specifies that only certain parties—typically candidates, political parties or a group of qualified voters—have standing to contest election results. This limitation is in place to ensure that challenges are severe and have a basis in substantial issues affecting the election’s outcome.

    Restricting who can challenge election results prevents the electoral process from being overwhelmed with frivolous or unsubstantiated claims. Those who challenge results must present legitimate reasons, usually grounded in evidence of irregularities or legal violations. Examples include allegations of fraud, procedural errors or other issues that could have materially affected the election outcome. These challenges are subject to judicial scrutiny, and the burden of proof lies with the person or party making the challenge.

     

    Myth: Recounts Happen Automatically in Close Races

    While Connecticut law provides automatic recounts in certain circumstances, they are triggered only when the results fall within precise and narrow margins. For instance, a recount may be mandated if the vote difference between candidates is less than a certain percentage of the total votes cast. This small number margin is defined by state law and does not apply to every close race.

    This law ensures accuracy in very close elections where minor errors could alter results. Suppose the victory margin is above the threshold. In that case, no automatic recount occurs. Still, candidates or parties can request one through a different process with specific criteria. It’s important to understand these thresholds and the recount process. Misunderstandings can cause unrealistic expectations of a recount, leading to needless disputes and eroding trust in the electoral process.

     

    Myth: Challenges Can Delay Swearing-in Indefinitely

    Legal challenges to election results can delay the certification and swearing-in of elected officials, but they cannot do so indefinitely. Connecticut has legal and procedural frameworks that set timelines and processes for resolving election disputes. These frameworks ensure that protracted legal battles do not unreasonably disrupt governance.

    Election dispute resolution timelines are short to ensure power transitions and term commencements, with courts prioritizing these cases for speedy resolution. Frivolous or unsubstantiated challenges are unlikely to lead to lengthy delays, as courts can quickly dismiss cases that lack merit. This system balances the need to address legitimate concerns with the broader public interest in stable and effective governance.

    Myth: Voter Suppression Claims are Always Valid Grounds for Contesting Elections

    Voter suppression claims can prompt election contests, yet not all claims warrant legal action. In Connecticut, such claims need clear evidence showing a significant effect on election outcomes. Allegations may include restrictive ID laws, few polling places, voter roll purges and misinformation.

    Proving their decisive impact involves showing that suppression of eligible voters happened and that it changed enough votes to alter the election. Courts require detailed, credible evidence to consider these claims.

     

    Myth: All Election Challenges are Politically Motivated

    The view that election challenges are solely based on partisan politics is incorrect. They can result from various issues, like procedural errors, and not just partisan motives. Recognizing varied reasons for election challenges is critical to understanding election integrity complexities and advocating a non-partisan approach. Some challenges highlight the need for fair, transparent electoral processes beyond political lines.

    Additionally, these challenges follow strict timelines and rules to resolve disputes quickly to avoid governance disruption. This emphasizes the need for substantial evidence and legal justification in challenging election results.

    A thorough grasp of election law is essential for political campaigns and legal representatives to contest an election outcome. Legal guidance helps maneuver the electoral process and maintain compliance for devising a winning victory. The Bridgeport fallout shows that the waters of electoral disputes are far from still, with more contested outcomes sure to come on the political horizon.

     

    (Joseph M. Pastore III is chairman of Pastore, a law firm that helps corporate and financial services clients find creative solutions to complex legal challenges. He can be reached at 203.658.8455 or jpastore@pastore.net.)

    Pastore & Dailey Successfully Reinstates Ousted Republican Jane Miller in Brookfield, CT

    Pastore & Dailey successfully reinstated Jane Miller to the Republican Party of Brookfield, CT after she was expelled for allegedly violating the Party’s “good-faith” policy.  After 15 months of litigation, we have rightfully proven that Mrs. Miller deserves to be a member of the party of her choice.  We continue to fight for her civil rights in federal court.  Please see the below articles for more information.

    Dan Smolnik has Been Elected Director of Governmental Affairs for the League of Women Voters in Connecticut

    Dan Smolnik has been elected Director of Governmental Affairs for the League of Women Voters in Connecticut. He will be handling issues associated with legislation,  governmental relationships with the State’s Constitutional officers, and official policy positions and testimony. Congratulations to Dan on this fine accomplishment.

     

    Member of P&D Appointed to Duke University School of Law Board of Visitors

    Susan Bysiewicz of Pastore & Dailey’s Glastonbury, Connecticut office has been appointed to Duke University School of Law Board of Visitors.   The Board of Visitors serves as a reporting and recommending body to the Law School administration, the University administration and the University Board of Trustees on matters of student development, alumni relations, fundraising, and faculty and academic affairs. A slate of nominees is appointed annually by the President of Duke University with the advice and counsel of the Dean of the Law School and the current Chair of the Board of Visitors. Members serve three year terms.  Ms. Bysiewicz is the former Secretary of State of Connecticut and a former U.S. Senate Candidate.

    Pastore & Dailey Successfully Represents Phil Anthony

    Pastore & Dailey Attorney Susan Bysiewicz successfully represented Democratic First Selectman Philip Anthony against recent allegations of bribery.  Anthony, the subject of an investigation by State Police, announced on Wednesday, October 16, 2013 with Attorney Bysiewicz that the allegations had been determined to be unsubstantiated.  Several major Connecticut news agencies covered this story, links to those articles can be found below:

    http://www.norwichbulletin.com/article/20131016/NEWS/131019657

    http://www.theday.com/article/20131016/NWS01/131019763/1047

    http://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/griswold-first-selectman-subject-of-police-probe_12460439

    Susan Bysiewicz Joins P&D

    Susan Bysiewicz to Join Pastore & Dailey LLC and Open Hartford Area Office

    HARTFORD, Conn., Mon. January 14 –Susan Bysiewicz, former Secretary of the State of Connecticut, announced that she would join the newly founded Pastore & Dailey LLC, a law firm with offices in Stamford and New York City. She will lead the firm’s Hartford area office at 180 Glastonbury Boulevard in Glastonbury. Ms. Bysiewicz, a corporate lawyer, joins partners Joseph M. Pastore III, Leanne M. Shofi  and William M. Dailey as well as attorneys Paul Dehmel, Michael Zamat, Dennis Bishop, Jennifer Shufro, Ryan McLeod, Sam Ottensoser and law clerks Katherine Leish and James Healy.

    Ms. Bysiewicz will practice in the areas of corporate law and finance, banking, securities, and contract negotiation. Ms. Bysiewicz served for twelve years as Secretary of the State, and Chief Business Registrar, registering Connecticut’s more than 300,000 corporations. Prior to her public service, Ms. Bysiewicz practiced corporate law at White and Case in New York City, Robinson and Cole in Hartford, and the Aetna Life Insurance Company.

    Prior to serving as Connecticut’s 72nd Secretary of the State from 1999-2011, Ms. Bysiewicz served as a State Representative for the 100th Assembly District, including the towns of Middletown, Durham and Middlefield. She is admitted to practice law in New York and Connecticut. She is a graduate of Yale College and Duke Law School. She lives in Middletown with her husband David and her three children.

    “I am looking forward to providing business clients with creative and effective solutions to complex businesses and legal issues, and to working with a highly professional, talented and ethical team of lawyers committed to serving their clients,” Bysiewicz said.

    “We are pleased to have Susan join our growing firm.  She is a talented attorney and a wonderful person.  We are also pleased to open our new office in the Hartford area, which will be our third office in the Northeast,” Joe Pastore said.

    About Pastore & Dailey LLC: The attorneys at Pastore & Dailey LLC have extensive experience representing clients in connection with litigation and regulatory matters involving FINRA and the Securities and Exchange Commission, among other regulatory bodies.  The firm’s attorneys have represented local, national and international clients in litigation, administrative proceedings and corporate matters.  To learn more, Click Here

    Media Contacts:

    Gina Gibbons

    847.987.0526

    rgibbons@psdlaw.net

    Susan Bysiewicz

    203.658.8454

    sbysiewicz@psdlaw.net

    Joseph Pastore

    203.658.8454

    jpastore@psdlaw.net

     

    Also mentioned in the CT Law Tribune on January 15, 2013.