Title: Gonzalez v. Surgeon

State: connecticut

Issuer: Connecticut Supreme Court

Document:

******************************************************
The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the
beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will
be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the
date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative
date for the beginning of all time periods for filing
postopinion motions and petitions for certification is
the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.
In no event will any such motions be accepted before
the ‘‘officially released’’ date.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the
event of discrepancies between the electronic version
of an opinion and the print version appearing in the
Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con-
necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the
latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying
the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official
Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service
and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes
of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of
the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro-
duced and distributed without the express written per-
mission
of
the
Commission
on
Official
Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
******************************************************
MINNIE GONZALEZ ET AL. v. SHIRLEY SURGEON
ET AL.
(SC 17968)
Rogers, C. J., and Katz, Vertefeuille, Schaller and Sullivan, Js.
Argued September 19—officially released September 19, 2007*
Steven A. Tomeo, for the appellant (named plaintiff).
John Rose, Jr., corporation counsel, with whom were
Jonathan H. Beamon, assistant corporation counsel,
and Lori A. Mizerak, assistant corporation counsel, for
the appellees (defendants).
Opinion
ROGERS, C. J. The named plaintiff, Minnie Gonzalez,1
brought this action pursuant to General Statutes § 9-
329a (a),2 claiming that the named defendant, Shirley
Surgeon, the Democratic registrar of voters for the city
of Hartford,3 improperly had invalidated, pursuant to
General Statutes § 9-410 (c),4 certain petitions con-
taining signatures by registered Democratic voters that
were required to secure the plaintiff’s name on the ballot
for the September 11, 2007 Democratic primary for the
office of the mayor of the city of Hartford. The trial court
rendered judgment for the defendants on all counts
of the complaint. The plaintiff then filed pursuant to
General Statutes § 9-325,5 an application for certifica-
tion of questions of law and the trial court granted the
application in part, certifying the following questions:
(1) Whether § 9-410 (c) requires that all petitions
obtained by a circulator when that circulator is seeking
signatures for one mayoral candidate be invalidated
when that same circulator at a later point in time seeks
signatures on a petition for a different candidate to the
same office; (2) Whether the definition of ‘‘candidate’’
in § 9-410 (c) includes only bona fide candidates or
also includes placeholder or straw candidates; and (3)
Whether preponderance of the evidence is the appro-
priate standard of proof in determining the meaning of
§ 9-410 (c). Thereafter, pursuant to § 9-325, the certified
questions of law were transmitted to the Chief Justice
of the Connecticut Supreme Court, who called a special
session of this court for the purpose of conducting a
hearing on the questions.
Following oral argument on this date, the court has
decided the appeal by rendering its judgment in this
truncated form. For reasons that we will provide in due
course, we answer the certified questions as follows:
(1) Yes; (2) ‘‘[C]andidate’’ as used in § 9-410 (c) includes
placeholder or straw candidates; and (3) We need not
decide in the present case whether preponderance of
the evidence is the appropriate standard of proof under
§ 9-410 (c) because there are no material facts in dispute
and the only issue before the court is one of statutory
construction, which is subject to plenary review.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.6
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other justices concurred.
* September 19, 2007, the date that this decision was released as a slip
opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes.
1 Ramon Arroyo, Rosa Carmona, Maria Diaz, Carmen Rodriquez, Rachel
Otero and Rigoberdo Nieva also were plaintiffs in the proceedings before
the trial court but are not participants in this appeal. For convenience, we
refer to Gonzalez as the plaintiff.
2 General Statutes § 9-329a (a) provides: ‘‘Any (1) elector or candidate
aggrieved by a ruling of an election official in connection with any primary
held pursuant to (A) section 9-423, 9-425 or 9-464, or (B) a special act, (2)
elector or candidate who alleges that there has been a mistake in the count
of the votes cast at such primary, or (3) candidate in such a primary who
alleges 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 primary, may bring his complaint to any judge of the Superior
Court for appropriate action. 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 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 primary it shall be brought, within fourteen
days after such primary, to any judge of the Superior Court.’’
3 Daniel Carey, town clerk of the city of Hartford, is also a defendant.
4 General Statutes § 9-410 (c) provides: ‘‘Each circulator of a primary
petition page shall be an enrolled party member of a municipality in this
state who is entitled to vote. Each petition page shall contain a statement
signed by the registrar of the municipality in which such circulator is an
enrolled party member attesting that the circulator is an enrolled party
member in such municipality. Unless such a statement by the registrar
appears on each page so submitted, the registrar shall reject such page. No
candidate for the nomination of a party for a municipal office or the position
of town committee member shall circulate any petition for another candidate
or another group of candidates contained in one primary petition for the
nomination of such party for the same office or position, and any petition
page circulated in violation of this provision shall be rejected by the registrar.
No person shall circulate petitions for more than the maximum number of
candidates to be nominated by a party for the same office or position, and
any petition page circulated in violation of this provision shall be rejected
by the registrar. Each separate sheet of such petition shall contain a state-
ment as to the authenticity of the signatures thereon and the number of
such signatures, and shall be signed under the penalties of false statement
by the person who circulated the same, setting forth such circulator’s address
and the town in which such circulator is an enrolled party member and
attesting that each person whose name appears on such sheet signed the
same in person in the presence of such circulator, that the circulator either
knows each such signer or that the signer satisfactorily identified the signer
to the circulator and that the spaces for candidates supported, offices or
positions sought and the political party involved were filled in prior to the
obtaining of the signatures. Each separate sheet of such petition shall also
be acknowledged before an appropriate person as provided in section 1-29.
Any sheet of a petition filed with the registrar which does not contain such
a statement by the circulator as to the authenticity of the signatures thereon,
or upon which the statement of the circulator is incomplete in any respect,
or which does not contain the certification hereinbefore required by the
registrar of the town in which the circulator is an enrolled party member,
shall be rejected by the registrar. Any individual proposed as a candidate
in any primary petition may serve as a circulator of the pages of such
petition, provided such individual’s service as circulator does not violate
any provision of this section.’’
5 General Statutes § 9-325 provides: ‘‘If, upon any such hearing by a judge
of the Superior Court, any question of law is raised which any party to the
complaint claims should be reviewed by the Supreme Court, such judge,
instead of filing the certificate of his finding or decision with the Secretary
of the State, shall transmit the same, including therein such questions of
law, together with a proper finding of facts, to the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, who shall thereupon call a special session of said court for
the purpose of an immediate hearing upon the questions of law so certified.
A copy of the finding and decision so certified by the judge of the Superior
Court, together with the decision of the Supreme Court, on the questions
of law therein certified, shall be attested by the clerk of the Supreme Court,
and by him transmitted to the Secretary of the State forthwith. The finding
and decision of the judge of the Superior Court, together with the decision
of the Supreme Court on the questions of law thus certified, shall be final
and conclusive upon all questions relating to errors in the rulings of the
election officials and to the correctness of such count and shall operate to
correct the returns of the moderators or presiding officers so as to conform
to such decision of said court. Nothing in this section shall be considered
as prohibiting an appeal to the Supreme Court from a final judgment of the
Superior Court. The judges of the Supreme Court may establish rules of
procedure for the speedy and inexpensive hearing of such appeals within
fifteen days of such judgment of a judge of the Superior Court.’’
6 The plaintiff brought a separate appeal challenging the constitutionality
of § 9-410 (c). In a separate opinion released on the same date as this opinion,
we conclude that the statute is constitutional. See Gonzalez v. Surgeon, 284
Conn.
,
A.2d
(2007).