Fay v. Merrill
Citations
- 338 Conn. 1
Syllabus
Pursuant to article sixth, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution, ''[t]he general assembly may provide by law for voting in the choice of any officer to be elected . . . by qualified voters of the state who are unable to appear at the polling place on the day of election . . . because of sickness or physical disability . . . .'' The plaintiffs, Republican Party candidates in the August, 2020 primary election for the office of United States representative for Connecticut's First and Second Congressional Districts, brought the present action pursuant to statute (§ 9-329a), seeking relief in connection with the issuance by the defendant, the Secretary of the State, of an application for absentee ballots that added ''COVID-19'' as a category for absentee voting. The defendant had issued the application pursuant to an execu- tive order issued by the governor in response to the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic. The executive order modified the statute (§ 9-135) setting forth the reasons an eligible voter may vote by absentee ballot by adding COVID-19 as a reason why a voter may be unable to appear at his or her polling place on the day of the election. The plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring that the application was unconstitutional and based on an erroneous interpretation of the gover- nor's executive order and § 9-135. The plaintiffs also sought an injunction precluding the defendant from mailing or distributing copies of the application to any Connecticut voters and directing the defendant to recall any copies already mailed or distributed. After a hearing, the trial court rejected the defendant's claim that the plaintiffs lacked standing 1 2 SEPTEMBER, 2021 338 Conn. 1 Fay v. Merrill because they were not aggrieved by the defendant's decision to issue the application, but the court nevertheless concluded that the plaintiffs' claim that the application unconstitutionally expanded the use of absen- tee ballots beyond those reasons specified
Judges: Robinson; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Moll
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.