Fay v. Merrill
Citations
- 336 Conn. 432
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 9-323), any elector or candidate who claims that he is aggrieved by any ruling of any election official in connection with any election for, among other public offices, a representative in Con- gress, may bring his complaint to any justice of this court. The plaintiffs, candidates in the August, 2020 primary election for the Repub- lican Party's nomination for the office of United States representative for Connecticut's First and Second Congressional Districts, filed the present action with this court, pursuant to § 9-323, seeking certain 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 executive order issued by the governor, in response to the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic, which, inter alia, 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 governor's executive order and § 9-135. The plain- tiffs also sought a prohibitive injunction precluding the defendant from mailing or distributing copies of the application to any Connecticut voters and a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to recall any copies already mailed or distributed. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, claiming that a primary is not an election for purposes of § 9-323 and that the plaintiffs should have brought this action in the Superior Court pursuant to the statute (§ 9-329a) governing disputes concerning primaries. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an order
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- describing plain meaning rule, as set forth in General Statutes § 1-2z, and principles for discerning legisla- tive intent
- describing plain meaning rule, as set forth in § 1-2z, and principles for discerning legislative intent
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Cited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Purcell v. GonzalezSupreme Court· 2006-10-20· cited 544×
- Spears v. GarciaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-04-01· cited 90×
- Spears v. GarciaConnecticut Appellate Court· 2001-11-06· cited 38×
- Wrinn v. DunleavySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-02-02· cited 35×
- Scheyd v. BezrucikSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-12-15· cited 31×
- In re Election of the United States Representative for the Second Congressional DistrictSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-12-16· cited 19×
- Lazar v. GanimSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-11-29· cited 17×
- Kuchta v. ArisianSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-07-24· cited 15×
- Feehan v. MarconeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-01-30· cited 13×
- Rivas v. N.Y.S. LotterySupreme Court· 2019-10-07· cited 13×
- Wrotnowski v. BysiewiczSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-11-03· cited 10×
- Arciniega v. FelicianoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-06-15· cited 10×
- Price v. Indep. Party of CTSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2016-09-29· cited 8×
Sourced 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.