· 11/18/2024

Whitnum Baker v. Secretary of the State

Citations

  • 350 Conn. 753

Syllabus

The plaintiff filed the present action with this court pursuant to statute (§ 9- 323), challenging the decision of the defendant secretary of the state to reject the plaintiff's registration as a write-in candidate in connection with the November, 2024 election for the office of United States representative for the Third Congressional District of Connecticut on the ground that it was untimely filed in violation of the statute ((Supp. 2024) § 9-373a) governing the registration of write-in candidates. The plaintiff sought an order directing the defendant to accept her registration, claiming that her filing was untimely because she had followed certain purportedly erroneous guidance from the defendant's office that reflected the filing deadline contained in an outdated version of § 9-373a, rather than the deadline set forth in the current version of § 9-373a. Held: This case was not moot because, even though it was not heard until after election day and the statutory filing deadline had passed, practical relief was still available, insofar as allowing the plaintiff to register as a write-in candidate would, at the very least, have the effect of validating those write- in votes that may already have been cast for her, and, in the event that there was a sufficient number of write-in votes to cast serious doubt on the election's reliability, a new election could serve as a potential remedy. The plaintiff was aggrieved by ''a ruling of an election official'' for purposes of establishing this court's jurisdiction under § 9-323 when the defendant declined to accept the plaintiff's untimely registration form, there having 754 DECEMBER, 2024 350 Conn. 753 Whitnum Baker v. Secretary of the State been a colorable claim that the plaintiff's untimely filing was the result of erroneous information communicated by the defendant's office. This court assumed without deciding that Connecticut courts have the authority to exercise their equitable powers to excuse a candidate's failure t

Judges: McDonald; Alexander; Dannehy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.