CT Supreme Court expands on West Haven ballot count ruling in disputed election
The state Supreme Court navigated the arcane provisions of absentee ballot law with three concurring decisions Wednesday that expand on its expedited ruling eight months ago upholding a razor thin election win in West Haven by Mayor Nancy Rossi.
Rossi, a Democrat, lost the machine vote in the Nov. 2, 2021 election, but won by 29 votes when absentee ballots were counted. Her margin expanded to 32 votes after an automatic recount.
Republican challenger Barry Lee Cohen challenged the absentee ballot count in Superior Court, but lost there when Judge Robin Wilson decided West Haven “failed to strictly comply” with all provisions of the law governing casting and counting of absentee ballots, but the failure wasn’t great enough to turn the outcome in Cohen’s favor.
The state Supreme Court agreed Wednesday in a long, 34-page plurality decision by Justices Andrew McDonald that sorted out aspects of absentee ballot regulation running from who has authority to collect ballots from drop boxes to the sorts of affidavits required to validate the votes. McDonald was joined by Justices Joan Alexander and Christine Keller.
Two concurring opinions disagreed with the plurality opinion that state law authorizes the municipal clerk and his ‘‘designees’’ to retrieve absentee ballots from secure drop boxes.
In one concurrence, Justice Gregory D’Auria and Chief Justice Richard Robinson assert that the law authorizes only the clerk, and in certain circumstances, appointed assistant clerks, to collect ballots. In the second, Justice Steven Ecker agreed with the plurality, but only after consideration of a 2021 amendment to the law.
“At the end of the day, one interpretation must be wrong and the other right, but neither side is so clearly right or wrong that no room for doubt remains regarding who exactly is authorized to retrieve absentee ballots from drop box locations.” Ecker wrote.
“More than one reasonable interpretation of a statute is the very definition of ambiguity under our case law. Under these circumstances, I see great benefit, and no conceivable harm, in looking at extratextual evidence that would help resolve our interpretive impasse.”
The decisions Wednesday explain the court’s four-page per curiam opinion issued on Oct. 4.