GOP To Get Top Ballot Line
by Christine Stuart | Sep 26, 2012 2:57pm
(12) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Courts, Election 2012
(Updated 5:55 p.m.) The jury is still out on whether having the top line of the ballot even makes a difference, but the Supreme Court’s verdict is in, and it gives Republicans the top line on the ballot.
This summer, the Republican Party challenged Secretary of the State Denise Merrill’s decision to give Democrats the top ballot line after the 2010 gubernatorial election. The mistake wasn’t discovered in 2011, so Democratic candidates appeared at the top of the ballot last year.
Republicans argued that Tom Foley received more votes on the Republican line than Gov. Dannel P. Malloy received on the Democratic line, so Republican candidates should have top billing.
Although Malloy won the election by a slim margin of 6,404 votes, his name was split between the party lines for both the Democrats and the Working Families Party. Foley’s name only appeared on the Republican ballot line in 2010 and he received 560,874 votes compared to Malloy’s 540,970 on the Democratic ballot line. Malloy also received 26,308 votes on the Working Families Party line.
Associate Attorney General Greg D’Auria argued that the candidate, not the party which received the most votes, should be at the top of the ballot.
There also was a question about whether the Republican Party had exhausted all of its administrative remedies before bringing the lawsuit to court. The justices unanimously decided that the party had done so.
Merrill, who called the lawsuit a “regrettable distraction” back in August, said Wednesday that she disagrees with the decision, but will abide with it.
“While I am surprised at the outcome today, I am confident that my office interpreted the statute in good faith and with due diligence,” Merrill said. “My staff interpreted the law back in 2011, for the municipal election ballot that year, relying on recent precedent, thorough research and a careful analysis of the statute. The Supreme Court disagrees with our view, and I respect the court’s final decision in this matter.”
Republican Party Chairman Jerry Labriola Jr. praised the decision.
“In the party’s view, the language of the statute clearly states that Republicans should receive the top line based on the results of the 2010 gubernatorial election,” Labriola said. “I regret that it was necessary to file a legal action in response to the Secretary of State’s incorrect interpretation of election law, but I am pleased that our Republican candidates will have their rightful place on the top ballot line for the November 6, 2012 election.”
A more in-depth explanation of the court’s decision will follow, but having clarity on the issue will allow registrars to print the ballots for the Nov. 6 election. Absentee ballots must be printed by Oct. 5.
Tags: ballot line, republican, Democrats, Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, Jerry Labriola, dh
(12) Comments
posted by: JamesBronsdon | September 26, 2012 3:06pm
Current Secretary of State following in footsteps of former Secretary of State. Apparently can’t read statutes.
posted by: Tessa Marquis | September 26, 2012 3:56pm
I think the Working Families Party should get Line A.
Just because.
#FormingMyOwnCourt
posted by: Not that Michael Brown | September 26, 2012 4:05pm
I know of a number of campaign signs that identify the ballot position. State Rep Mary Fritz’s sign comes to mind, which includes ballot position “5A.”
posted by: JamesBronsdon | September 26, 2012 5:01pm
Kind of funny to go back and look at the posts from AndersonScooper and CT Jim on this matter on Aug. 10.
posted by: SalRomano | September 26, 2012 9:46pm
Political expediency. It took one year to get the error corrected.
posted by: NoNonsense2012 | September 27, 2012 12:04am
I don’t know how the Supreme Court decided as it did. The statute seems pretty clear: “The party whose candidate for Governor polled the highest number of votes in the last-preceding election.” It says “highest number of votes”, not “highest number of votes of that candidate’s own party”.
posted by: CT Jim | September 27, 2012 6:38am
See you on election day Fred. I’m sure you think you just won lottery lmao. That’s why they have courts. Time to move on and win elections. I guess I was one for 2 this year wrong on this one but dead on in constitutionality of Obama care. I’ll take that anyway. Still laughing Freddy??? Ha ha
posted by: CT Jim | September 27, 2012 7:19am
I’m sure when the state had voting machines that the line mattered more but now that you have to look at the ballot and fill in the circle it doesn’t really seem to matter. Romney has the top line in Ohio,Florida,Virginia, Michigan,Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Thats sure done him a world of good lol and with Murphy pulling ahead I’m sure it wont matter there either. lol
posted by: JamesBronsdon | September 27, 2012 9:32am
CT Jim, who brought up Obamacare? Certainly not me. Be careful what you take credit for. That’s just the first of your loss of freedoms under this Administration. Another 4 years and you’ll be on the road to serfdom. But maybe that’s what many of you secretly desire.
posted by: joemanc | September 27, 2012 1:36pm
Yes, this was a frivolous lawsuit, but the law was clear “the PARTY with highest number of votes”. But that’s what happens when you send enough attorneys to Hartford to write these laws. It probably should be changed so that the incumbent party is on the top line of the ballot, but that’s too easy for the Ivy Leaguers running the government to figure out!
posted by: madereinerue | September 27, 2012 1:38pm
NoNonsense2012, you make a valid point re Row A going to “The party whose candidate for Governor polled the highest number of votes in the last-preceding election.” But here’s the rub: at the 2010 election there were TWO parties whose candidate, Dan Malloy, polled the highest number of votes. And you can’t put Two parties on One row. Won’t fit. ;>
Iow, I believe the Court was aware that the Logic of the state’s argument inescapably produces an Absurd result - which the Law (supposedly) abhors. If, for ballot-placement purposes, you give the Democratic PARTY the benefit of the Working Families PARTY vote total, surely you MUST also give the WFP the benefit of the Democratic vote total! I.e. if votes for WFP candidate Malloy count for D candidate Malloy for *D* ballot positioning, then so must his D votes count for *WFP* ballot location! (Goose, gander. Etc.)
Which of course produces a Tie Vote for Row A, and there is no statutory mechanism to resolve it! Of course you could just say “Well, Malloy’s a Dem and he did get a lot more D votes than WFP votes so we’ll give WFP Row B”—OR you could say “We’ll flip a coin” whereby WFP would have a 50% shot ar ROW A! But any such solution is (a) extra-statutory, (b) illogical, (c) inequitable, and (d) absurd, in that it relegates the obviously-second-strongest Party to ROW C!
Courts try not to construe the law in such a way as to produce absurd results.
(No, WFP wasn’t in court Claiming Row B [or A!] but that’s beside the point. The logic is what it Is.)
So the only way out of this—and the sounder interpretation all along anyway—was to read the law just the way the unanimous Court read it.
Which, not coincidentally, is exactly the way the Attorney General read it in a 1939 formal opinion to the Secretary of the State. In 1938 Republican candidate Raymond E. Baldwin had ousted incumbent Democratic Gov. Wilbur Cross—but only thanks to votes cast for Baldwin on a conservative-party 3rd row. The AG ruled that ROW A stays with the Democrats, because Cross got more votes on his D (and only) row than Baldwin got on his R line.
posted by: SalRomano | September 28, 2012 10:50am
Fred: Thank you for your intelligent reasoning. Let’s hope that the voter ignorance that brought Pres. Barack Obama into office four years ago—will be ended on Nov.6—or “bye-bye America” for all of us. The only chance that Obama and his ticket has is the continuance of voter stupidity at the polls. Mitt Romney is our last chance sane vote for the preservation of a free and strong USA that Obamnomics is losing for all of us.