.

State Supreme Court Hears GOP Ballot Case

Republicans are looking back to the 2010 gubernatorial election in the hopes of making it to the top of the ballot in 2012.

 

Connecticut Republicans want top billing on the ballots for the upcoming election, and they’ve taken the case to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Arguments from the GOP and the Connecticut were made on Wednesday but there has been no decision yet, reports the New Haven Register. Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers reportedly said the state law determining who gets top billing is “confusing.”

The order in which party candidates appear on the election ballot is determined by which party candidate gets the most votes in a gubernatorial election.

In 2010, Democrat Dannel P. Malloy won the gubernatorial election and Democrats were given the top ballot spot the following election.

. They argue that between the two major parties in 2010 Republican Tom Foley, who lost to Malloy, actually had more votes than Malloy when compared solely to Malloy's Democratic ballots. Malloy was also listed on the ballot as the candidate of the Working Families Party and outpolled Foley when those two ballot line votes were combined.

It’s unknown when a decision in the case might be made.

Eileen Mcnamara contributed to this report. 

Stephen Wood September 13, 2012 at 07:20 PM
This is ridiculous. They really need to just randomize how parties are listed on a master ballot, or have the Reps and Dems just switch each time.
Sean M September 14, 2012 at 04:27 PM
1. Order matters 2. Denise Merrill did not enforce the law. Republicans have a right to sue. This quite serious that the Democrats are again on the wrong side of objectively enforcing the law.
Woodburian September 14, 2012 at 05:05 PM
"During the back and forth over the language in court on Wednesday, longtime Supreme Court Justice Flemming L. Norcott said, "All this is evidence of the complete ambiguity of it.'' ' [Hartford Courant, Sept. 12] Seems clear to me that this is why we have a legal system: to decide issues where legal or legislative language is "ambiguous." It's important for readers to understand that there CAN BE legitimate differences of interpretation, just as there can be legitimate conflicts of rights ... and thus, the need for courts, to decide what the LAW means. Mr. Murphy interprets the wording of the law one way. Associate Attorney General D'Auria interprets it another. Again, not to belabor a point: that is why we have courts. To decide cases when there are differing interpretations of the language of our nation's laws.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »