DOCKET NO.: HHD-CV-18-6088961-S : SUPERIOR COURT MILLY ARCINIEGA, ET AL : J. D. OF HARTFORD V.
 
: AT HARTFORD GISELLE FELICIANO, ET AL : FEBRUARY 17, 2018 POST TRIAL BRIEF OF THE DEFENDANTS GISELLE FELICIANO AND JOHN BAZZANO
The Defendants Giselle Feliciano and John Bazzano (“City Defendants”) hereby submit their post-trial brief in the above-named case and counterclaim.
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The City Defendants rely on the evidence presented at trial on February 15, 2018 and February 16, 2018. As to a particular question presented by the Court after the parties rested, the Defendant Feliciano testified that 331 signatures are required for each slate to  be on the ballot for the town committee primary.
II. LAW AND ARGUMENT A.
 
Connecticut General Statutes §9-329a
“Any elector or candidate aggrieved by a ruling of an election official in connection with any primary held pursuant to . . . [S]ection 9-423, 9-425 or 9-464 . . . may bring his complaint to any judge of the Superior Court for appropriate action.” Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §9-329a(a)(1)(A). Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-425 provides, “[t]he day for holding a
 
 
2
 primary for the election of town committee members shall be the first Tuesday in March in even-numbered years.” The present actions involve the primary for the election of City of Hartford Democratic Town Committee members for the Sixth District on Tuesday, March 6, 2018. A plaintiff making a claim under Connecticut General Statutes (“C.G.S.”) §9-329a "must show (1) there were
 substantial
violations of the requirements of the [election] statute ... and (2) as a result of those violations, the reliability of the result of the election is
 seriously in doubt.
” (Emphasis in original.) Caruso v. Bridgeport,
 
285 Conn. 618, 649 (2009). “A plaintiff seeking relief under § 9–329a(a)(1) must establish that, ‘but for the error in the ruling of the election official the result of such primary might have been different and the judge is unable to determine the result of such primary’.” Simmons-Cook v. City of Bridgeport, 285 Conn. 657, 667–68 (2008).
 
As opposed to the factual scenarios in the few elections cases in Connecticut, this matter involves a primary that has not taken place to date. In both cases, the respective  plaintiffs and slates are presenting evidence of alleged impropriety outside of the knowledge of the City Defendants and
after
 the petitions have already been verified. Regardless, the first question in the Arciniega case and the Counterclaim is whether any election official made a “ruling” pursuant to C.G.S. §9-329a. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that “a ruling of an election official must involve some act or conduct
 
 
3
 by the official that interprets some statute, regulation or other authoritative legal requirement, applicable to the election process.” Caruso, supra, 285 Conn. at 647. The
 
issue of a “ruling” will be discussed in Sections B and C below.
B. The Arciniega v. Feliciano case
The Plaintiffs in the Arciniega case do not allege that either of the City Defendants acted improperly in their roles as Democratic Registrar of Voters and Town and City Clerk, respectively. The chief claim in the Arciniega case is that certain signatures on various  petitions for the “Peterson Slate” were not authentic and, therefore, should not be considered valid. First, it is not clear that either Defendant Feliciano or Defendant Bazzano made any “ruling” in this matter. The City Defendants examined the petitions to verify whether the names on the petitions were registered voters and lived at the addresses indicated. Next, the Defendant Bazzano certified that there were enough qualifying signatures on the  petitions for the slate to be on the primary ballot. It was not until after the petitions were certified that the Plaintiffs raised the issue of inauthentic signatures. Connecticut General Statutes §9-410(c) provides, in pertinent part, that: Each separate sheet of such petition shall contain a statement as to the authenticity of the signatures thereon and the number of such signatures, and shall be signed under the penalties of false statement  by the person who circulated the same, setting forth such circulator's address and the town in which such circulator is an enrolled party
View on Scribd