Why a Judge Ordered a Recount for Easton's Top Race

Val Buckley, a write-in candidate for first selectman, lost a close race to Republican endorsed candidate Adam Dunsby. But Buckley contended that 246 ballots voting machines tossed out as "blank" should be looked at to determine the true intent of voters. Then she took the town to court to force a recount of all ballots ... and succeeded.

Bridgeport Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis' historic decision to throw out Easton's election results for first selectman and order a recount is 41-pages long and available online.

The following are key excerpts from Judge Bellis' ruling:

Although multiple documents and directions that set forth the proper way to vote for a write-in candidate, the law is clear that for a vote to count, it must merely be expressed in such a way that his or her intent is discernable  from the markings on the ballot.

For example, the defendants rely on an October 23, 2013 letter from the Office of the Secretary of State to municipal clerks holding November 5, 2013 elections. The letter states, in part: "In order to cast a vote for a write-in candidate a voter must fill in the oval in the appropriate column on the ballot and write-in the name of the write-in candidate on the ballot."

The letter merely indicates the proper method of casting a vote for a write-in candidate — it does not promulgate a rule that the failure to fill in the oval for a write-in candidate by itself prevents the vote from being counted. Other provisions relied on by the defendants suffer from the same shortfall.

For these reasons, and for the reasons discussed below, the court holds that whether the tabulations performed by the tabulator machine constitutes the expressed will of the voters of Easton is in doubt, and the reliability of the results of the election are in question.

The need for transparency and accuracy in the ballots cast and the votes counted is paramount. It would be unjust and unnecessarily infringe upon the plaintiff's rights and disenfranchise voters to allow technology to trump the voters and candidates' confidence in the vote and the election. Technology should be used as a tool, not as an impediment.

'Erroneous Rulings', 'Discrepancies'

Judge Bellis also made four other findings outlined in the transcript below:

First, the plaintiff was not afforded a representative to observe the hand counting of the write-in ballots or any other hand counted ballots in this tightly contested election and was aggrieved by the ruling, as she was unable to challenge any of the ballots in this close race.

Especially given the plaintiff's status as a registered write-in candidate, this calls the accuracy of the count into question because the plaintiff was unfairly deprived of her right to independently observe and ensure the accuracy of that count, and consequently deprived her of the ability to present a more complete case during the November 18 and November 21, 2013 hearings.

Second, at least one unauthorized individual was permitted into the counting area. Although the court does not find any impropriety occurred, the fact remains that such an action dilutes the public confidence in the vote result.

Third, there remain ten absentee and/or same day registration ballots that appear to be unaccounted for in the moderator's report.

Finally, 246 votes were counted as "blank" by the tabulator with respect to the first selectman race.

In light of these issues, the court finds sufficient reason to order a recount. Given the closeness of the election, involving a very strong write-in candidate, with only 50 votes between the two candidates, coupled with the fact that according to the tabulator, more than 10 percent of all people who voted did not vote for the highest office, there is a reasonable likelihood that a recount could change the election results particularly where there are 246 blank ballots and a 50 vote differential.