Hoblitzelle v. Frechette

• Decision Date: 14 March 1968
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: William E. HOBLITZELLE, 3d, et al. v. Roger J. FRECHETTE et al.

Page 864

240 A.2d 864

156 Conn. 253

William E. HOBLITZELLE, 3d, et al. v. Roger J. FRECHETTE et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

March 14, 1968.

Robert I. Berdon, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was David D. Berdon, New Haven, for plaintiffs. Sonja Goldstein and Leander C. Gray, New Haven, for defendants Kelly and others.

Thomas F. Keyes, Jr., New Haven, for named defendant and others.

Before ALCORN, HOUSE, THIM, RYAN and COVELLO, JJ.

ALCORN, Associate Justice.

The issue presented by this reservation concerns the applicability of the so-called Minority Representation Statute, § 9-167a of the General Statutes (Rev. to 1964), to an election of the board of aldermen of the city of New Haven held on November 7, 1967, under the direction of the United States District Court for the district of Connecticut.

Before reaching a consideration of the issues principally argued before us, we are confronted with a jurisdictional question of substance. A trial court or judge cannot confer jurisdiction on this court merely by reserving questions for our advice. Potter v. Appleby, 136 Conn. 641, 643, 73 A.2d 819. We do not entertain a reservation in an action which is not ready for final judgment unless the questions presented are such as are, in our opinion, reasonably certain to enter into the decision of the case and it appears that their determination would be in the interest of simplicity, directness and ecomony of judicial action. Practice Book § 738; Barr v. First Taxing District etc., 147 Conn. 221, 223, 158 A.2d 740.

The present case is brought pursuant to § 9-328 of the General Statutes (Rev. to 1964). The statute is designed to accomplish an efficient and expeditious procedure for reviewing the results in municipal elections held under state law. Scully v. Town of Westport, 145 Conn. 648, 652, 145 A.2d 742; Meigs v. Theis, 102 Conn. 579, 598, 129 A. 551. The pertinent portions provide that '(a)ny person claiming to have been elected to any municipal office, * * * but not to have been declared so elected, or any candidate for any such office claiming to have been aggrieved by any ruling of the moderator at an election for any such office, or any such candidate claiming that there has been a mistake in the count of votes cast for any such office at any such election, may * * * bring his complaint to any judge of the superior court, in which he shall set out the claimed errors of the moderator or the claimed errors in the count.' The statute then requires the judge to hold a prompt hearing and 'if he finds any error in the rulings of the moderator or any mistake in the count of the votes' to certify the result of his finding or decision to the secretary of state. The statute provides that the judge's certificate 'shall be final and conclusive upon all questions relating to errors in the ruling of such moderators and to the correctness of such count, and shall operate to correct the returns of such moderators or presiding officers' to comform to his finding or decision. The statute specifies that it 'shall not affect the right of appeal to * * * (this court) for the reservation of questions arising thereon, and it shall not prevent such judge from reserving such questions of law, by consent of all parties' for our advice. (Emphasis added.) We note in passing that, for at least fifty years, in predecessors of the statute, the word 'revision' appears instead of the word 'reservation', which we have italicized. 1955 Sup. § 806d; Rev. 1949, § 527; Rev. 1930, § 294; Rev. 1918, § 282. The statute is one element in the state's exercise of its political powers over the conduct of elections held pursuant to state law. The purpose is to determine the result of the election, its legality and fairness. Meigs v. Theis, supra, 102 Conn. 593, 594, 129 A. 551. Approved practice requires that a judgment file be drawn and filed and that the certificate of election based upon the judgment be issued under the seal of the court. Bedard v. Cunneen, 111 Conn. 338, 340, 149A. 890; Denny v. Pratt, 104 Conn. 396, 398, 133 A. 107. Finally, the statute authorizes the issuance of a writ of mandamus to enforce the decision.

Acting under this statute, ten plaintiffs who stood for election at the November, 1967, aldermanic election in New Haven brought their complaint to a judge of the Superior Court, naming, as defendants, the chief moderator of the election, the town clerk and ten candidates of the opposing party.

The complaint alleged, in substance, that the election was held on an at-large basis in accordance with orders of the United States District Court for the district of Connecticut; that thirty aldermen were to be elected; that thirty Democratic candidates, each of whom received a larger number of votes than any Republican candidate, were declared elected by the moderator; that the ten plaintiffs received the highest number of votes of any of the Republican candidates; that the Minority Representation Statute, § 9-167a of the General Statutes (Rev. to 1964), ¹ required that the plaintiffs, who had polled the highest number of votes among the Republican candidates, should have been declared elected instead of the ten defendants who had polled the lowest number of votes among the Democratic candidates and who were declared elected.

The parties stipulated to reserve the case for our advice upon seven questions printed in the footnote. ² From the stipulation of facts, it appears that the status of the plaintiffs and of those defendants who were candidates at the election, as well as the result of the election, was as we have already stated in summarizing the allegations of the petition and that the only other parties are the defendant town clerk and the defendant chief moderator. The other stipulated facts material to the issue which we deem to be conclusive we set forth as follows.

The city of New Haven is a municipal corporation chartered by the state of Connecticut. Prior to March 24, 1966, the charter divided the city into thirty-three wards and provided that one alderman should be elected from each ward at an election held on the first Tuesday after the frist Monday in November in odd numbered years. On January 14, 1966, seven persons, claiming to be registered voters and residents of New Haven, brought an action in the United States District Court for the district of Connectticut against the mayor, the town clerk, and the board of aldermen of the city of New Haven. Only one of those persons is a plaintiff in the persent case. So far as the record discloses, no defendant in that case is a defendant in the present case except the town clerk. The complaint in that action alleged that the plaintiffs were suffering discrimination offensive to the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States because of the unequal population of the districts from which members of the board of aldermen were elected.

On March 24, 1966, the District Court decided that the New Haven aldermanic voting districts were unconstitutionally apportioned and ordered that condition corrected before the next municipal election. On the motion of the defendants in that case, a stay, until June 1, 1966, was ordered to allow redistricting in accordance with the judgment. A redistricting plan was then proposed by a charter revision commission appointed by the city, but it was rejected by the board of aldermen on August 18, 1966. Legislation was then enacted by the General Assembly and approved by the governor on March 17, 1967, redistriction the city into thirty wards.

On June 8, 1967, the District Court declared the ward boundaries established by this legislation to be unconstitutional and void 'to the extent that said provision imposes limitations upon equality of population between the voting districts as a basis for the election of members of the Board of Aldermen.' The judgment enjoined the defendants in that case 'from doing any act or taking any step in furtherance of nominating or holding elections of members of the Board of Aldermen of the city of New Haven * * * (or) from certifying or in any other manner declaring that the results of any such nominations or elections are valid or that the Board of Aldermen of the City of New Haven is properly or legally constituted, unless either (a) all members of the Board of Aldermen are nominated and elected from the City of New Haven at large, or (b) all members of the Board of Aldermen are nominated and elected pursuant to a redistricting of the Board of Aldermen to be effected promptly by adoption of an appropriate ordinance by the Board of Aldermen pursuant to Conn.Gen.Stat. ch 99, § 7-187 et seq., altering the boundaries of the voting districts so that the voting rights of plaintiffs in the choice of members of the Board of Aldermen as guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution will not be impaired.' The judgment provided that it should be effective immediately and should apply to the election to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November, 1967, 'as well as to all elections of members of the Board of Aldermen thereafter.' Finally, the judgment provided '(t)hat jurisdiction of this action is retained for the entry of such further orders or judgments by the Court as may be necessary and appropriate.'

On July 18, 1967, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the appointment of a special master to formulate a plan for redistricting which the District Court denied on July 26, 1967.

Following the final judgment of June 8, 1967, from which no appeal was taken, the defendants in that case made a motion for clarification of the judgment which the District Court granted on July 26, 1967, stating: 'Without amending or modifying the aforesaid original judgment, it is the ruling of the Court that § 9-167a of the 1958 Revision of the Connecticut General Statutes does not apply to the election of a...