Election challenge headed to state Supreme Court
STAMFORD — A lawsuit claiming write-in votes should have been counted in a school board election last year is now before the state Supreme Court.
Stephanie O’Shea filed the lawsuit after she received the most votes for a position on the board.
But the race was deemed invalid by the city’s legal department prior to Election Day, and final results of the contest were not reported to the state. The office appeared on the November ballot, with no candidates listed. Several hundred residents wrote in votes.
According to an unofficial tally, O’Shea received 578 write-in votes, outpacing current Republican board member Becky Hamman,
who received 21 votes, and Republican Josh Esses, who garnered two votes.
Kathy Emmett, the city’s Corporation Counsel, issued a legal opinion in October stating the election should not have been included on the ballot due to rules set in the City Charter.
The election was for a one-year period to finish out the term originally held by Republican Frank Cerasoli. When Cerasoli was appointed to a position on the Board of Finance earlier this year, Hamman was appointed to his previous position on the Board of Education.
In years prior, when a vacancy
has been filled in such a manner, an election has been held for the final year of the term. The Charter states, however, that such “vacancy elections” are to be held during biennial elections, which are held in odd-numbered years. Stamford holds its regular municipal elections in even-numbered years.
Republicans did not run Hamman for the one-year term, considering the seat safe. O’Shea, a former Democrat now unaffiliated, declared herself a write-in candidate. Hamman and Esses, in an effort to preserve the seat for a Republican, then did the same.
Last month, Superior Court Judge Robert Genuario rejected O’Shea’s lawsuit, saying the election results should not have been honored.
City election officials, based on Emmett’s legal opinion, did not report the write-in votes to the state. Judge Genuario ruled that was the proper way to handle the confusion.
“When read as a whole the court finds nothing ambiguous in the phrase ‘a vacancy election shall be held at the next biennial election,’” his decision read.
Genuario added, “Any confusion caused to voters or presumed candidates by mistakes of city officials in ... the beginning of the election cycle in 2020 is unfortunate. But there is no change in the rules ... That rule is set forth in the Charter. It is clear and unambiguous.”
O’Shea’s attorney Brenden Leydon filed an appeal with the state Appellate Court, and the case was
picked up by the Supreme Court. It is set for argument on Jan. 21. Leydon filed a 45-page brief, in which he lays out his argument in favor of O’Shea.
“Limiting such a vacancy election to odd numbered years only would violate the state and federal constitution,” he wrote.
He challenged the trial court’s findings that rules didn’t change, given that the seat was put on the ballot but votes were not counted.
“Changing the rules while the election is underway in violation of past practice is also clearly unconstitutional,” he wrote.
On Friday, Leydon said he was happy that the Supreme Court took on the case.
“I think they recognized the importance of the issues,” he said.
“There are some serious constitutional issues in play when you extend for a year people getting their elected representative.”
Attorney Aaron Bayer — representing Head Stamford Moderator Jack Scherban, Town Clerk Lyda Ruijter, Democratic Registrar Ron Malloy and Republican Registrar Lucy Corelli — was reached for comment, but did not respond.
Hamman declined to comment on the matter.
O’Shea said she’s glad it’s not over.
In a written message, she added, “As I’ve said before, the votes of my supporters should not just be thrown out.”