SC21049 - Whitnum Baker v. Secretary of the State ("This is an original jurisdiction proceeding before a panel of this court pursuant to General Statutes § 9-323, in which the plaintiff, L. Lee Whitnum Baker, sought an emergency hearing to challenge a ruling of an election official, the secretary of the state, in connection with an election for federal office. The plaintiff challenges the defendant's decision to reject her registration as a write-in candidate for the office of United States Representative for the Third Congressional District of Connecticut on the ground that it was untimely filed in violation of General Statutes (Supp. 2024) § 9-373a, which, in connection with General Statutes § 9-265, governs write-in candidacies. In this action, the plaintiff seeks an injunction directing the defendant to accept her registration as a write-in candidate under § 9-373a. She claims that her untimely filing was the result of following guidance from a form cover letter promulgated by the defendant's office that did not update its block quotation of § 9-373a to reflect the earlier filing deadlines contained in the current statutory revision, which was amended in 2023 to accommodate the new early voting program under General Statutes (Supp. 2024) § 9-163aa. In response, the defendant asks us to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under § 9-323.

We held a hearing on the plaintiff's complaint on Thursday, November 7, 2024. After that hearing, we concluded that we have subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding, and reserved judgment on the merits. We now conclude that this case does not present the type of "extraordinary circumstance," as contemplated by Butts v. Bysiewicz, 298 Conn. 665, 676 n.7, 5 A.3d 932 (2010), that would warrant equitable relief from the operation of a mandatory statutory provision based on erroneous information given to the plaintiff by an election official. The plaintiff has failed to prove entitlement to relief under the doctrine of equitable estoppel because (1) notwithstanding the defendant's erroneous quotation of an outdated version of § 9-373a on the cover letter provided to the plaintiff, both the cover letter and the registration form itself clearly and unambiguously provided the correct deadline, and (2) the plaintiff failed to exercise any due diligence in resolving the apparent inconsistency. Accordingly, we deny the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief and render judgment for the defendant.")