Connecticut House Bill HB05903

Connecticut 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/24/13
• Refer: 1/24/13
• Refer: 3/28/13
• Report Pass: 4/5/13
• Refer: 4/17/13
• Report Pass: 4/23/13
• Engrossed: 5/2/13
• Report Pass: 5/6/13
• Chaptered: 6/20/13
• Enrolled: 6/26/13
• Passed: 7/11/13

Caption

An Act Concerning The Resolution Of Tie Votes In Primaries For State Or District Offices And For The Office Of State Senator Or State Representative.

Impact

The enactment of HB 5903 introduces a standardized process for handling tie votes that historically might have led to confusion or disputes. This law helps to ensure that primary elections can be concluded in an orderly manner, potentially increasing public confidence in the electoral process. By clearly delineating the steps that must be followed when ties occur, the bill aims to reduce the potential for legal challenges and enhance transparency in the electoral process.

Summary

House Bill 5903, also known as the Act Concerning the Resolution of Tie Votes in Primaries for State or District Offices, aims to establish clear procedures for resolving tie votes during primary elections for state and municipal offices such as state senator and state representative. The bill specifies that if two or more candidates receive the same highest number of votes, a recanvass application can be filed by any of the candidates or the party's state chairman. If the recanvass also results in a tie, the primary will be adjourned for three weeks, necessitating a new election under similar voting procedures.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 5903 appears to be largely positive among legislators who support the need for clarity and order in election processes. The bill received unanimous approval in voting, indicating broad bipartisan support. However, there are underlying concerns regarding how this procedural aspect could be viewed in light of specific political circumstances and the implications it might have on candidates' strategies during campaigns.

Contention

Although the bill passed without opposition, there could be concerns regarding local adaptations of this law, especially for municipal offices that might have unique electoral environments. Questions may arise about the adequacy of the proposed method for resolving ties and whether it could inadvertently favor certain candidates or parties in cases of closely contested races. Future discussions may explore if there are additional measures needed to ensure fairness and impartiality in the execution of this law.