§ Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-368jProhibition against impairment of right to vote for protected class members. Prohibition against impairment of ability or opportunity to participate in political process as a result of vote dilution of protected class members. Judicial cons

(a)(1) No qualification for eligibility to be an elector in a municipality or other prerequisite to voting may be imposed, no ordinance, regulation or other law regarding the administration of elections may be enacted by a municipality, and no standard, practice, procedure or policy may be applied by a municipality, in a manner that results in an impairment of the right to vote for any protected class member. (2) It shall be a violation of subdivision (1) of this subsection for any municipality to impose any qualification for eligibility to be an elector or other prerequisite to voting, to enact any ordinance, regulation or other law regarding the administration of elections or to apply any standard, practice, procedure or policy that: (A) Results or will result in a disparity between such municipality's protected class members and the other members of such municipality's electorate in electoral participation, access to voting opportunities or ability to participate in the political process; or (B) Based on the totality of the circumstances, results in an impairment of the opportunity or ability of such municipality's protected class members to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of elections. (b) (1) No municipality shall employ any method of election for any office of the municipality that has the effect, or is motivated in part by the intent, of impairing the opportunity or ability of protected class members to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of municipal elections as a result of diluting the vote of such protected class members. (2) (A) The following shall constitute a violation of subdivision (1) of this subsection: (i) Any municipality that employs an at-large method of election, in which the candidates or electoral choices preferred by protected class members would usually be defeated and in which (I) divergent voting patterns occur and such at-large method of election results in a dilutive effect on the vote of protected class members, or (II) based on the totality of the circumstances, the opportunity or ability of protected class members to elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of elections is impaired; or (ii) Any municipality that employs a district-based method of election or an alternative method of election, in which the candidates or electoral choices preferred by protected class members would usually be defeated and in which (I) divergent voting patterns occur and such district-based or alternative method of election results in a dilutive effect on the vote of protected class members, or (II) based on the totality of the circumstances, the ability of protected class members to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of elections is impaired. (B) (i) In determining whether divergent voting patterns occur in a municipality or whether a method of election in such municipality results in a dilutive effect on the vote of protected class members, the superior court for the judicial district in which such municipality is located (I) shall consider elections held prior to the filing of an action pursuant to this section as more probative than elections conducted after such filing, (II) shall consider evidence concerning elections for any municipal office in such municipality as more probative than evidence concerning elections for other offices, but may still afford probative value to evidence concerning elections for such other offices, (III) shall consider statistical evidence as more probative than nonstatistical evidence, (IV) in the case of claims brought on behalf of two or more protected classes that are politically cohesive in such municipality, shall combine members of such protected classes to determine whether voting by such combined protected class members is divergent from other electors and shall not require evidence that voting by each such protected class's members is separately divergent from such other electors, and (V) shall not require evidence concerning the intent of electors, elected officials or such municipality to discriminate against protected class members. (ii) Evidence concerning the causes of, or reasons for, the occurrence of divergent voting patterns shall not be deemed relevant to the determination of whether divergent voting patterns occur or whether a method of election results in a dilutive effect on the vote of protected class members. (c) (1) In determining whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, an impairment of the right to vote for any protected class member in a municipality, or of the opportunity or ability of protected class members in a municipality to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of elections, has occurred, the superior court for the judicial district in which such municipality is located may consider factors that include, but are not limited to: (A) The history of discrimination in or affecting the municipality or state; (B) the extent to which protected class members have been elected to office in the municipality; (C) the use of any qualification for eligibility to be an elector or other prerequisite to voting, any statute, ordinance, regulation or other law regarding the administration of elections, or any standard, practice, procedure or policy, by the municipality that may enhance the dilutive effects of a method of election in such municipality; (D) the extent of any history of unequal access on the part of protected class members or candidates to election administration or campaign finance processes that determine which candidates will receive access to the ballot or financial or other support in a given election for an office of the municipality; (E) the extent to which protected class members in the municipality or state have historically made expenditures, as defined in section 9-601b , at lower rates than other individuals in such municipality or state; (F) the extent to which protected class members in the municipality or state vote at lower rates than other electors in the municipality or state, as applicable; (G) the extent to which protected class members in the municipality are disadvantaged, or otherwise bear the effects of public or private discrimination, in areas that may hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process, such as education, employment, health, criminal justice, housing, transportation, land use or environmental protection; (H) the extent to which protected class members in the municipality are disadvantaged in other areas that may hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process; (I) the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns in the municipality or surrounding the adoption or maintenance of a challenged practice; (J) the extent to which candidates face hostility or barriers while campaigning due to their membership in a protected class; (K) a significant or recurring lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials of the municipality to the particularized needs of a community or communities of protected class members, except that compliance with a court order shall not be considered to be evidence of such responsiveness; and (L) whether the particular method of election, ordinance, regulation or other law regarding the administration of elections, standard, practice, procedure or policy was designed to advance, and does materially advance, a valid state interest. (2) No particular combination or number of factors under subdivision (1) of this subsection shall be required for the court to determine the occurrence of an impairment under this subsection. (d) Any individual aggrieved by a violation of this section, any organization whose membership includes individuals aggrieved by such a violation or the Secretary of the State may file an action alleging a violation of this section in the superior court for the judicial district in which such violation has occurred. Members of two or more protected classes that are politically cohesive in a municipality may jointly file such an action in such court. (e) (1) Notwithstanding any provision of this title and any special act, charter or home rule ordinance, whenever the superior court for a judicial district finds a violation by a municipality within such judicial district of any provision of this section, such court shall order appropriate remedies that are tailored to address such violation in such municipality and to ensure protected class members have equitable opportunities to fully participate in the political process and that can be implemented in a manner that will not unduly disrupt the administration of an ongoing or imminent election. Such court shall take into account the ability of officials who administer elections in such municipality to implement any change to voting for an ongoing or imminent election in a manner that is orderly and fiscally sound, and shall not order any remedy that contravenes the Constitution of Connecticut. Appropriate remedies may include, but need not be limited to: (A) A district-based method of election; (B) an alternative method of election; (C) new or revised districting or redistricting plans; (D) elimination of staggered elections so that all members of the legislative body are elected at the same time; (E) reasonably increasing the size of the legislative body; (F) additional voting days or hours; (G) additional polling places; (H) additional means of voting, such as voting by mail, or additional opportunities to return ballots; (I) holding of special elections; (J) expanded opportunities for admission of electors; (K) additional elector education; (L) the restoration or addition of individuals to registry lists; or (M) retaining jurisdiction for such period of time as the court may deem appropriate, during which period no qualification for eligibility to be an elector or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure with respect to voting, that is different from that which was in effect at the time an action under subsection (d) of this section was commenced shall be enforced unless the court finds that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice or procedure does not have the purpose, and will not have the effect, of impairing the right to vote on the basis of protected class membership or in contravention of the guarantees with respect to such right that are set forth in sections 9-368j to 9-368q , inclusive, provided, in any action brought pursuant to chapter 149, any remedy ordered shall be consistent with the provisions of said chapter. Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (M) of this subdivision, any such finding by the court shall not be a bar to any subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice or procedure. (2) Such court may only order a remedy if such remedy will not impair the ability of protected class members to participate in the political process and elect their preferred candidates or otherwise influence the outcome of elections. Such court shall consider remedies proposed by any parties to an action filed pursuant to subsection (d) of this section and by other interested persons who are not such parties. The court shall not give deference or priority to a remedy proposed by a municipality simply because it has been proposed by such municipality. The court shall have authority to order that a municipality implement one or more remedies that may be inconsistent with the provisions of any municipal law or of any special act relating to the conduct of elections, where such inconsistent provisions would otherwise preclude the court from ordering an appropriate remedy. (f) (1) In the case of any proposal for a municipality to enact and implement (A) a new method of election to replace such municipality's at-large method of election with either a district-based method of election or an alternative method of election, or (B) a new districting or redistricting plan, the legislative body of such municipality shall act in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (2) of this subsection if any such proposal was made after the receipt of a notification letter described in subsection (g) of this section or after the filing of a claim pursuant to this section or the federal Voting Rights Act. (2) (A) Prior to drawing a draft districting or redistricting plan or plans, or transitioning to a proposed district-based method of election or alternative method of election, the municipality shall hold at least one public hearing at which members of the public may provide input regarding such draft or proposal, including, if applicable, the composition of districts. Notice of each such hearing shall be published at least three weeks prior to the date of such hearing. In advance of each such hearing, the municipality shall conduct outreach to members of the public, including to language minority groups, to explain the districting or redistricting process and to encourage such input. (B) After all such draft districting or redistricting plans are drawn, the municipality shall publish and make available for public dissemination at least one such plan and include the potential sequence of elections in the event the members of the legislative body of such municipality would be elected for staggered terms under such plan. The municipality shall hold at least one public hearing at which members of the public may provide input regarding the content of such plan or plans and, if applicable, such potential sequence of elections. Such plan or plans shall be published at least three weeks prior to consideration at each such hearing. If such plan or plans are revised at or