The Connecticut Supreme Court issued a ruling on October 27, 2026, regarding a dispute over a candidate's nomination for the upcoming election. The case, Greenstein v. Thomas (SC21291), involved Mark Greenstein, who sought to appear on the ballot for the First Congressional District under the Epic American Liberty party designation. The court's decision affects candidates and the procedures for filing nominations in Connecticut.
Greenstein applied for a nominating petition to run as a candidate for the November 3, 2026 election. However, his nomination faced challenges when the Secretary of the State, Stephanie Thomas, disapproved his petition due to a failure to meet the necessary endorsement deadline. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the requirements for candidates seeking to run under a party designation in Connecticut.
Background
Mark Greenstein and Amy Chai were the plaintiffs in this case, challenging the actions of Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas. Greenstein reserved the Epic American Liberty party designation and filed for nominating petition forms on May 15, 2026. He was informed that the party designation committee had until September 2, 2026, to file a statement endorsing him.
On August 28, 2026, Thomas initially disapproved Greenstein's petition, stating he did not have enough signatures. After receiving additional signatures, she approved his nomination on September 1. However, on September 3, Thomas rescinded her approval, citing the failure of the Epic party designation committee to file the required endorsement by the deadline. This led Greenstein to withdraw his candidacy and seek to nominate Chai as a replacement.
The Ruling
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in favor of Thomas, stating that the plaintiffs failed to establish their entitlement to relief. The court emphasized that the endorsement requirement was mandatory, and the Secretary of State had no discretion to approve a petition that did not meet both the signature and endorsement requirements. The court stated, "The defendant properly declined to approve G’s nominating petition, and... C’s claim necessarily failed because there was no vacancy for Epic to fill by replacement nomination under § 9-460."
Judge William H. Bright, Jr. presided over the case, and the court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims lacked merit. The court found that Greenstein had been adequately informed of the endorsement requirement and that the Epic party designation committee could have filed the necessary endorsement at any time before the deadline.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future candidates in Connecticut. It reinforces the importance of adhering to filing deadlines and the procedural requirements for nominations. Candidates must ensure that their party designation committees comply with endorsement deadlines to avoid disqualification from appearing on the ballot.
The decision also clarifies the court's stance on equitable relief in election cases. The court indicated that it would not intervene to excuse a candidate's failure to meet mandatory filing deadlines unless extraordinary circumstances were present. This ruling sets a precedent that candidates must take personal responsibility for understanding and complying with election laws.
What's Next
The court's ruling can be appealed, but it is unclear if the plaintiffs will pursue further legal action. There are no related cases pending at this time. The outcome of this case may influence how candidates prepare for future elections and the importance of timely compliance with all election-related requirements.