66 inspection. Appellants/Intervenors adduced evidence that Appellee did not comply with this requirement of law; and yet in his Final Ruling the CDHO did not reflect the consequences of this non-compliance by Appellee. To which Appellants/Intervenors excepted. 6. Further to Count Five (5) above, Appellants/Intervenors' interpretation of the clause, "...copy of each roll may be kept at such places as Appellee may designate for public inspection" is that the voter registration roll (or at least the portion relevant to each voting precinct) should be kept at the registration centers and voting precincts (polling places) for inspection by the public. Appellants/ Intervenors' interpretation is supported by Appellee's own Voter Registration Regulations of August 12, 2016 (Art. 22.1 &22.2), which provides that Appellee shall certify the FRR and print one copy for each polling place. Yet the NEC Board ruled that only the Provisional Registration Roll ("PRR") is required to be published at each registration center, but that the Final Registration Roll ("FRR") is not required to be published to be published at each polling place. And to which ruling of the NEC Board Appellants/Intervenors' except. 7. That also further to Count (Five) above, Appellee's failure to publish the FRR at each pooling place (at least that portion of the FRR related to the registration center relating to the polling place) in violation of its own regulation, is one of the irregularities, which Appellants/Intervenors' complained of and which undermined the fairness, freeness and transparency of the October 10, 2017 elections. And for this reasons, Appellants/Intervenors' except to the NEC Board's ruling on this issue. 8. That Appellants/Intervenors produced witnesses (including former commissioners of the National Elections Commission) before the CDHO, who testified that for all previous elections, the voter registration roll for each precinct was published at the polling place where the voters registered. This evidence was not rebutted or contradicted before the CDHO, and therefore deemed admitted pursuant to Davis v. Davis, 19 LLR 150. Yet the CDHO did not pass on the impact of this evidence on the case before him. Appellants excepted and submitted this exception for review by the NEC Board but the NEC Board ignored the evidence and the impact it had on the fairness, freeness and transparency of the October 10, 2017 elections. And for which, Appellants/Intervenors except. 9. That Appellants/Intervenors adduced evidence before the CDHO, conceded by Appellee pursuant to Davis v. Davis, 19 LLR 150 because the specie of evidence was not denied or rebutted, that Appellee did not publish the FRR as required by Section 3.6 of the Elections Law and Appellee's own Voter Registration Regulations of August 12, 2016, Art. 22.4. All that Appellee did insofar as the Final Registration Roll ("FRR") is concerned is to place the FRR in electronic form on a flash drive and gave it to seven (7) political parties on September 23, 2017. And this is what Appellee considered to be publication of the FRR when according to this provisions of Appellee's own Voter Registration Regulations the making of electronic copies of the FRR was intended for the FRR to be