67 available at Appellee's headquarters for the sole use by electoral stakeholders upon request. In his Final Ruling, the CDHO did not pass on this material issue and the effect of this violation of the Elections Lawand Appellee's own Voter Registration Regulation by Appellee on the October 10, 2017 elections. To which Appellants/Intervenors then and there excepted, argued the issue before the NEC Board; but the NEC Board did not pass on the issue. But the NEC Board did not pass on the issue and the impact this evidence or fact had on the fairness, freeness and transparency of the October 10, 2017 elections. And for which reasons, Appellants/Intervenors except. 10. That Appellants/Intervenors say that Section 3.19 of the Elections Law and Appellee's own regulation (Voter Registration Regulations of August 12, 2016, Art. 22.5) provide that the FRR shall not be altered within the thirty days immediately before an election (including Election Day — October 10, 2017). This means that Appellee should have published the FRR long before that thirty-day period commenced; but Appellee hand-delivered the FRR on a flash drive (not published for inspection by the public) to seven (7) political parties barely three (3) weeks before the October 10, 2017 elections. In his Final Ruling, the CDHO did not cover the effect of this undue delay in publishing the FRR and the manner in which the FRR was delivered to political parties on flash drives as substitute for publication for inspection by the public. And so Appellants/ Intervenors excepted and argued this issue before the NEC Board; but the NEC Board did not pass on this issue and the effect it had on the fairness, freeness and transparency of the October 10, 2017 elections. And for this reason, Appellants/Intervenors except. 11. That Appellants/Intervenors adduced evidence, and pursuant to Davis v. Davis, 19 LLR 150, was conceded by Appellee because it was never rebutted or denied, that Appellee's own Voter Registration Regulations of August 12, 2016 (Art. 22.1 &22.2) provide that Appellee shall certify the FRR and print one copy for each polling place. Appellants/Intervenors also adduced evidence before the CDHO, unrebutted and not-discredited, that Appellee failed to comply with this requirement of its own regulations and yet in his Final Ruling the CDHO did not pass on this material issue and the effect of this noncompliance on the October 10, 2017 elections. To which Appellants/Intervenors excepted and argued this issue before the NEC Board; but the NEC Board erroneously ruled that it was not required that the FRR be published at each polling place. And to which ruling of the NEC Board, Appellants/Intervenors except. 12. That Appellants/Intervenors say that the Elections Law, Section 3.11(2)(a) requires that at least two (2) days before Election Day (October 10, 2017) the portion of the FRR for each registration center should have been available at each registration center for inspection and comparison with Appellee's master FRR. Appellants/Intervenors produced evidence, which was not rebutted and therefore admitted pursuant to Davis v. Davis, 19 LLR 150, which proved that Appellee did not comply with this requirement of law. In his Final Ruling, the CDHO