The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 628 N.W.2d 336 628 N.W.2d 336, 2001 SD 62 (Cite as: 628 N.W.2d 336, 2001 SD 62) Page 1 and fair expression of the will of the voters. Supreme Court of South Dakota. In the Matter of the ELECTION CONTEST AS TO WATERTOWN SPECIAL REFERENDUM ELECTION OF OCTOBER 26, 1999 Pertaining To Referred Ballot Issues No. 1 and 2. No. 21595. Argued April 24, 2001. Decided May 23, 2001. City residents brought suit contesting election results on two referendum issues, alleging voting irregularities. The Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Codington County, Ronald K. Roehr, J., determined the election was valid. Residents appealed. The Supreme Court, Amundson, J., held that long lines and inadequate parking associated with holding election in one voting location did not amount to voting irregularities that rose to level of not being a free and fair expression of the people. Affirmed. West Headnotes [1] Elections 305(6) 144k305(6) Most Cited Cases In an election contest, the Supreme Court must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law and can only reverse the trial court's judgment if it is clearly erroneous; thus, it reviews only the sufficiency of the trial court's findings and whether those findings are in clear error. [2] Elections 269 144k269 Most Cited Cases The purpose of an election contest is to challenge the election process itself. [3] Elections 298(1) 144k298(1) Most Cited Cases The basic question in an election contest is whether the election, despite irregularities, resulted in a free 227(1) [4] Elections 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases To prevail, contestants of an election must show not only voting irregularities, but also show those irregularities to be so egregious that the will of the voters was suppressed. [5] Municipal Corporations 108.10 268k108.10 Most Cited Cases Statute expressly permitting a city to use one polling place and one election board, and not statute requiring an adjustment to size of any precinct at which there was unreasonable waiting time imposed upon the voters at the last preceding general election, applied to special referendum election on two zoning changes approved by city council, and thus, long lines and inadequate parking associated with holding election in one voting location did not amount to voting irregularities that rose to level of not being a free and fair expression of the people, absent any evidence that any state or local election law was violated. SDCL 12-14-4, 9-13-36. [6] Elections 227(1) 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases Mere inconvenience or delay in voting is not enough to overturn an election on ground of voting irregularities. [7] Elections 291 144k291 Most Cited Cases Before the Supreme Court conducts a but-for analysis to determine whether an election outcome may have been different had those allegedly disenfranchised been able to vote, the election contestants must show, as a prerequisite, that voting irregularities existed. [8] Municipal Corporations 108.10 268k108.10 Most Cited Cases Even assuming long lines and inadequate parking would amount to voting irregularities at referendum 238 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.