In re General Election for District Justice 670 A.2d 629 543 Pa. 216, 670 A.2d 629 (Cite as: 543 Pa. 216, 670 A.2d 629) [9] However, we agree with Laughlin's third contention that the court of common pleas' failure to make specific findings regarding the degree of tampering makes it impossible for this Court to review whether setting aside the election was the appropriate remedy in this case. For the same reasons, we also find it impossible to evaluate Zupsic's claim that the court should have awarded the election to him based on the first machine count, as audited, together with the write-in votes. [10][11] To achieve the goal of enfranchisement wherever possible, this Court has consistently recognized that "the power to throw out a ballot for minor irregularities should be sparingly used." In re Petitions to Open Ballot Boxes, 410 Pa. 62, 65, 188 A.2d 254, 256 (1963). Even the mere casting of fraudulent votes is not sufficient to throw out a return. See In re West Mahanoy Township's Contested Election, 258 Pa. 176, 179, 101 A. 946, 946 (1917). Instead, if it is at all possible, the fraudulent votes should be purged and the remaining votes retained. See id.; see also In re Bright's Contested Election, 292 Pa. 389, 393, 141 A. 254, 255 (1928). *235 It is only when an election has been characterized by such fraud or intimidation or other unlawful conduct as to make the election a mere travesty or when the ballots or voting machines ... are in such condition that it is impossible to ascertain from an inspection of them the will of the voters that a court will reject the entire returns from a district and annul the election. Winograd v. Coombs, 342 Pa. 268, 271-72, 20 A.2d 315, 316 (1941). In the present case, the court of common pleas set aside the election because it was "impossible to accurately strike all the altered ballots so the result of the election can be reached by ascertaining the honest intent of the voters without disenfranchising the voters who cast ballots which were altered." Petition I, Finding of Fact No. 12. Therefore, the court claimed that it could not determine that the alterations definitely changed the election's outcome; instead, at best, it could only conclude that the alteration "probably" affected the outcome. Petition II, slip op. at 10. However, the mere possibility that the alteration of ballots affected the outcome of the election is clearly insufficient to Page 10 set aside an election and disenfranchise the vast majority of voters whose ballots remained unaffected by the tampering. Instead, this Court's previous rulings required the lower court to specify which ballots it concluded had been altered and to explain the reasons for its conclusions. Likewise, the lower court should have identified the ballots that it was unable to classify as either altered or unaltered, and again to explain the reasons for its conclusions. Without such findings, it is impossible for this Court to make a review of the ballots to determine whether the election should have been awarded to one of the candidates rather than set it aside in its entirety. [12][13] We understand the lower court's concern that, if it were to purge all of the altered ballots, the result would be to disenfranchise voters whose ballots were tainted through no fault of their own. The court errs, though, in concluding that the appropriate and only course would be to disregard the *236 altered ballots. Where evidence establishes that ballots were altered between the time of initial tabulation and a recount, discarding the votes is "wholly untenable." See In re Opening of Ballot Box, 344 Pa. 350, 355, 25 A.2d 330, 333 (1942). Instead, where a discrepancy result[s] from fraudulent tampering with the ballot boxes and their contents, since the official canvass of the votes, ... the court [is] fully justified in directing that the fraudulently altered ballots be counted for ... the candidate for whom the evidence shows they must necessarily have been counted by the election **639 officials, and it would ... [commit] grievous error [to do] otherwise. Id. Therefore, far from striking the altered ballots, the court of common pleas has the duty to enfranchise legitimate voters by awarding those ballots to the intended recipient if that recipient can be determined by clear and convincing evidence. [FN9] FN9. For these reasons, we also reject Zupsic's second contention that the court of common pleas should have rejected all of the votes in the five tainted districts and awarded him the election based on the results in the remaining districts. [14] Finally, we turn to Laughlin's remaining claims of error. First, and most significantly, she claims that the lower court erred in admitting the voluntary testimony of five © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 251