The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 374 S.E.2d 685 297 S.C. 55, 374 S.E.2d 685 (Cite as: 297 S.C. 55, 374 S.E.2d 685) Supreme Court of South Carolina. Carl KNIGHT, Petitioner, v. The STATE BOARD OF CANVASSERS, The Dorchester Board of Canvassers, and J.C. Woodberry, Respondents. No. 22939. Heard Dec. 8, 1988. Decided Dec. 14, 1988. Unsuccessful candidate for sheriff petitioned for writ of certiorari contesting decision of State Board of Canvassers affirming results of county sheriff's election. The Supreme Court held that: (1) Board's decision affirming counting of absentee ballots for sheriff which did not meet all technical absentee ballot requirements was not error of law, and (2) poll managers' failure to count all absentee ballots in sheriff's election without interruption and without adjournment did not affect result of election, and thus did not require that election be set aside, although conduct violated statute. Petition dismissed. West Headnotes [1] Elections 227(1) 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases [2] Elections 298(1) 144k298(1) Most Cited Cases Supreme Court's scope of review of decisions of State Board of Canvassers is limited to corrections of errors of law; findings of fact will not be overturned unless wholly unsupported by evidence. 318 [3] Elections 216.1 144k216.1 Most Cited Cases Statute providing that provisions concerning absentee registration and absentee voting shall be liberally construed prohibits Supreme Court from subjecting to strict scrutiny procedures for submitting and counting absentee ballots. Code 1976, § 7-15-20. [4] Elections 227(8) 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases State Board of Convasser's decision affirming counting of absentee ballots for sheriff which did not meet all technical absentee ballot requirements was not error of law. Code 1976, § 7-15-20. [5] Elections 244 144k244 Most Cited Cases Poll managers' failure to count all absentee ballots in sheriff's election without interruption and without adjournment did not affect result of election, and thus did not require that election be set aside, although conduct violated statute; evidence indicated that absentee ballots which had been set aside on election night were secured and that no tampering had occurred. Code 1976, §§ 7-13-1110, 7-15-20. **686 *56 Robert N. Rosen, of Rosen, Rosen & Hagood, Charleston, for petitioner knight. Nancy D. Hawk, Charleston, for respondent J.C. Woodberry. [1] Elections 291 144k291 Most Cited Cases Court employs every reasonable presumption in favor of sustaining contested election and mere technical irregularities or illegalities are insufficient to set aside election unless errors actually appear to have affected result of the election. [3] Elections 95 144k95 Most Cited Cases Page 1 David B. McCormack, of Buist, Moore, Smythe & McGee, Charleston, for respondent Dorchester Bd. of Canvassers. Deputy Atty. Gen. James P. Hudson, Columbia, for respondent State Bd. of Canvassers. PER CURIAM: This is a proceeding under a writ of certiorari. Petitioner, a candidate for sheriff, contests the decision of respondent State Board of Canvassers (State Board) affirming the results of the Dorchester County Sheriff's Election. He contends that due to various statutory irregularities in the submission of and counting of absentee ballots, a new election should be held. Respondents oppose the ordering of a new election. Respondent Woodberry seeks costs and attorney's © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.