Mirlisena v. Fellerhoff 463 N.E.2d 115 11 Ohio Misc.2d 7, 463 N.E.2d 115, 11 O.B.R. 101 (Cite as: 11 Ohio Misc.2d 7, 463 N.E.2d 115) N.E.2d 1299. " * * * [T]his court has consistently held that there must be an affirmative showing that enough votes were affected by the alleged irregularities to change the result of the election." In re Election of Swanton Twp. (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 37, 39, 447 N.E.2d 1299. [2] Acceptance of votes illegally cast and the denial of the right to vote to qualified voters are equally irregularities: "An election is void if enough persons were unlawfully deprived of an opportunity to vote, or legal votes were thrown out, to change the result * * *." 29 Corpus Juris Secundum 596, Elections, Section 211. [3] It is evident that the court need not look behind the votes illegally rejected to determine for which candidate the voter would have voted: Page 3 Various presumptions and burdens are applicable to election contests: "In a contest proceeding, the action of the election officers in conducting the election, and in * * * declaring the result thereof, is attended with a prima facie presumption of regularity. * * * " 37 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1982) 566, Elections, Section 209. **118 "In an election contest the burden ordinarily rests upon the contester to establish his claims." Id. at 567. "Every reasonable intendment must be in favor of the validity of an election, and against holding it void for uncertainty." Mehling v. Moorehead (1938), 133 Ohio St. 395, 403, 14 N.E.2d 15 [11 O.O. 55]. We will now proceed to discuss irregularities specifically alleged by petitioner. " * * * [O]ne hundred forty votes were unaccounted for [the voting machines having failed to work]. Appellee needed only seventy-four of those to defeat appellant. This is sufficient to demonstrate that the election's result is uncertain." Hitt v. Tressler (1982), 4 Ohio St.3d 174, 177, 447 N.E.2d 1299. The polling place for precinct 11D was changed from its previous location. Petitioner claims that the location was selected contrary to mandatory statutory requirements, and was so inconvenient as to have disenfranchised many voters, specific examples of whom are Charlie Matthews and Gail Buschard. [4] Although it is generally necessary for the contestor in an election contest to prove that the irregularities would have changed the result of the election, it is not always necessary to show the precise number of irregularities: R.C. 3501.18 provides in pertinent part as follows: " 'If, however, the irregularities are so widespread and general and of so flagrant a character as to raise a doubt as to how the election would have resulted had they not occurred, they are deemed to be fatal and will warrant the rejection of the entire vote of the election district * * *.' " Otworth v. Bays (1951), 155 Ohio St. 366, 370, 98 N.E.2d 812 [44 O.O. 343]. The basic factual question before the court is, therefore, whether sixty-two or more voters were illegally denied the right to vote (there being no claim that votes were illegally cast), or whether widespread, flagrant irregularities have raised a doubt as to the entire election. "The board of elections may divide a political subdivision * * * into precincts and * * * rearrange * * * the several election precincts * * * and change the location of the polling place * * * to provide for the convenience of the voters. * * * " * * * In order to provide for the convenience of the voters, the board may locate polling places for voting * * * outside the boundaries of precincts, provided that the nearest public school or public building shall be used if the board determines *9 it to be available and suitable for use as a polling place. * * * " [5] The requirements pertaining to change of polling place are mandatory before an election, directory thereafter: "In order to constitute a valid election the place of holding it © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 335