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) moment deem this conduct to be an irregularity reducing the Fellerhoff total by one vote. Another alleged irregularity is the alleged failure to send notice postcards to numerous new voters. The evidence for this was the computer notice lists which did not have a number of names of registered voters (over sixty people) listed on them; and, further, that these voters did not in fact vote. Respondent presented in opposition credible evidence that some computer notice lists had not been preserved; and that only about twenty-nine of these voters would have been on lists examined by petitioner. Although the board of elections may well be faulted for not preserving in their entirety these obviously important lists, petitioner has again failed to present affirmative evidence of irregularity sufficient to allow the court to do more than speculate among possible inferences. Here the possible inferences are: 1. The voters were not notified; 2. The voters were notified but the notice lists were lost or destroyed; 3. The voters didn't vote because they didn't choose to do so, even after notice or with full knowledge of the location of the polling places; and 4. The voters were, in some cases, notified by an earlier mailing. In this case, the failure of affirmative evidence is glaring and unnecessary. All names and addresses were known, but not one of the allegedly disenfranchised voters was subpoenaed to court by petitioner. In view of the presumption in favor of regularity in election matters (37 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d 566, Elections, Section 209), petitioner has failed to demonstrate irregularity affirmatively on this point. Another irregularity allegedly arises out of the return as undeliverable of one hundred thirty envelopes mailed on November 4, 1983, by the Over-the-Rhine Community Council from the computer notification list of October 22, 1983. Certainly this mailing **122 raises the possibility that the notification list was incorrect. However, it does not af- Page 7 firmatively establish that the board of election's mailing was equally unsuccessful; or that the addresses were in fact incorrect; or that the voters had not moved. The burden of proof is on the petitioner, and suspicion or possibility does not satisfy this burden. Irregularities were claimed by petitioner in the notification of approximately twenty specifically named voters primarily in precinct 17D. An examination of the exhibits revealed that three of the named individuals actually voted; that four of these individuals were in fact on the notification list; that one individual received two notices. As to the remaining twelve individuals, the court will, without deciding the issue at this point, deem them deleted from respondent's sixty-two vote total over petitioner. Another irregularity alleged by petitioner is the failure of poll workers to contact *13 the board of elections regarding the people who came into the various disputed precincts with notice postcards or registration application receipts, but for whom there were no buff cards and who were not on the signature lists. The simple fact is that those people who entered polling places with registration application receipts or with notice postcards, but who were not in the buff books or on the signature lists, were on the face of it not eligible to vote in the particular precinct. Efforts on the poll workers' part to help them are laudable, but not required by the greatly detailed election laws. The court will not now, in the pursuit of some ill-conceived judicial affirmative action, create such an obligation. Here again the absence of any affirmative showing of irregularity will not allow the court to do other than speculate on the possibility of irregularity. Summation Counsel for petitioner stated in his final argument that it is not necessary to demonstrate the names and addresses of all disenfranchised voters. He asked rhetorically: how much evidence is enough? Although it is theoretically possible that the court might infer that sixty-two or more voters were disenfranchised from © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 339