The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 816 So.2d 349 816 So.2d 349, 36,366 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/23/02) (Cite as: 816 So.2d 349, 36,366 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/23/02)) Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit. Gleason NUGENT, Johnny Ray Carpenter, Doris Abrams and Shelia White, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Benji PHELPS, Fox McKeithen, Secretary of State and Suzanne Haik-Terrell, Commissioner of Elections, Defendants-Appellees. No. 36,366-CA. April 23, 2002. Writ Denied May 10, 2002. Losing candidate for police chief and supporters brought election challenge, seeking to have election nullified, alleging irregularities and unlawful activities by successful candidate and his supporters. After losing candidate's supporters were dismissed pursuant to exceptions of no right of action, the Eighth Judicial District Court, Parish of Winn, No. 37,142, John R. Joyce, J., granted involuntary dismissal of suit. Losing candidate appealed. The Court of Appeal, Norris, C.J., held that: (1) vote would not be cast out simply because voter was offered a bribe or accepted something of value for the vote, provided that voter still voted the way he originally intended; (2) copy of running tab from store at which successful candidate in election allegedly set up account to buy votes was inadmissible; (3) trial court did not have to tell witnesses that they could be given immunity from prosecution; and (4) votes of losing candidate's supporters did not have to be counted even though they were in jail when election took place. Affirmed. West Headnotes [1] Elections 227(1) 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases Although a party contesting an election is no longer limited to the "but for" standard, a party contesting an election still must show at least that because of fraud or irregularities, the outcome of the election is impossible to determine; thus, it is the effect of the irregularity on determining the outcome, 344 Page 1 rather than the fact of an irregularity by itself, that guides the court. LSA-R.S. 18:1432, subd. A. [2] Elections 228 144k228 Most Cited Cases A vote should not be cast out in an election challenge simply because a voter was offered a bribe, or even because a voter accepted something of value for the vote, provided that the voter still voted the way he originally intended. [3] Elections 228 144k228 Most Cited Cases Regardless of criminal implications, court's focus in an election challenge claiming irregularities by winner is on whether the alleged activities actually changed the result of the election by changing the vote totals, or at least made the election result impossible to determine. [4] Evidence 373(1) 157k373(1) Most Cited Cases [4] Trial 39 388k39 Most Cited Cases Copy of list documenting a running tab from store at which successful candidate in election allegedly set up account to buy votes was inadmissible in election challenge, although challenger's counsel stated that he did not see list until store employee had testified and was released by the court, as challenger, as the result of his investigation, was aware of existence of list before case was tried, and copy of list was present in court when employee testified, but no attempt was made to introduce it into evidence at that time; challenger did not make list, did not keep records for store, and could not say who made list or the circumstances under which it was made. [5] Witnesses 302 410k302 Most Cited Cases When trial court informed all potential witnesses in election challenge case that their testimony could be used against them and that they could be convicted of violating statute prohibiting the bribery of voters, trial court did not have to tell witnesses that they could be given immunity from prosecution, as judge read to the potential witnesses that portion of statute dealing with immunity, and challenger failed © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.