The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges In Alabama, a statute codified the rule that a person challenging an election has the burden of proving that the irregularities changed the result of the election.42 The Supreme Court of Alabama acknowledged the words of the statute, and then concluded that harassment and intimidation of voters will not invalidate an election if the challenger does not carry his or her burden of proving that the harassment and intimidation changed the election result. The Alabama Supreme Court said, The annulment of an election, under § 11-46-71, requires either proof of illegal votes, proof of rejected legal votes, or proof of the failure of the contestee to receive the requisite number of legal votes. Moreover, errors and irregularities of election officers that are shown not to have affected the election result will not be considered in an election contest. Threats, violence, or disturbances not materially affecting the result should not invalidate an election. The trial court, without making specific findings of fact, denied the appellants’ contest of the annexation election. The annexation carried, with 718 votes cast in favor and 404 cast against. We cannot say that the trial court’s decision was plainly and palpably wrong; the judgment is affirmed. At 91-92 (internal citation omitted) (emphasis supplied). Here, again, the plaintiff had to show that the number of illegal ballots that were counted was greater than the margin of victory. In other words, the plaintiff had to show that particular illegal ballots were included in a particular vote total. Not surprisingly, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and Mr. Blocker and his co-plaintiffs lost. Similar election-day problems were encountered in neighboring Mississippi. Rizzo v. Bizzell, 530 So.2d 121 (Miss. 1988), demonstrates the need for evidence that violations of the election law in and around the polling places materially affect the election. In fact, it is far more difficult to show that the results of the election or the will of the electorate were affected by actions in or near the polling places than by actions that might invalidate the ballots. The reluctance of courts to overturn elections (which must then be held again) because of illegal activity in the vicinity of the polls comes through clearly in Rizzo. In the August 27, 1987 primary run-off election between D. P. Rizzo and Lee C. Bizzell for the Democratic Party nomination to run for the District 2 Supervisor (county commissioner) seat in Bolivar County, Mississippi, Mr. Bizzell won by 178 votes out of 2,810 total votes cast. The county seat is the All states have laws that regulate the election process, and many of those laws define the point at which irregularities will cause an election result to be altered. Alabama’s law said, No misconduct, fraud or corruption on the part of the election officers, the marker, the municipal governing body or any other person, nor any offers to bribe, bribery, intimidation or other misconduct which prevented a fair, free and full exercise of the elective franchise can annul or set aside any municipal election unless the person declared elected and whose election is contested shall be shown not to have received the requisite number of legal votes for election to the office for which he was a candidate thereby, nor must any election contested under the provisions of this article be annulled or set aside because of illegal votes given to the person whose election is contested unless it appears that the number of illegal votes given to such person, if taken from him, would reduce the number of votes for election. No election shall be annulled or set aside because of the rejection of legal votes unless it appears that such legal votes, if given to the person intended, would increase the number of his legal votes to or above the requisite number of votes for election. Ala.Code 1975, § 11-46-71. At 91. This statute is in addition to the Alabama law that allowed election challenges, similar to the laws that were discussed in Chapter 1. The Alabama statute allowing election challenges specified, as grounds for the challenge, (1) Misconduct, fraud or corruption on the part of any election official, any marker, the municipal governing body or any other person; (2) The person whose election to office is contested was not eligible thereto at the time of such election; (3) Illegal votes; (4) The rejection of legal votes; or (5) Offers to bribe, bribery, intimidation or other misconduct calculated to prevent a fair, free and full exercise of the elective franchise. Ala.Code 1975 § 11-46-69. At 91. 42 36