The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 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… petitioner has failed to demonstrate irregularity affirmatively on this point. At 121. Mr. Mirlisena also tried to show that the computer notification list was incorrect by introducing evidence that, when a community group used the list to send mail to the people at the addresses listed, 130 envelopes were returned by the post office as undeliverable. To this claim the court responded, Certainly this mailing raises the possibility that the notification list was incorrect. However, it does not affirmatively 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. At 121-122. In two instances, the court found that Mr. Mirlisena had proven that irregularities occurred and had benefited Ms. Fellerhoff. In one precinct, a polling place official erroneously told a voter that he had to vote for nine city council candidates, rather than correctly telling the voter that he should vote for not more than nine (an instruction that was written on the ballot). The court deducted that vote from Ms. Fellerhoff ’s 62-vote margin. In another precinct, Mr. Mirlisena claimed there were irregularities that prevented 20 specific voters from receiving their notifications that they could vote. The court found that three of them voted, four of them were on the notification list, and one of them got two notices. Then, apparently because it made no difference to the outcome of the case, the court decided that the remaining 12 should be deleted from Ms. Fellerhoff ’s vote total. (There is no further explanation for this odd aspect of the decision in the court’s opinion.)48 Then the court summarized its opinion. Although it is theoretically possible that the court might infer that sixty-two or more voters were disenfranchised from a showing of a lesser number of disenfranchisements, the inference would have to be based on a solid, affirmative showing of patterns of irregularities. In this case, a total of approximately thirteen voters have been deemed by the court, without deciding the issue, as disenfranchised. Even in the case of these thirteen people, persuasive arguments can be made against disenfranchisement. Petitioner concedes that he has not proven disenfranchisement of sixty-two or more specifically named voters…Every reasonable inference is required in law to be made in favor of the validity of an election. These inferences have simply not been met or overcome by petitioner. At 122 (emphasis supplied). 48 The court also decided that there was no requirement for the polling place officials to contact the board of elections regarding the people who came to the polls with voter application receipts or notice postcards but had no buff cards, and for that reason were not allowed to vote. Contacting the board of elections usually is a good idea because the board may be able to determine that people whose names are not listed on the precinct voter books are, in fact, validly registered voters and should be allowed to vote. 42