The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 836 S.W.2d 203 836 S.W.2d 203 (Cite as: 836 S.W.2d 203) Page 6 Chumney v. Craig, 805 S.W.2d 864, 870 (Tex.App.--Waco 1991, writ denied). See also Medrano v. Gleinser, 769 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1989, no writ); Miller v. Hill, 698 S.W.2d 372, 375 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, writ dism'd 714 S.W.2d 313 (Tex.1986)); Wright v. Board of Trustees of Tatum Ind. Sch. Dist., 520 S.W.2d 787, 790 (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1975, writ dism'd w.o.j.); Grizzaffi v. Lee, 517 S.W.2d 885, 892 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1974, writ dism'd w.o.j.). Nevertheless, the standard of review to be placed on an appeal from a judgment in an election contest is whether from the record it appears that the trial court abused its discretion. See, e.g., Miller, 698 S.W.2d at 375; Goodman v. Wise, 620 S.W.2d 857, 859 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.). See generally, Tex.Jur. III, Elections § 185 (1984). In this instance, appellant brought an election contest under the Texas Election Code on the basis that illegal votes were improperly counted in the final election canvass. Tex.Elec.Code Ann. § 221.003(a)(1) (Vernon 1986). In particular, appellant alleged that a large number of voters had registered and voted in both the Republican party primary and the Democratic primary runoff election. Section 221.003 of the Texas Election Code allows for an election contest to be brought where it appears that the final election canvass is not the true outcome of the election due to the casting of illegal votes. [FN2] See Tex.Elec.Code Ann. § 221.003(a)(1) (Vernon 1986). An illegal vote occurs where a registered voter actually casts a ballot in both the Republican and Democratic primaries. [FN3] See Tex.Elec.Code Ann. § 221.003(b) (Vernon 1986). FN2. Tex.Elec.Code Ann. § 221.003(a)(1) (Vernon 1986). Section 221.003(a)(1) provides in relevant part that: (a) The tribunal hearing an election contest shall attempt to ascertain whether the outcome of the contested election, as shown by the final canvass, is not the true outcome because: (1) illegal votes were counted.... Id. FN3. Tex.Elec.Code Ann. § 221.003(b) (Vernon 1986). Subsection states that: 232 In this title, "illegal vote" means a vote that is not legally countable. Id. In order to determine the true outcome of the election, the trial court heard testimony from 313 illegal voters during the course of the eleven day trial. Section 221.009 grants the district court the power to compel a voter to reveal his or her vote by providing that: (a) A voter who cast an illegal vote may be compelled, after the illegality has been established to the satisfaction of the tribunal hearing the contest, to disclose the name of the candidate for whom he voted or how he voted on a measure if the issue is relevant to the election contest. Tex.Elec.Code Ann. § 221.009(a) (Vernon 1986). Both appellant and appellee were able to secure the testimony of 313 of the 429 illegal voters; of these, 220 illegal voters admitted voting for Green and 75 admitted voting for Reyes. [4] Pursuant to the Election Code, the trial court subtracted the number of ascertainable illegal votes from the candidates' total votes. [FN4] See *209Tex.Elec.Code Ann. § 221.011(a) & 221.012(b) (Vernon 1986). See also Tex.Elec.Code Ann. § 221.012(a) (Vernon 1986). In this instance, once the illegal votes were subtracted from the original election results, the canvass yielded a 41 vote margin of victory for Green. Notwithstanding, the trial court also found that 126 illegal votes were not able to be ascertained. Therefore, the 41 vote margin of victory in favor of Green could not accurately reflect the true outcome of the election. In response, the trial court entertained testimony from expert witnesses on behalf of appellant and appellee who testified that statistically the majority of the 126 unascertained illegal votes would have been cast for their opponent. Disregarding this conflicting testimony, the trial court determined that the true outcome was unable to be determined. Therefore, pursuant to section 221.012(b), the trial court held the election void and ordered a new election because the margin of victory, 41, was far surpassed by the number of unascertained illegal votes, 126. See Tex.Elec.Code Ann. § 221.012(b) (Vernon 1986). Section 221.011(b) states that: FN4. Tex.Elec.Code Ann. § 221.011(a). Section 221.011(a) mandates that: If the tribunal hearing an election contest can as- © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.