In re Election Contest as to Watertown Special Referendum Election of October 26, 1999 628 N.W.2d 336 628 N.W.2d 336, 2001 SD 62 (Cite as: 628 N.W.2d 336, 2001 SD 62) election that rose to the level of not being a free and fair expression of the voters, contestants of the election provided no evidence as to how many potential voters left the lines without voting or how they would have voted and no evidence that any voter was turned away, and thus, the results were valid. [9] Elections 227(1) 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases An election will not be overturned upon the mere mathematical possibility that the results could have been changed, when the possibilities all combine to repel any such conclusion. [10] Elections 227(1) 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases Although election officials may have misjudged voter turnout, an election that culminates in a free and fair expression of the will of the voters should not be overturned due to the mistakes or neglect of an election official. *337 Robert L. Spears, Watertown, SD, Attorney for appellants Porisch, Andrea, and Fischer. Thomas J. Linngren of Green, Schulz, Roby, Oviatt, Cummings & Linngren, Watertown, SD, Attorneys for appellee Prairie Lakes Hospital, Sioux Valley Health Care and Bartron Clinic. Roy A. Wise of Richardson, Groseclose, Wyly, Wise & Sauck, Aberdeen, SD, Attorneys for appellees Watertown Mayor, City Finance Officer, and City Council. AMUNDSON, Justice. **1 Local residents of Watertown filed an election contest based on allegations of perceived voting irregularities. The trial court held the election valid and declined to order a new election. We affirm. FACTS **2 On August 2, 1999, the Watertown City Council approved an ordinance, which would rezone a portion of the city from residential to commercial. The City Council also passed a resolu- Page 2 tion, which would vacate a portion of a city street. The ordinance and resolution were passed at the request of Prairie Lakes Health Care System in order for it to expand its main campus. Certain local residents (Contestants) objected to the changes and sought to bring the rezoning issues to a special election. After obtaining the requisite*338 number of signatures, Contestants were able to demand a special referendum election on the two zoning changes. **3 A special election took place on October 26, 1999, and was held at the Civic Arena. The voters approved both referendums. After a recount, final numbers showed that the resolution was approved 1,739 to 1,679, a difference of 60 votes, and the ordinance was approved 1,711 to 1,677, a difference of 34 votes. **4 Contestants brought suit contesting the election results under SDCL ch. 12-22. After hearing Contestants' allegations of voting irregularities, including affidavits from 104 potential voters who did not vote because of long lines, the circuit court found that the election "resulted in a free and fair expression of the will of the voters," and denied Contestants a new election. Contestants appeal, raising the follow issue: Whether Contestants met their burden of proof showing that the special election was not the free and fair expression of the voters based on the manner in which it was conducted. STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] **5 "In an election contest this court must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law and can only reverse the trial court's judgment if it is clearly erroneous." Larson v. Locken, 262 N.W.2d 752, 755 (S.D.1978). Thus, we review only the sufficiency of the trial court's findings and whether those findings are in clear error. DECISION **6 The thrust of Contestants' argument is that the lines leading to the voting registration table were 239