Chapter 1 officials determine from the return envelope that the absentee voter’s information is in order, the interior envelope is removed, and later the ballots are removed and commingled with the other ballots. Election challenges involve absentee balloting so often because absentee voting is the one occasion in the election process when ballots leave the custody of election officials—the ballots are unguarded until they are returned to election officials as voted ballots. This gives an opportunity to people who want to mark or alter another voter’s ballot for a candidate that the marker wants.14 In Valence v. Rosiere, Mr. Valence was leading in the vote count on the voting machines by 31 votes, 443 to 412. But Mr. Rosiere got 48 more absentee ballots (129 to Mr. Valence’s 81), making Mr. Rosiere the winner by 17 votes. Mr. Valence filed an election challenge saying that there were at least 20 illegal absentee ballots cast at the election: seven voters filled out a form showing that they did not live in Grand Isle, 12 absentee ballots had forged signatures and one ballot was cast by a voter who was assisted illegally under Louisiana law by Mr. Rosiere. Louisiana had a requirement that absentee ballots had to be challenged by the fourth day before the election. Another Louisiana statute said that a challenge to a voter’s qualifications or to an election irregularity is waived if, with due diligence, it could have been raised by a challenge or an objection at the polls. At trial, Mr. Valence claimed that he could prove his allegations, but he said he could not have gotten the proof early enough to enter his challenges under state law, despite his due diligence, because the forgeries were hidden by his opponent. The trial court disagreed with Mr. Valence and dismissed his claims, without a trial, for failure to file his challenge within the period required by state law. Mr. Valence appealed. The appellate court began its decision by stating the well-known standard for reviewing motions to dismiss: for the purpose of determining whether to sustain a motion to dismiss, “all well pleaded allegations of fact are accepted as true and must be construed most favorably from the plaintiff ’s standpoint to afford him an opportunity to present his evidence at a trial.” At 1139. The court then noted Mr. Valence’s assertion that “he was not able to ascertain this information despite due diligence with sufficient time to challenge the election,” and noted another Louisiana case that recognized that “due diligence does not require a candidate to research every registered voter to determine their current eligibility to vote.” At 1139. The court then concluded: Accepting these allegations as true…plaintiff has sufficiently identified 20 alleged illegal votes which satisfies the requirements for stating a valid cause of action. Further, under the facts alleged and due to the nature of the alleged illegal activities, plaintiff ’s contention that, despite due diligence, he was unable to challenge these voters at the times required…must also be accepted as true… Accordingly, the allegations of Valence’s petition are sufficient to state a cause of action requiring a trial on the merits concerning the allegations of forgery of ballots, nonresident voting… and illegal assistance of voters by the defendant, Rosiere. At 1141 (emphasis supplied). The court then remanded the case to the trial court to conduct further hearings. 14 Some elections are conducted entirely by mail, including all elections in the State of Oregon. These elections are subject to the same concerns about illegality as are elections using mail-in absentee ballots. 13