The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 463 N.E.2d 115 11 Ohio Misc.2d 7, 463 N.E.2d 115, 11 O.B.R. 101 (Cite as: 11 Ohio Misc.2d 7, 463 N.E.2d 115) it was originally given; and 8. That the receipt was obtained for the current election. A simple review of the eight inferences just delineated quickly makes it apparent that inference upon inference upon inference must be made to justify petitioner's position. This simply cannot be done. Additionally, we read as follows: "Ordinarily, a person who is honestly refused the right to vote does not become a rejected voter until he * * * qualifies by showing his right to vote * * *." 26 American Jurisprudence 2d 106, Elections, Section 278. [11] " * * * this court has consistently held that there must be an affirmative showing that enough votes were affected by the alleged irregularities to change the result of the election * * *. "In short, contestors * * * simply failed to prove their case. It is indeed noteworthy that while contestors * * * named seven individuals in their answers to interrogatories who allegedly were permitted to vote * * * though ineligible, these individuals were not called as witnesses, nor were they named by the witnesses who did testify." In re Election of Swanton Twp., supra, 2 Ohio St.3d at 39, 442 N.E.2d 758. "The record in the instant case well supports the conclusion of the trial court judge that contestors * * * failed to make an affirmative showing that enough votes were affected * * * to change the result of the election * * *." (Emphasis added.) Id. at 39, 442 N.E.2d 758. [12] In view of the foregoing, the court finds that petitioner has not proven his allegations pertaining to the alleged irregularities just discussed. Another irregularity alleged by petitioner pertains to individuals who appeared at the polls with notice postcards and who were not allowed to vote because their names were not on the buff cards or on the voter signature lists. Most of the pollworkers who testified about this alleged irregularity did not look at the postcards closely enough to determine **121 what the names or the addresses were, what 338 Page 6 precincts were involved, or what date of what year was on the postcard. In one case the precincts were checked on about a dozen cards, and found to involve the precinct in question, but no record was made of the name, address, or date of what year on each card. This situation is closely allied to the situation involving the voter registration application receipts, to wit, there is no affirmative showing of irregularity, and too many inferences have to be made. Here, the inferences would involve, in any particular case, most or all of the following: 1. That the person bringing in the postcard was the person who received it; 2. That the card was for the precinct in question; 3. That the card pertained to the current election; 4. That the voter had not changed his address; 5. That the card was the most current one; 6. That the card was not in error; and *12 7. That the person did not in fact vote. Again, the lack of affirmative evidence prevents the court from reducing the inferences or choosing among them. For the foregoing reasons, petitioner has failed to demonstrate the validity of this alleged irregularity. [13] Another alleged irregularity involves a pollworker in precinct 17B telling a voter that he had to vote for nine council candidates, whereas in fact the voter could vote for zero to nine candidates. Respondent points out that the voter was given the correct information at the same time, and that the phrase "vote for not more than 9" was printed on the ballot. The court has not found, nor have counsel cited, any law on the question of telling a voter that he must vote for the entire ticket. This is certainly, in any case, not a disenfranchisement, but some kind of over-enfranchisement. Without deciding the issue, however, the court will for the © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.