The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 339 So.2d 3 339 So.2d 3 (Cite as: 339 So.2d 3) Page 2 their will, the election will be nullified. '. . . For this Court to render such a drastic order, there must be a clear showing that a course of fraudulent conduct was employed which effectually prevented the electors from expressing their will.' Lewis v. Democratic Executive Committee, 232 La. 732, 95 So.2d 292 (1957). No case has been called to our attention (and we know of none) where an election has been upset because of serious and pervasive irregularities when the evidence falls short of proving that 'but for' the irregularities, the one contesting the election would have won. The solution adopted by the Court of Appeal is innovative, and not necessarily productive of fair elections. The candidates are removed from the reach of the lawful election machinery, even though neither has been found responsible for fraud and irregularity, and neither can be hald the winner 'but for' the irregular votes. As stated in Landry v. Ozenne, 194 La. 853, 195 So. 14 (1940): '. . . If this were permitted it is easy to see that in every case in which a candidate was defeated by a small margin of the votes, two elections would inevitably be held--one at the polls and the other in the courts. . . . ' 195 So. 14, 23. *5 Law is derived from human experience over a long enough time to give validity to that experience. Fraud and illegality in elections are not to be condoned. However, we find it significant that in the long history of election contests in this State, although recognizing that there might be an election which should be upset for widespread fraud which cannot be proved to supply the winning margin, this court has consistently disallowed an election contest where the claims are similar to those of this plaintiff. See Lewis v. Democratic Executive Committee, supra. [2] The irregularities found by the Court of Appeal are not so pervasive that the election must be nullified. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the judgment of the district court, dismissing plaintiff's suit, is reinstated; the stay order previously issued in this case is hereby annulled and recalled. 342 SANDERS, C.J., dissents and assigns written reasons. SUMMERS, J., dissents and assigns reasons. SUMMERS, Justice (dissenting). I subscribe to the opinion of the Court of Appeal, 338 So.2d 791. On the facts found by that court the judgment nullifying the election is correct. Without setting forth why, this Court holds that the irregularities found by the Court of Appeal are not so pervasive that the election must be nullified. The carefully drawn unanimous opinion of the Court of Appeal refutes this conclusion in a nine-judge review. As Justice Dixon said on another occasion, these facts demonstrate 'This Court can and should annul elections when the irregularity or illegality permeates the entire election, Or when there is an irregularity which makes it impossible to determine which candidate the people lawfully elected.' (emphasis added). LaCaze v. Johnson, 310 So.2d 86 (La.1974) Under the facts of this case, that principle is abrogated. This Court's opinion leaves open a situation in which widespread practices of fraud and irregularities provide no remedy unless the candidate can show that the practice deprives him of the election. Such a ruling under the facts of this case disregards the elaborate statutory procedure for contesting elections and decrees that no remedy is available in a most objectionable situation where the will of the people is in fact frustrated. I respectfully dissent. SANDERS, Chief Justice (dissenting). Election frauds and irregularities are difficult to prove because of their clandestine nature and the limited time available to assemble evidence. Despite the difficulty of legal proof, however, the reviewing judges in both lower courts found frauds and irregularities in the present case. The applicable rule, reiterated by this Court in several decisions, is as follows: '(I)f the Court finds the proven frauds and irregularities are of such a serious nature as to deprive the voters of the © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.