Chapter 2 Mr. Mirlisena next claimed that people who came to the polls with notice postcards were not allowed to vote because their names were not on the voter registration cards or the signature lists at the polling places. It appears from the court’s opinion that notice postcards are mailed to new registrants to provide notice of their voter registration.47 Polling place officials testified that, when they talked to would-be voters at the polls, they saw that the people had brought notice postcards with them, but did not check the postcards for the names, addresses or precinct numbers that were on them, or the years of the postcards; in one precinct about 12 postcards were checked to determine that the voter was in the correct precinct, but no record was made of the voters’ names or addresses, or the years on the cards. The court concluded, 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. That the person bringing in the postcard was the person who received it; That the card was for the precinct in question; That the card pertained to the current election; That the voter had not changed his address; That the card was the most current one; That the card was not in error; and 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. At 121. It appears that Mr. Mirlisena was able to prove that the names of some newly registered voters, who should have been sent notice postcards, were not on the computer lists of people to whom notice postcards were sent. Mr. Mirlisena claimed there were over 60 of these people; Ms. Fellerhoff said that there could have been 29 of these people. Neither of them could be more definite because some of the computer notice lists had been destroyed by the election officials after the election. The court did not think the difference in the numbers was controlling, because, again, the court found that the conclusion—that those voters had been disenfranchised—would have to be based on an unacceptable series of assumptions. Although the board of elections may well be faulted for not preserving in their entirety these obviously important lists, petitioner has again failed to present affirmative evidence of irregularity sufficient to allow the court to do more than speculate among possible inferences. Here the possible inferences are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 47 The voters were not notified; The voters were notified but the notice lists were lost or destroyed; The voters didn’t vote because they didn’t choose to do so, even after notice or with full knowledge of the location of the polling places; and The voters were, in some cases, notified by an earlier mailing. Since 1995, notice of voter registration has been required to be mailed to new registrants by the National Voter Registration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(a)(2). In addition, for each election, many counties mail to registered voters notice of their polling place location. 41