Mirlisena v. Fellerhoff 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) tion, at such time as board of election personnel have verified that the voter may properly be registered. Petitioner alleges that volunteer registrars, appointed pursuant to R.C. 3503.11(B)(2), failed in many cases to turn in applications for registration to the board of elections; that this failure resulted in the disenfranchisement of many voters; that this disenfranchisement is the fault of the board of elections because the volunteer registrars are agents of the board; and that the number of voters disenfranchised in this manner is sufficient to invalidate the election. Page 5 contests: **120 "Resort may be had to circumstantial evidence in an election contest as well as in any other proceeding." 29 Corpus Juris Secundum 751-752, Elections, Section 282. No direct evidence has been presented that voters with registration application receipts were qualified voters and improperly denied the right to vote. Petitioner has, therefore, relied upon circumstantial evidence. R.C. 3503.11(B)(2) reads in pertinent part as follows: The proper application of circumstantial evidence is set out in 1 O.J.I. (1983), Section 5.10, at 144: "Every board of elections shall, upon request, supply registration forms to any person who resides in the county * * *. Any person who serves as a voter registrar under this paragraph shall * * * sign a statement * * * specifying the duties imposed on such person by the law * * *." "4. Circumstantial Evidence. Circumstantial evidence is the proof of facts or circumstances by direct evidence from which you may reasonably infer other related or connected facts which naturally and logically follow, according to the common experience of mankind. There are no Ohio cases interpreting whether such volunteer registrars are agents of the board of elections. On this point, however, we read generally as follows: "*** "6. Inference Upon Inference. You may not build one inference on another inference; but you may make more than one inference from the same facts or circumstances." [9] "Registration officials are public officers. They are generally regarded as agents of the state and not of the political party designating them or of the applicant for registration." 25 American Jurisprudence 2d (1966) 792, Elections, Section 103. *11 With regard to the voter registration application receipt question, numerous inferences must be made before the board of elections can be held to have erred, even if the volunteer registrars are considered agents of the board: "Registration officials are public officers. Ordinarily, they are agents of the state, and not of the city, or political party designating them, or of the applicant for registration * * *." 29 Corpus Juris Secundum 112, Elections, Section 41. Respondent argues that the legislature could not have intended that the volunteer registrars be agents of the board of elections because virtually no control over them is established in the board of elections; and, further, the mere number of them (in Hamilton County alone exceeding four thousand) makes control impossible. Whatever the merits of these arguments, the immediate issue can be decided on other grounds. [10] Circumstantial evidence may be used to decide election 1. That the receipt was furnished the voter by a volunteer registrar: 2. That the buff card was not turned in by the volunteer registrar; 3. That, if the buff card was turned in, the applicant was qualified for registration; 4. That the application was made before the deadline; 5. That the voter presented himself to vote at the proper polling place; 6. That the voter did not, in fact, vote somewhere else; 7. That the person with the receipt was the person to whom © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 337