The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 59 So. 769 131 La. 355, 59 So. 769 (Cite as: 131 La. 355, 59 So. 769) which were obtained by the committee, had been for several days in the hands of unauthorized persons; that at Verda, *358 Montgomery, Georgetown, and Pollock sample ballots were willfully given by the commissioners to voters desiring to vote for contestant, with the intention of perpetrating irregularity and fraud; that no booths for the preservation of the secrecy of the ballot were provided at any of the precincts in either parish; that at Woodsworth, Forest Hill, Lecompte, Gum, Hineston, Union Church, Tioga, Bell, Borland, and Lena, in Rapides parish, all voters were interfered with by unauthorized persons, 'many of whom went inside the guard rail and into the booths with the voters and insisted on marking the voter's ballot'; that no polling **770 places were designated by the parish committee, or published, in either parish. The contestant further alleges that, should the court not decree the nullity of the election, he should be awarded the necessary certificate, and that his name should be placed on the official ballot, as the nominee, for the reasons that no polling places were designated or published in the parish of Rapides; that sample ballots were illegally and fraudulently used and counted in the parish of Grant; that voters were illegally and fraudulently hindered and interfered with; that the returns from different precincts in Rapides parish contained no tally sheets, and such as were returned were unsigned and unsworn to, especially those from Forest Hill, Gum, Hineston, Union Church, Welchton, Lecompte, Hammond, Cheneyville, Echo, and Tioga, and that the same is true as to the returns from Grant parish, and especially those from Montgomery, Verda, Georgetown, Pollock, Lincecum, and Antonio; 'that those boxes, in both parishes after having been either thrown out or purged of the frauds committed thereat, by a recount of the votes, will show a clear majority for petitioner over said Wilbur F. Blackman, and entitle him to be declared the nominee at said election.' *359 The prayer of the petition is: 'That there be judgment decreeing that said primary election is null and shall have no effect as to the declaration of the name of the nominee and the placing of the nominee's name on the official ballot, or, in the alternative, that the boxes and votes be purged of the irregularities and frauds, as alleged in the petition, and that a recount thereof be Page 2 ordered, and that your petitioner be declared the nominee of the Democratic party for judge of the Thirteenth judicial district, * * * and ordering that his name be placed on the official ballot as such nominee.' The contestee (being the judge of the court in which the suit was instituted) recused himself and appointed Judge Couvillon, of an adjoining district, to hear and determine the case, and that officer, after ruling upon some interlocutory matters and hearing the case on its merits, gave judgment for the contestee, from which the contestant prosecutes this appeal. Among other matters ruled on prior to final judgment was an application by the contestee for a recount of the ballots, which, with the acquiescence of the contestant, was granted--two experts, named by each litigant, from each parish, being appointed to make the count, and the count for each parish being required to be made in the presence of the clerk of the court, or his chief deputy, and two witnesses, which was done accordingly. The report as to the parish of Rapides shows that no sample ballots were cast in that parish; that there were 932 (white) ballots cast for contestant and 1,206 (white) ballots for contestee, and 5 (white) ballots that were doubtful-- two of them being marked or stamped to the left, instead of in the square to the right, of the contestant's name, two being similarly marked to the left of the contestee's name, and one being marked in the square to the right of the contestee's name, but having the name of the contestant defaced or marked over with a pencil. The report as to the parish of Grant shows that 246 white ballots and 118 *360 yellow (sample) ballots were cast for the contestant, 307 white ballots and 94 yellow (sample) ballots for the contestee, and 4 ballots that were doubtful, of which upon one there is no mark or stamp opposite the name of either candidate, upon another there is a mark in the square to the right opposite each name, but the mark opposite the name of the contestee is scratched over with a pencil, upon the third there is a distinct round spot or stamp opposite the name of the contestant, and a distinct mark, in the same ink, but not round, opposite the name of the contestee, and upon the fourth ballot there is no mark or stamp opposite the name of either candidate. The reports were, on motion approved, though the contestant interposed some objections--one of his grounds being that the boxes at 136 © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.