Chapter 2 gin, and that Mr. Rizzo would need to overcome the county-wide 178-vote lead of Mr. Bizzell to change the outcome of the election. The court concluded, Thus, unless Bizzell’s supporters would totally abstain from voting, Rizzo would likely need an increase in turnout of roughly 50% at a special election just to have a chance to obtain the needed 178 additional votes. There was virtually no evidence implying that qualified electors would turn out in any greater numbers, nor was there any real evidence that voters were denied or prevented from voting by Perkins. Thus, little evidence suggested turnout might improve at all, much less by a large percentage. Under the circumstances of this case, the special judge correctly determined that the will of the voters could be ascertained and a new election was unnecessary. At 129. And thus Mr. Rizzo lost his appeal and the election. D. Inferences about irregularities can be drawn from facts but not from other inferences. The case of Mirlisena v. Fellerhoff, 463 N.E.2d 115 (Ohio 1984), concerned the 1983 race for the city council in Cincinnati, Ohio. After a recount, Sally Fellerhoff beat John Mirlisena by 62 votes out of 76,592 total votes, or .008% of the vote. Mr. Mirlisena sued to contest the results of the election, alleging a number of irregularities. This case is a wonderful example of the way some people who are caught up in an election believe that their conclusions are based on facts, when they are not based on facts at all. Instead, their view of their situation leads them to believe that inferences they make in their own favor are tantamount to facts. But inferences are only inferences and must be recognized for what they are, especially if you are a plaintiff attempting to win a lawsuit challenging an election. The court in Mirlisena illustrates this point to great effect. In its opinion, the court in Mirlisena said that its options were to decide: 1. 2. 3. 4. Fellerhoff was elected, or Mirlisena was elected, or The election resulted in a tie, or Neither Fellerhoff nor Mirlisena was elected and the election should be set aside. At 116. Then the court set out the basic principles it would follow to reach a decision: [A]ny irregularities complained of are mooted unless they are significant enough to have rendered the results of the election uncertain, i.e., to have changed the results of the election. Although it is generally necessary for the contestor in an election contest to prove that the irregularities would have changed the result of the election, it is not always necessary to show the precise number of irregularities: “If…the irregularities are so widespread and general and of so flagrant a character as to raise a doubt as to how the election would have resulted had they not occurred, they are deemed to be fatal and will warrant the rejection of the entire vote of the election district.” 39