B. Proof that irregularities have altered the will of the voters usually will win a lawsuit challenging an election............................................................................................ 24 Valence v. Rosiere Moreau v. Tonry In re Election Contest as to Watertown Special Referendum Election of October 26, 1999 Bortner v. Town of Woodbridge In re Gray-Sadler In re Ocean County Com’r of Registration for a Recheck of the Voting Machines for the May 11, 2004, Municipal Election C. Harassment and intimidation do not materially affect an election unless they change its outcome........................................................................................................... 35 Blocker v. City of Roosevelt City Rizzo v. Bizzell D. Inferences about irregularities can be drawn from facts but not from other inferences................................................................................................................ 39 Mirlisena v. Fellerhoff Valence v. Rosiere Bortner v. Town of Woodbridge In re Gray-Sadler E. Voters can be required to disclose how they voted on an illegal ballot......................... 44 Boardman v. Esteva In re General Election for District Justice Green v. Reyes F. Summary...................................................................................................................................... 47 Chapter 3. Strict Compliance is Required With Mandatory Procedures, but not With Directory Procedures....................................................................................................................... 49 A. The mandatory/directory analysis is used widely in resolving election dispute cases.............................................................................................................................................. 49 Logic v. City of South Milwaukee Board of Canvassers Deffebach v. Chapel Hill Independent School District Moreau v. Tonry B. Leading case I: The facts of Boardman v. Esteva..................................................................... 51 Boardman v. Esteva B.1. Procedural violations will not defeat the will of the electorate.............................. 52 C. Leading case II: The facts of Beckstrom v. Volusia County..................................................... 55 Beckstrom v. Volusia County C.1. Election officials’ gross negligence can void the election......................................... 56 C.2. Procedural requirements are directory after the election......................................... 57 C.3. Courts interpret laws to allow the expression of voters’ intent.............................. 58 Jacobs v. Seminole County Canvassing Board D. Leading case III: The Facts of Pullen v. Mulligan.................................................................. 60 Pullen v. Mulligan D.1. The requirements of a mandatory law will not be enforced if the goals for which it was designed cannot be achieved.............................................................. 62 vi