68 did not pass on this material issue and the effect of this noncompliance on the October 10, 2017 elections. To which Appellants excepted and argued the issue before the NEC Board; but the NEC Board erroneously ruled that Appellee was not required to published the FRR at each polling place. And to which ruling Appellants/ Intervenors except. 13. That Appellants/Intervenors submit that Section 3.19 of the Elections Law and Appellee's own regulation (Voter Registration Regulations of August 12, 2016, Art. 22.4) provide that no voter registration roll, especially the FRR, may be altered within the thirty (30) days period immediately prior to an election. Appellants produced evidence that Appellee altered the FRR when Appellee unilaterally allowed persons with voter registration cards, legally or illegally obtained, but whose names were not on the FRR at the polling places where they appeared to vote, and allowed them to vote by merely having their names placed on a piece of paper, which pieces of paper were referred throughout the hearing before the CDHO as addenda to the FRR. The effect of this violation of law and Appellee's own regulation on the October 10, 2017 elections was never passed upon by the CDHO in his Final Ruling; and to which Appellants excepted and argued the issue before the NEC Board. 14. In ruling on the exception narrated in Count Thirteen (13) above, the NEC Board ruled that customarily addenda to the FRR is allowed for security officers and NEC polling staff, who may have registered at a registration center different from where he/she is assigned, to allow them to vote for the presidency only and so this was not an alteration to the FRR. However, the evidence adduced before the CDHO did not refer to security officers and NEC polling officer; the evidence adduced is that generally persons (not only security officers and NEC polling staff) with voter registration cards, legally or illegally obtained, were allowed to vote when their names could not be found on the FRR at the polling places where they appeared to vote. And this was in violation of the Elections Law and Appellee's own regulations. Because the NEC Board's ruling is erroneous and contrary to law and its regulations, Appellants/Intervenors except. 15. Appellants/Intervenors adduced evidence at the hearing to the effect that Appellee discriminated between those with voter registration cards whose names were not on the FRR at the polling places where they registered to vote. That is, thousands were allowed to vote by having their names placed on a paper (addenda to the FRR) and others were flatly denied the right to vote because their names were not on the FRR. Appellants adduced both oral testimonies and video recording (introduced into evidence) in support of this discrimination and yet in his Final Ruling, the CDHO did not pass on this material evidence which is a blatant violation of the Elections Law; the CDHO failed to have marked the 182 ballots which the witness testified to; the CDHO also failed to pass on the effect of this evidence on the October 10, 2017 elections. And to which