74 its hearings. And for which error, Appellants excepted and argued the matter before the NEC Board. 33. That in passing on the exceptions raised in Counts Thirty (30), Thirty-One (31) and Thirty-Two (32) above, the NEC Board relied on Section 4.7 of the Elections Law, which provides that ballots may be in the form as prescribed by Appellee and that ballot papers shall shall include the names of candidates in alphabetical order of surname, the name of the party and the selected emblems and that different color ballots may be provided for elections to different elective offices. Appellants/Intervenors did not say that this law meant that Appellee could depart from international best practice and standards, which require the ballot stubs and ballots should carry corresponding serial numbers. 26 Am Jurd 2d Elections, Section 223. This law, which was the same law when the 1997 election was conducted, did not intend that Appellee depart from the practice for the 1997 election, which provided for corresponding serial number on both the ballot paper and stubs. And for this reason, Appellants/Intervenors except. 34. That serial number on each ballot stub, which corresponds to serial number on the ballot itself, is for security purpose — to ensure that only ballots with the specific serial numbers assigned to a polling place would be found in the ballot boxes assigned to those polling places. That is why the presiding officer's worksheets have blank spaces thereon to show the starting and ending serial numbers for ballots assigned to each polling place. Had the CDHO granted the subpoena for the presiding officer's worksheets, the evidence would have revealed that none of these worksheets recorded the serial numbers for the ballots and that this made it possible for ballot boxes to be stuffed with excess ballots. And for these reasons, Appellants/Intervenors excepted. 35. That even though pursuant to Appellee's own regulations (Voter Registration Regulations of August 12, 2016, Art. 25.1(a), it is an election offense for a person without authority to print or distribute voter registration cards and possess other election material, the CDHO denied Appellants/Intervemors' request for subpoena and failed to exercise his power pursuant to Appellee's own regulations (Elections Hearing Regulations of May 6, 2016, Art. 8.2) to subpoena the records of the investigation of Mr. Amos Seibu of President Sirleaf s offices who had been found with machines for production of voter registration cards and found with other election materials in his possession. This evidence would have been used by Appellants to prove fraud. And so Appellants excepted and submitted the issue to the NEC Board; but the NEC Board first confirmed the denial of the subpoena and also did not pass on the effect of this evidence on the fairness, freeness and transparency of the October 10, 2017 elections. And so Appellants/Intervenors except. 36. That the CDHO refused to issue subpoena pursuant to Section 2.9(w) of the Elections Law, Appellee's own regulations (Elections Hearing Regulations of May 6, 2016, Art. 8.2) for the records of the investigation of Appellee's presiding officer for Electoral District No. 3,