The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 640 P.2d 1333 640 P.2d 1333, 1981 OK 138 (Cite as: 640 P.2d 1333) Page 3 from a statutorily sanctioned election contest. The power of this court stems not from legislation but from fundamental law. Art. 7 s 4 Okl.Const. In the exercise of that constitutional authority-known as our "general superintendent control" over all courts and administrative agencies-this court is empowered to re-examine the correctness of any board ruling on an issue of law which may affect the ultimate outcome of an election. Stover v. Alfalfa County Election Board, Okl., 530 P.2d 1020, 1021 (1975); Sparks v. State Election Board, Okl., 392 P.2d 711, 712 (1964). FN3. Unless the contrary is indicated, all statutory citations which follow in the text and in the footnotes are to 26 O.S.Supp.1980. The pertinent provisions of s 8-114 are: " * * * The county election board shall supervise such counting and its decision shall be final in all cases. * * * " (Emphasis added). (3) What remains to be decided here are the "pure and unmixed" questions of law tendered, but not resolved, in the contest hearing before the assigned judge. At issue is the correctness of the election board's decision that two of the ballots cast for contestant were void and could not be included in the announced results. In the mistaken belief that the alleged miscount of votes contestant sought to rectify by his petition below did not constitute an "irregularity" within the meaning of s 8-120, and that s 8-114 hence commanded him to accord absolute finality to the board's action, the assigned judge categorically declined to resolve the dispute over the two votes. While "irregularity" is indeed difficult to dress in an allinclusive definitional garb,[FN4] the broad language of ss 8-118 and 8-120 [FN5], construed together, makes it apparent that what the legislature doubtless intended is that a s 8-120 contestant be free to raise any departure from, or violation of, the prescribed course of the law-other than fraudwhich, when corrected, would establish either "that the contestant is lawfully entitled to be certified" as the winner or "that it is impossible to determine with mathematical certainty which candidate" is the victor. FN4. See e.g. Hatfield v. Hatfield, 59 Okl., 132, 158 P. 942, 944 (1916); Duncan v. Wilkins, 103 168 Okl., 221, 229 P. 801, 802 (1924); Nation v. Savely, 127 Okl., 117, 260 P. 32, 34 (1927) and Babb v. City of Wichita, 172 Kan. 416, 241 P.2d 755, 759 (1952). FN5. The pertinent provisions of s 8-118 are: "In the event a candidate contests the correctness of the announced results of an election by alleging fraud or any other irregularities ..." (Emphasis added). The pertinent provisions of s 8-120 are: "When a petition alleging irregularities other than fraud is filed, said petition must allege a sufficient number of irregularities and of such nature as to: 1. Prove that the contestant is lawfully entitled to be certified ... 2. Prove that it is impossible to determine with mathematical certainty which candidate is entitled to be certified ...". The essential parts of the two ballots in contest are shown in reproduction immediately below. *1336 The upper ballot in contest was rejected because it was believed to have a "distinguishing mark". The terms of s 7-127(1) do provide that such a ballot "shall not be counted for any office or question thereon". The statutory provisions which invalidate ballots bearing a "distinguishing mark" have a long legislative history. They are also declaratory of the common © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.