The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 463 N.E.2d 115 11 Ohio Misc.2d 7, 463 N.E.2d 115, 11 O.B.R. 101 (Cite as: 11 Ohio Misc.2d 7, 463 N.E.2d 115) 144k291 Most Cited Cases Petitioner in election contest action must make affirmative showing that enough votes were affected by alleged irregularities to change result of election. [12] Elections 295(1) 144k295(1) Most Cited Cases In absence of direct evidence that voters with registration application receipts or notice postcards were qualified voters who were improperly denied right to vote, or that sufficient voters were so denied as to have affected results of election, candidate contesting councilmanic election failed to prove that exclusion of voters whose names were not on buff cards or voters' signature lists constituted irregularity which warranted judicial interference in election. [13] Elections 295(1) 144k295(1) Most Cited Cases In absence of direct evidence that sufficient number of voters were actually prevented from voting, certain alleged notification failures with respect to councilmanic election were not sufficient to warrant judicial interference with results of election. [14] Elections 291 144k291 Most Cited Cases Every reasonable inference is required in law to be made in favor of validity of election. **116 *7 John A. Lloyd, Jr., Cincinnati, for plaintiff. Donald J. Mooney, Jr., and Timothy M. Burke, Cincinnati, for defendant Fellerhoff. Arthur M. Ney, Jr., Pros. Atty. and James Harper, Asst. Pros. Atty., for defendant Hamilton County Bd. of Elections. CRUSH, Judge. The petitioner, John Mirlisena, has filed the within action pursuant to R.C. Chapter 3515 to contest the results of the 1983 city of Cincinnati councilmanic election, as such results pertain to petitioner and to respondent, Sally Fellerhoff. The results of such election, as recounted, show that Mirlisena received 38,265 votes and that Fellerhoff received 334 Page 2 38,327 votes. Thus, Fellerhoff was the winner by sixty-two votes in an election where Fellerhoff and Mirlisena together received a total of 76,592 votes. The court is limited to one of four possible judgments, to wit: 1. Fellerhoff was elected, or 2. Mirlisena was elected, or 3. The election resulted in a tie vote, or **117 4. Neither Fellerhoff nor Mirlisena was elected and the election is set aside. (R.C. 3515.14; Hitt v. Tressler [1983], 7 Ohio St.3d 11, 455 N.E.2d 667.) [1] The various irregularities in the election, alleged by Mirlisena, are not to be considered abstractly. In the final analysis, any 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: "An election contest may not be maintained unless the matters complained of would have changed the result of the election." 29 Corpus Juris Secundum (1965) 690, Elections, Section 249. "The petition * * * avers that the contestor was duly and legally elected to * * * office. It necessarily follows * * * that it is the claim of the contestor that these errors, mistakes and irregularities complained of, prevented a fair count of the ballots cast for him and his opponents, and that by reason thereof the wrong result was declared. Any further allegation in this respect would be unnecessary and redundant." Thompson v. Reddington (1915), 92 Ohio St. 101, 112, 110 N.E. 652. "Next we turn to the merits of this appeal; namely, whether the record supports a finding that this election was *8 altered as a result of the voting machine failure. A court may not set aside an election unless the proved irregularities demonstrate that the result is uncertain. * * * In re Election of Swanton Twp. (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 37 [442 N.E.2d 758]." Hitt v. Tressler (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 174, 177, 447 © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.