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) must either be fixed by law or designated by legally authorized officials. With respect to the calling of * * * an election, statutory provisions relating to the place of an election are mandatory, and will be strictly enforced in a direct action instituted before an election; but after an election such statutory requirements have been held to be directory." 29 Corpus Juris Secundum 176, Elections, Section 78. "Most courts generally follow the rule that before an election statutory regulations governing place of voting are construed as mandatory and subject to strict enforcement. After the election, however, such regulations are ordinarily construed as merely directory." 26 American Jurisprudence 2d (1966) 61, Elections, Section 228. "As voters have no absolute right to vote at any particular place, polling places may be changed by legislative sanction." 29 Corpus Juris Secundum 177, Elections, Section 177. The question here is basically whether the board of elections abused its discretion in the selection of the polling place: [6] "Where the statute [regarding selection of polling place] vests discretion in officials or boards, the choice by them of a polling place will not be disturbed by the courts unless it is so arbitrary, unreasonable, and capricious as to constitute a plain abuse of discretion." 29 Corpus Juris Secundum 554, Elections, Section 199. In this case, the polling place was changed after the board was informed that the previous polling place was no longer available. The new place selected was reasonably calculated to be located relatively midway up the hill on which the precinct is located. Thus, the new location may have been more convenient for those voters living higher up the hill, less convenient for those living lower on the hill. The old location was lower on the hill, and thus may have been more convenient for higher voters. The new location was selected with a view to complying with R.C. 3501.29(B) which requires that a polling place be free of barriers for the benefit of the handicapped. It is certainly arguable that a better site could have been selected or that more work might have been done in selecting the site. However, petitioner has not shown that the site was located fraudulently or with deliber- 336 Page 4 ate intent to disenfranchise voters. [7] The court must be ever mindful in an election contest that it has been delegated **119 responsibility in a basically political matter and is not free to create criteria that may, in its opinion, be more suitable than those the legislature has established: "It has been definitely held by this court that an election contest is a political and not a judicial matter * * *." Williams v. O'Neill (1944), 142 Ohio St. 467, 468, 52 N.E.2d 858 [27 O.O. 400]. " * * * [M]any highly technical requirements in election laws exist. " * * * [C]ourts should be careful not to read requirements into election laws which are not specifically there." State, ex rel. Leslie v. Duffy (1955), 164 Ohio St. 178, 183, 129 N.E.2d 632 [57 O.O. 371]. " * * * The test for reversing a decision of a board of elections is not necessarily whether this court agrees or disagrees with such decision, but it is whether the decision of the board of elections is procured by fraud or corruption, or whether there has been a flagrant misinterpretation of a statute or a clear disregard of legal provisions applicable thereto." State, ex rel. Hanna v. Bd. of Elections (1959), 170 Ohio St. 9, 11, 161 N.E.2d 891 [9 O.O.2d 332]. [8] In view of the foregoing, the court finds that the board of elections did not intend to disenfranchise voters or flagrantly *10 abuse its discretion in selecting the polling place for precinct 11D. Another irregularity alleged by petitioner is that many validly registered voters were denied the right to vote, or were improperly not registered, based on the appearance at various polling places of persons with "voter registration application receipts." These voters were not allowed to vote because their names were not on the buff cards or voters' signature lists. The voter registration application receipt is part of a larger buff-colored form. The receipt is torn off. The larger part of the form becomes the "buff card," or basic proof of registra- © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.