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) a showing of a lesser number of disenfranchisements, the inference would have to be based on a solid, affirmative showing of patterns of irregularities. In this case, a total of approximately thirteen voters have been deemed by the court, without deciding the issue, as disenfranchised. Even in the case of these thirteen people, persuasive arguments can be made against disenfranchisement. [14] Petitioner concedes that he has not proven disenfranchisement of sixty-two or more specifically named voters. Petitioner has also failed to present adequate affirmative evidence of a pattern of irregularities in the election in question. Possibilities as to irregularities have been advanced, but not pursued by the presentation of individual voters whose names and addresses are, in some cases, readily available, and, in other cases, discoverable. Every reasonable inference is required in law to be made in favor of the validity of an election. These inferences have simply not been met or overcome by petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that the election of defendant Sally Fellerhoff to the Cincinnati City Council was valid and proper. Judgment accordingly. 11 Ohio Misc.2d 7, 463 N.E.2d 115, 11 O.B.R. 101 END OF DOCUMENT 340 © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Page 8