The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges Mr. Knight conceded that under this rule he would lose based on the facts in the record. Unfortunately for him, he was correct.28 The South Carolina Supreme Court essentially repeated this statement with a bit more emphasis 11 years later when, in George v. Municipal Election Commission of the City of Charleston, 516 S.E.2d 206, 208 (S.C. 1999), it said, The court will employ every reasonable presumption to sustain a contested election, and will not set aside an election due to mere irregularities or illegalities unless the result is changed or rendered doubtful. This Court, like many others, recognizes that perfect compliance in every instance is unlikely, and the Court is loathe to nullify an election based on minor violations of technical requirements. (emphasis supplied). That case involved a challenge to the results of a referendum on whether the City of Charleston should change from partisan elections to nonpartisan elections. The challenge said the election should be nullified because there was no ballot secrecy when people voted: there were no voting booths, and the ballots could not be folded before they were put in the ballot box. George will be discussed in detail in the next chapter. It will be surprising to see how the South Carolina Supreme Court decided this case given the premise it began with, which is stated above, and the further statements it made along this same line. The same rule—that irregularities will not cause an election to be set aside unless they changed the result of the election—was followed by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in Underwood v. County Commission of Kanawha County, 349 S.E.2d 443 (W.Va. 1986). The court refused to order a recount in an election even though the election board did not follow the requirements for verifying the ballot count, and it appeared that someone tampered with the vote tabulating equipment. Mr. Underwood and Mr. Price brought suit asking that the votes cast during the May 13, 1986 primary election in Kanawha County, West Virginia, be canvassed (reviewed) according to the requirements of state law. They claimed, correctly, that after the close of the polls the county commission, sitting as the board of canvassers, failed to meet two state law requirements that were enacted to assure that the vote was honest. First, the board of canvassers did not compare the number of ballots that were counted with the number of poll tickets (issued for each voter and retained in the precincts). This comparison was intended to show whether there were more or fewer ballots cast than were handed out to voters, i.e., whether ballots had illegally been put in (stuffed) or taken out of the ballot box. Second, there was not a quorum of the canvassing board continuously present in the courthouse during a hand count of the ballots.29 Mr. Underwood had been a candidate in the election and had won. Mr. Price also had been a candidate in the election but had lost by a large margin, and he conceded to the court the relief they requested (making the board follow the correct procedures) would not change the outcome of the election. Under these circumstances, the supreme court of appeals said that, The court also noted, “We find ample evidence in the record which supports the State Board’s conclusion that the absentee ballots which were set aside on election night had been secured and that no tampering had occurred.” Knight at 686. 29 As a check of the tabulating equipment, the ballots in 5 percent of the precincts were to be randomly selected and counted by hand and then run through the tabulating equipment. If there was greater than a 1 percent discrepancy between those two counts, then all of the ballots were to be counted by hand. 28 22