Cited by

Miller v. Picacho Elementary Sch.

the court explained that an election challenge based on a procedural statute states a cause of action only if the plaintiff alleges that fraud has occurred or that the result would have been different had proper procedures been followed.

The validity of an election is not voided by honest mistakes or omissions “unless they affect the result, or at least render it uncertain.”

Similarly, while it is less clear than in Miller that the failure to comply with the election laws in fact affected the outcome of the election, it is obvious that the failure to distribute the pamphlets may have “affect[ed] the result, or at least render[ed] it uncertain,” Miller, 179 Ariz. at 180 , 877 P.2d at 279 ( , 276 P. 843, 844 (1929)), because the number of votes submitted before the City distributed the publicity pamphlets was sufficient to alter the outcome of the election.

To rule otherwise would “affect the result or at least render it uncertain.” Miller, 179 Ariz. at 180 , 877 P.2d at 279 ( , 276 P. 843, 844 (1929)).

276 P. 843 (1929), but draw very different conclusions from it.

276 P. 843, 844 (1929) (emphasis added).

urt erred in allowing any of the 32 questioned write-in votes to be counted for either party.” We have long since established the rule of construction that “in counting the ballots, the determination of the intent of the voter is the question of primary importance.” However, this rule “is always subject to statutory mandates as to how the voter’s intention must be expressed.” , 276 P. 843, 844 .

As emphasizing this thought, , 276 Pac.