The other three candidates were elected, with only ten votes separating petitioner from Ms. Riley, the candidate with the third highest vote-total. This appeal ensued. Petitioner's request for interim relief was denied on June 25, 1998. Petitioner contends that the distribution of flyers violated respondent's advertising policy and the superintendent's introduction of Ms. Riley at the May 12 meeting appeared to be an endorsement. He argues that these events, combined with the misspelling of his name, caused his defeat.
Petitioner requests a recount of the votes and a new election if necessary.
Respondent contends that the flyers were distributed without respondent's knowledge or consent and denies that the superintendent's introduction at the budget meeting was an implied endorsement. Respondent argues that the misspelling of petitioner's name on the ballot did not affect the vote totals and there were no reports of voter confusion caused by the misspelling. Respondent asks that the appeal be dismissed because petitioner failed to join Ms. Riley or the other two successful candidates as necessary parties to this appeal. The appeal must be dismissed for failure to join the successful candidates as respondents. In the instant proceeding, four candidates ran for three board seats.