The appeal must be sustained.
Petitioner alleges various election irregularities affected the outcome of the election.
Petitioner also alleges that four voters were disenfranchised because of the malfunctioning machines, that the paper ballots were improper because they were easily confused with absentee ballots, and that candidates engaged in improper electioneering because their campaign materials were copies of absentee ballots. Petitioner lost the election by 18 votes and commenced this appeal on July 6, 1995. Respondent board admits that 239 individuals voted while the machines were malfunctioning, but denies that 4 voters were disenfranchised, that the paper ballots were improper, or that candidates engaged in improper electioneering. It argues that the 239 voters who used the malfunctioning machines voted, on average, for fewer than 3 candidates. I decline to dismiss this appeal for failure to join necessary parties.