Respondent asserts that the appeal is untimely since it is filed more than thirty days after the bond issue was passed by the voters. Furthermore, respondent contends that petitioner has failed to establish that improper actions affected the outcome of the election. Respondent further argues that nullifying the bond vote would cause undue hardship since substantial funds have already been expended, and that other relief requested by petitioner is beyond the scope of the Commissioner's authority. The bond vote occurred on December 11, 1991. The board resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds was passed on February 10, 1992.
Petitioner offers no explanation for the delay.
The appeal is untimely and, therefore, must be dismissed. Even if I did not dismiss the appeal on procedural grounds, I would be constrained to dismiss it on the merits. A school district election will not be set aside in the absence of proof that the alleged misconduct affected the outcome of the election. Petitioner has submitted petitions with 1,200 signatures that request a re-vote. Petitioner submits no proof that anyone who voted for the financing would have voted differently, but for the alleged misleading information.