Nothing in the statute prohibits respondent from extending the hours to afford increased opportunity for voting, so long as proper notice requirements are complied with. Accordingly, there is no basis to nullify the election because of the hours that the polls remained open. It is well established that there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of an election. Based upon the record before me, I find petitioner has failed to meet that burden. In addition, respondent states and petitioner does not dispute that there were two absentee votes and two votes by affidavit at the Harbor School, all in favor of candidate Patterson, raising his total to 245.
Petitioner claims several irregularities occurred in the voting.
Petitioner claims that because the margin of victory was only two votes, these discrepancies should have been examined more closely before rushing to confirm respondent Makhlouf as the victor. Given the small narrow margin of victory in this election, petitioner's claims have been given careful scrutiny. However, petitioner has simply failed to present evidence that the alleged irregularities in this case affected the outcome of the election. The fact that election inspectors failed to date or initial some registration cards is technical in nature. Similarly, the fact that some voters may have inadvertently failed to sign the poll list is a technicality.