The appeal must be dismissed. Petitioner is a resident of respondent's district, and worked at the polls on the day of the election that she challenges. She raises a number of questions with respect to absentee ballots, and claims that these irregularities affected the outcome of the election. It appears that the candidate who received the third largest number of votes on the voting machines, after addition of the absentee ballots, became the second leading vote getter, and thereby secured a seat on the board of education.
Petitioner seeks to have all absentee ballots nullified.
Respondent generally denies that the election was improperly conducted and raises a number of affirmative defenses, including improper joinder of parties, lack of standing on the part of petitioner, who was not a candidate, to represent the interests of other persons, and improper service of the petition upon respondent. Respondent's objection that petitioner has failed to name, and serve the petition upon, the winning candidate whose rights are in jeopardy in this appeal, is dispositive. Here, petitioner has neither named as a respondent the winning candidate whose seat on the board would be lost if the absentee ballots were nullified, nor served a copy of the petition upon her. In light of this disposition, it is unnecessary to discuss the other contentions and arguments of the parties.