Opinion ID: 1452978
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: election board misconduct

Text: (18) For all the reasons ballot measure election contests must be permitted under subdivision (c) of section 20021 when it is alleged that the result was determined by illegal offers of consideration  as discussed in the previous section  contests must be permitted under subdivision (a) on grounds [t]hat the precinct board or any member thereof was guilty of malconduct.... [7] By statute, it must be shown that misconduct affected the result. (Elec. Code, §§ 20022, 20023.) (19) On the merits, it was clearly improper for election officials to permit the challenged voters to vote without administering the oath of residence required whenever a voter is challenged on the basis of nonresidence. (Elec. Code, § 14244.5.) (20) Similarly, it would have been preferable had the officials cleared the polls of persons who were not present for lawful purposes. There is no evidence, however, that the presence of the truck carrying a sign urging consolidation was brought to the attention of the board. Since there was evidence that congestion at the polls did not prevent anyone from voting, and since petitioners showed only that at most eight votes (including five of the illegal votes) were cast by virtue of misconduct, there was no evidence that consolidation would have been defeated but for the misconduct alleged, and the trial court properly declined to void the election on this ground. (Elec. Code, §§ 20022, 20023.) The judgment is reversed.