Opinion ID: 1185847
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: dismissal of four grounds for challenge

Text: The contestors first argue that the trial court erred in granting the Board's motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to four of the six grounds for challenge. In considering such a motion, the court must construe the allegations of the pleadings strictly against the movant and must consider the allegations of the opposing party's pleadings as true. Strout Realty, Inc. v. Snead , 35 Colo.App. 204, 530 P.2d 969 (1975). [5] Even under these stringent standards, however, we conclude that the contestors' arguments must fail. We consider those arguments as to each of the four dismissed grounds for challenge under the following subheadings A, B, and C. Under subheading D we then consider whether the contestors should have been permitted to amend their complaint in an effort to cure the defects. A. Use of Pencils to Mark Ballots; Lack of a Contract for Use of County Voter Registration Books On numerous occasions over a long span of time we have held that no election will be set aside unless the alleged irregularities might affect the result. Jardon v. Meadowbrook-Fairview Metropolitan District , 190 Colo. 528, 549 P.2d 762 (1976); Kelly v. Novey , 136 Colo. 408, 318 P.2d 214 (1957); Suttle v. Sullivan , 131 Colo. 519, 283 P.2d 636 (1955); Clough v. City of Colorado Springs , 70 Colo. 87, 197 P. 896 (1921); Todd v. Stewart , 14 Colo. 286, 23 P. 426 (1890). Two of the irregularities alleged by the contestors and disposed of by the order granting partial judgment on the pleadings were permitting some voters to mark their ballots by lead pencils rather than ink or indelible pencil, cf. section 1-5-106(1), C.R.S. 1973 (requirement for general election), and using the county voter registration books without a proper contract between the Board and the county clerk authorizing such use, see sections 22-42-109, 22-31-106(3), and 22-31-103(2), C.R.S. 1973. Although the contestors alleged generally in the amended complaint that all of the specified irregularities and illegal votes affected more than seventy-seven votes which is sufficient in number to change the result of the election, neither the notice of intent to contest nor the amended complaint contains any factual allegations indicating how the result was affected. Where the complaint does not allege facts showing that the irregularities complained of changed the result of the election, the complaint does not state a claim. Suttle v. Sullivan, supra ; Todd v. Stewart, supra ; see Kelly v. Novey, supra . Therefore, the trial court properly granted partial judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Board on the grounds discussed in this section II.A. [6]