## Facts

- A 1988 Democratic primary for Navajo County Attorney was decided after a recount.
- The certified recount totals were Patton 3,593 votes and Huggins 3,585 votes, an 8-vote margin.
- Sixteen illegal votes were undisputedly cast: fifteen by voters improperly allowed to vote a Democratic ballot and one by a convicted felon whose voting rights had not been restored.
- Huggins filed a statutory election contest, proving illegal votes exceeded the margin but not proving which candidate received the illegal votes.
- The superior court rejected the contest because Huggins could not show for whom the illegal votes were cast.
- Huggins sought special action relief in the Arizona Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. In an election contest based on illegal voting, must the contestant prove both (a) that enough illegal votes were cast to change the result and (b) for whom the illegal votes were cast?
2. If illegal votes exceed the victory margin and the recipient of those votes cannot be shown, should the election be set aside under a different rule?

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction but denied relief.
- The court affirmed rejection of the election contest.
- The court reaffirmed the existing rule requiring proof both of the number of illegal votes and for whom they were cast.
- Because Huggins could not prove the allocation of the 16 illegal votes, he did not meet his burden, and the certified outcome stood.

## Legal Principles

- In Arizona, an election contestant alleging illegal voting bears a dual burden: (1) show sufficient illegal votes to change the result and (2) show for whom (or for what) the illegal votes were cast.
- Illegal votes exceeding the margin of victory, without proof of allocation, do not justify setting aside an election.
- Courts will not invalidate an election based on speculation about how illegal votes were cast; stability and finality favor leaving results undisturbed absent proof the illegality changed the outcome in fact.

## Conclusion

The court held that proof of illegal votes exceeding the margin is insufficient by itself; without evidence identifying the recipient of the illegal votes, the election contest fails and the certified primary result remains in effect.


Huggins v. Superior Court, 163 Ariz. 348, 788 P.2d 81 (1990)