## Facts

- Ideal School District No. 10 held a school-bond election on October 14, 1955, to authorize negotiable bonds up to $120,000.
- The proposition passed with 480 votes for and 237 against, exceeding the statutory two-thirds requirement.
- Taxpayer-contestants filed a statutory election contest seeking to void the election and enjoin issuance of the bonds, alleging illegal election conduct and many illegal votes.
- Contestants challenged (among other matters) (1) requiring an unqualified voter to disclose how he voted, (2) allowing nonresidents to vote, and (3) allowing residents of a subdivision addition to vote on the theory it was not lawfully within district boundaries.
- At trial, 12 voters were specifically challenged; the trial court found two were not qualified electors and required them to disclose how they voted on the bond question.
- The trial court found the remaining ten challenged voters were district residents despite temporary employment elsewhere, and rejected the boundary/annexation challenge.
- The trial court sustained the election and dismissed the contest; contestants appealed seeking de novo review.

## Issues

1. Whether an unqualified voter in an election contest may be compelled to disclose how the voter cast an illegal ballot.
2. Whether the evidence supported the finding that ten challenged voters were residents and qualified electors of the school district despite temporary work outside the district.
3. Whether the challenged subdivision area was lawfully included within the school district so its residents could vote.
4. Whether the contestants proved illegal votes or irregularities sufficient to change, or render uncertain, the bond election result.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the judgment sustaining the bond election.
- The court held unqualified voters may be required to disclose how they voted to determine the effect of illegal ballots on the result.
- The court upheld the finding that the ten challenged voters were residents of the district and therefore qualified to vote.
- The court upheld the validity of the annexation proceedings and concluded the contested area was within the district at the time of the election.
- The court held contestants did not meet their burden to show that proven illegality affected the outcome; excluding the two illegal ballots did not defeat the two-thirds approval.

## Legal Principles

- Ballot secrecy protects qualified electors in exercising a lawful franchise; it does not bar compelling an unqualified voter to disclose an illegal vote in an election contest when necessary to test the result.
- Voter residence depends on physical presence and intent; temporary absence for employment does not change residence absent abandonment of domicile.
- Territory included within a school district through annexation proceedings conducted in substantial compliance with governing statutes renders residents qualified electors for district elections.
- In an election contest, the contestant bears the burden to prove both illegality/irregularity and that it was sufficient to change or make uncertain the election result; non-outcome-determinative errors do not void an election.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the school-bond election, ruling that illegal voters may be compelled to reveal their votes, that the challenged voters and territory were properly treated as within the district, and that the contestants failed to prove outcome-changing illegality.


Wehrung v. Ideal Sch. Dist. No. 10, 78 N.W.2d 68 (N.D. 1956)