Middleburgh's mayoral election will stand as is.
Supreme Court Justice George Bartlett last week dismissed candidate Tom Wargo's petition to check the village election machine to see whether it worked property in the March 20 election.
The final tally showed challenger and winner Matthew Avitabile getting 193 votes to incumbent Bill Ansel-McCabe's 169, while Mr. Wargo received just two.
Confident he received more than two votes, Mr. Wargo petitioned the court to have the machine inspected, and "if said machine be shown to be in error. . .a new election be held for mayor to be conducted by paper ballot."
No, responded Judge Bartlett.
He found fault with Mr. Wargo's petition, ruling that it wasn't verified and wasn't filed within 10 days after the election.
Judge Bartlett also found Mr. Wargo failed to specify which section of the election law he wanted the case to proceed.
And, even if the court agreed that the machine should be inspected, the inspection "should be granted only where the outcome seems close enough to provide a useful purpose for examination," Judge Bartlett wrote.
The election wasn't close enough in this case.
Mr. Wargo noted that his petition may have been incorrect, adding that he couldn't afford an attorney to help him.
Election results aside, he's more concerned that voters may not have had their votes recorded correctly by the old lever machine.
"I feel I let the voters down because I didn't have the resources to pursue this," Mr. Wargo said. "If one person's disenfranchised, we're all disenfranchised."
Mr. Ansel-McCabe wasn't a party to Mr. Wargo's petition, but he supported it.
He, too, was disappointed.
"I just felt that a look at the machine would have been warranted," Mr. Ansel-McCabe said. "What would it hurt?"
Middleburgh Village Attorney Raynor Duncombe responded to Mr. Wargo's petition. He pointed out that a certified election equipment custodian "prepared and inspected the machine in the presences of the two election inspectors,. . ." on March 15, five days before the election.
The election custodian tested the levers and had one of the inspectors confirm that the machine worked, Mr. Duncombe wrote.
Pointing to Mr. Duncombe's statement, Mayor Avitabile said the case might not have been necessary if the March 15 inspection had been made clear.
"We need to make sure that all of our votes are fairly counted," Mr. Avitabile said.
"However, a lot of confusion would have been avoided had it been reported that the machine was properly tested and certified in the first place."