115.593. New election ordered, when. — If the court or legislative body trying a contested election determines there were irregularities of sufficient magnitude to cast doubt on the validity of the initial election, it may order a new election for the contested office or on the contested question. The order shall set the date of the election and shall be sent by the clerk of the court or the secretary of the senate or the chief clerk of the house of representatives, as the case may be, to each election authority responsible for conducting the special election. In its order, the court or legislative body shall specify the name of each candidate for the office to be voted on at the special election, or the ballot title of the question to be voted on at the special election, and the election shall be conducted and the votes counted as in other elections. Notice of the election shall be given in such manner as the court or legislative body directs. The person receiving the highest number of votes at the special election shall be deemed elected and entitled to assume office, or the question submitted at the special election shall be deemed approved if a majority of the votes at the special election are cast in favor of the question.
Notes of Decisions
Bd. of Election Commissioners v. Knipp, 784 S.W.2d 797 (Mo. 1990).
· cites it 11× “583, RSMo 1986, permits the circuit court to order a recount; Section 115.593, RSMo 1986, authorizes the circuit court to order a new election.”
Dotson v. Kander, 464 S.W.3d 190 (Mo. 2015).
· cites it 4× “, section 115.593. This chapter endeavors to ensure that the results of each election are valid.”
Landwersiek v. Dunivan, 147 S.W.3d 141 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 8× “The trial court determined that the Water District election was a nullity, and pursuant to the provisions of section 115.593, ordered a new election because certain qualified voters, including Respondents Frederick Landwersiek, Sandra Landwersiek, Tim Ward and Richard St.”
Charnisky v. Chrismer, 185 S.W.3d 699 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 8× “Charles County Election Authority and that there are not irregularities of sufficient magnitude to cast doubt on the validity of the election held on April 6, 2004 pursuant to § 115.593, RSMo., and, therefore, Inter-venor Kranzberg’s request for a new election is hereby denied.”
Jim Pepper v. St. Charles Cnty., Missouri, 517 S.W.3d 590 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “”? Chapter 115 allows registered voters to contest “[t]he result of any election on any question” after an election has been held.”
Miller v. Frank, 519 S.W.3d 472 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “583; Section 115.593. Chapter 115 provides only two remedies for an election-contest petition alleging irregularities: a recount under Section 115.”
Mickels v. Henderson, 642 S.W.2d 661 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “Finally, in their last point, defendants assert that in ordering a new election the trial court erred in failing “to make specific findings of irregularities and failed to find irregularities of sufficient magnitude as to cast doubt upon the validity of the election” as required…”
Raymond McCarty v. Missouri Sec'y of State, 710 S.W.3d 507 (Mo. 2025).
· cites it 18× “If a ballot title constitutes an irregularity, a contestant must also demonstrate the “irregularity casts doubt on the entire election sufficient to justify setting 7 aside its results” to be entitled to a new election pursuant to section 115.593. Lucas, 688 S.W.3d at 230-31.”
Jennifer Henderson v. Bus. Loop Cmty. Improvement Dist., Tom May & Carrie Gartner, No. WD82596 (Mo. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2019).
· cites it 8× “Henderson alleged that these “Constitutional irregularities” were of “sufficient magnitude to cast doubt on the validity of the election,” justifying a new election pursuant to section 115.593. 6 She requested that the trial court issue an order commanding that the District fix…”
Eversole v. Wood, 754 S.W.2d 27 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Section 115.593 RSMo 1986. See Mickels v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.