Every vote counts. How often have you heard that -- and how often do you hear about an election decided by one or two votes? Many important local races are decided by such margins, such as in the case of the Victoria USD 432 school bond issue Aug. 5.

There, a 281-279 final tally determined a $3.5 million bond issue passed. Of course, that was the canvassed total. Just prior to the outcome's certification, the bond apparently had passed 281-280. On election night, the bond reportedly had failed 277-273.

We'll likely never know exactly how many voters received an incorrect ballot. At least one ballot was missing after the canvass. Election officials acknowledged some voters received the wrong ballot but should have asked about it before they cast their votes. Many voters used the electronic machine for most of the contested races, and used a paper ballot for the school bond question.

Obviously, the school district is not going to contest the results as they stand. USD 432 has serious physical plant issues that now can be addressed.

One local resident, Lisa Boyd, does want to contest the results. After hearing about all the confusion surround the events of Aug. 5, she doesn't agree with the outcome as it stands.

"The ballot situation was totally confusing," Boyd has said. "I was confused. I'm sure other people got confused."

Whether the Ellis District County Court agrees the confusion was enough to throw out the results will be determined as early as Sept. 8, when Judge Ed Bouker has a hearing.

How a private citizen will prove the county's election process erred enough will be interesting. We'll keep you posted.

Almost as interesting is who pays for the lawsuit. Had the election stood as originally called on Election Day, the Victoria School District likely would have contested the results. After all, district officials were witness to the very confusion Boyd has claimed. And USD 432 patrons would have footed the bill for the lawsuit.

With the canvassed results in hand, it was not in USD 432's best interest to challenge. And so, attorney fees for the challenge will be the responsibility of Boyd.

We're not lobbying for financial contributions to Boyd's efforts. But there does appear to be a flaw in the process. Either an election is legitimate or it isn't. The outcome, one way or the other, should not be the determining factor of whether the results should stand.

We believe the Kansas Legislature should wrestle with this quirk for future elections. Perhaps set up a fund within the complicated K-12 funding formula that allows challenges -- and the resulting attorneys' fees -- to be covered. It doesn't strike us as a level playing field when one taxpayer or the entire district is liable for the costs, simply depending on the outcome. Particularly such a close outcome.

In this case, the outcome was too close and fluctuated too much to know for certain whether the bond issue passed or failed.

Editorial by Patrick Lowry

plowry@dailynews.net