Chancellor Kenny Armstrong ruled that there had to be a new election due to problems with the election that made the number of disputed votes larger than the margin of Woods' victory. From the Daily News article:
“Admittedly, the mistakes here were honest mistakes and non-intentional,” Armstrong concluded. “They, however, bear a direct relationship to the uncertainty of the election outcome if all voters had been allowed to participate and vote in the District 4 race.”
So, as it appears that Woods' election was improper (albeit through no fault of his own), this raises a new question: were the actions he took after September 1, 2012 as a member of that Board valid and binding? Were there any instances where Woods was the deciding vote in a Board matter and, if so, does this ruling invalidate that vote?
I hope someone familiar with election law can answer this and update in the comments.