(If this interpretation does not stand, then SB 323's burden-shift will apparently not apply except in regards to actual voting claims under Article 4. For example, if a member sues under Section 5145(a) for violations of their right to inspect association election materials, such post-hoc noncompliance could not been deemed as having "affect[ed] the results of the election," much less in a rebuttable manner.)
Second, "affect" is not qualified. If an association's non-compliance with association election law "affected" the results in any manner, would this constitute grounds for voiding? For example, if an association impermissibly barred an otherwise unelectable candidate, or unlawfully stifled political speech in regards to a no-hope position, would such non-compliance nevertheless be grounds for voiding if a challenger was not rebutted after showing any change, such as one less vote for a candidate who lost by a landslide? By the plain language of the statute, apparently so.
If these interpretations are correct, this change represents a potent new tool for political minorities to challenge association actions. Indeed, one can imagine even the threat of a challenge as a powerful tool to deter a vote, such as whether to levy a much-needed special assessment. The fact that delinquents and scofflaws can now vote only heightens this risk.