dissenting:
I.
The lead opinion (i.e., the opinion authored by Judge Harris) is significant for what it does not say. Conspicuous by its absence is a discussion of the basic finding by the Board of Elections and Ethics that “the evidence before us indicates such a manipulation of the initiative process in direct violation of statutory direction, that ... the [challenged] signatures ... must be rejected in order to preserve the integrity of the petition process ... [and ensure] that the statutory mandate be followed.” Board of Elections and Ethics Order at 14-15 (emphasis supplied). Conspicuous also by its absence is a discussion of the facts and events surrounding the gathering of the signatures in support of Initiative Seven’s placement on the ballot.1
Early last year the National Taxpayer’s Union, a national organization, formed a *528committee entitled the D.C. Committee for Improved Education to promote Initiative Seven, an initiative similar to the one NTU had previously unsuccessfully promoted in California. This political committee was registered pursuant to a February 17, 1981, filing by Jo Ann Willis, a Virginia resident who, as well as being an employee of NTU, served as Executive Director and Treasurer of the newly-formed committee. She was the only person authorized to disburse money for the committee. Ten days after the filing, Willis personally submitted the Initiative for approval by the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics.
The committee thereafter hired seven non-Distriet residents to circulate petitions to have Initiative Seven placed on the November ballot. These circulators arrived from such areas as Massachusetts, Florida, Michigan and North Carolina shortly before March 10. The seven were housed in a single family dwelling which, the Board found, was used for transient purposes only. After their arrival, Jo Ann Willis supplied them with mail voter registration forms in order that they could qualify as electors under D.C.Code 1978 Supp., § 1-1102(2). Meanwhile the circulators had collected some 5,879 signatures (i.e., before the forms were executed). At least four of the circu-lators had previously registered to vote in other jurisdictions and one, six days after his voter registration with the Board, signed a petition to organize a new political party in North Carolina.
These seven circulators collected 22,624 of the 27,415 signatures given on behalf of Initiative Seven [82.52%]. They had left the District June 11. On June 17, 1981, Willis personally picked up the now-departed circulators’ voter registration cards at the Board.
On June 29, 1981, Willis submitted 1,711 petitions containing the 22,624 signatures to the Board. On the back of each petition was an oath signed by the circulator of that petition. Among the facts to which each one swore was that he was a “qualified registered elector of the District of Columbia.” All of these signatures were notarized by Jo Ann Willis who had become a notary in May 1981 and had noted on her application that she was applying to do so in order to be eligible to sign petitions circulated by the backers of Initiative Seven.2
II.
The foregoing facts amply support the finding of the Board that there was a manipulation of the initiative process so grave as to violate statutory mandate and threaten the integrity of the electoral process. In our review of the administrative process, we are required to affirm an agency’s action or finding unless we find it to be “(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law; ... or (E) unsupported by substantial evidence.” D.C.Code 1973, § 1-1510. Clearly, we are required to accept the Board’s findings here. It is not the province of the courts to substitute their judgment for that of a ministerial officer chosen to determine a certain fact. See Citizens Committee to Recall Rizzo v. Board of Elections, 470 Pa. 1, 367 A.2d 232 (1976).
The evidence of the artful conduct by which the proponents of Initiative Seven obtained some 22,000 signatures here is not disputed. The lead opinion does not question the gravity of that conduct; it does not question the fact that the proponents deliberately and knowingly hired circulators who were not qualified registered electors of the District of Columbia, which they are required to be by statute,3 or that the actions *529of the proponents set the stage for the violation of numerous provisions of the Code requiring legitimacy of information and representations in the registration and petition process.4 Moreover, it does not question the fact that other jurisdictions, when having found evidence of “wholesale” deception comprising a “pattern so definite and clear” as “to make a mockery of the Election Law,” have declared petitions null and void. In re Lebowitz, 32 Misc.2d 8, 221 N.Y.S.2d 703, 706 (1961), cited in Citizens Against Legalized Gambling v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, 501 F.Supp. 786, 790 (D.D.C.), aff’d per curiam (No. 80-2251, D.C.Cir., October 28, 1980). Thus, as the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has noted in In re Nomination Petition of Cianfrani, 467 Pa. 491, 359 A.2d 383 (1976), “the provisions of the election laws relating to the form of nominating petitions and the accompanying affidavits are not mere technicalities but are necessary measures to prevent fraud and to preserve the integrity of the election process.” See also Citizens Committee to Recall Rizzo v. Board of Elections, supra 367 A.2d at 241 — 42.
The lead opinion, instead, chooses to throw up a barrier of “standing” (about which I will say more later) essentially avoiding the most basic issue before the court (except to suggest that the deception here was not “fatal”). It chooses to focus narrowly on a regulation of the Board (Rule 1008.9) which provides that “the failure of” a circulator to be a registered qualified elector will not invalidate the signature of an otherwise qualified elector. It rejects the Board’s explanation that the regulation was promulgated to cover the isolated situations where, due to inadvertence, a few [i.e., de minimis] signatures might be obtained by unregistered circulators. See Citizens Against Legalized Gambling v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, supra. The lead opinion holds that the Board’s interpretation is unreasonable and erroneous as a matter of law, and uses that error as a crutch for reversing the Board’s decision.
The fallacy of the lead position is that it ignores the statute. The statute requires that circulators be qualified electors. The Board could not promulgate a regulation in conflict with the specific requirements of the statute. That is why I find it distressing that the lead opinion can speak so cavalierly of a “validly promulgated and unchallenged regulation ... binding upon the Board.” To this extent, I do not see the ruling of the federal district court in the Gambling case (as to the validity of the regulation) to be helpful to the lead (or to Judge Ferren’s) position. That court, in the *530circumstances of that case, did not find the “wholesale” deception on the part of the circulators which, concededly, has been found to “[raise] doubts as to the validity of the signatures themselves.” 501 F.Supp. at 790. Thus, in this situation [where the infractions were “de minimis” and where there was no suggestion of fraudulent behavior] the court found that “noncompliance by the circulator need not — as a matter of law — invalidate the signature so long as criminal sanctions are pursued.” Id. at 790-91 (emphasis added). This reasoning tracks the reasoning of the Board’s interpretation of its regulation. Indeed it is the only reasonable construction (if any) which could save the validity of its regulation.5 The conclusions that the Board has played “fast and loose” (Judge Harris) or “[un]faithfully” (Judge Ferren) with the regulation are not supported and are moreover irrelevant. The action of the Board, no matter how “whimsical,” cannot be used to subvert the electoral process. Moreover, the proponents of Initiative Seven could not' in good faith have relied upon the regulation since they chose the devious route of misrepresenting the status of the circula-tors in a pattern of conduct which, in my view, this court cannot afford to ignore. As the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has noted (in Cianfrani, supra, 359 A.2d at 384), “the policy of the liberal reading of the Election Code cannot be distorted to emasculate those requirements necessary to assure the probity of the process.” It would be foolhardy for us to do so.
III.
The lead opinion attempts to avoid the basic issues raised in this court by holding that the challengers (intervenors below) and cross-petitioners here, have no standing to raise any issues because they prevailed below. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the proponents of the initiative have argued in this court that the circulators were residents of the District of Columbia, the fact that the cases of petitioners and cross-petitioners were consolidated by order of this court “for all purposes,” and the fact that each petitioner has intervened as a party respondent in the case brought here by the other, the reasoning of the lead opinion that the challengers have not been “aggrieved” by the Board’s order is difficult to grasp. Of course, the electorate is aggrieved if the Board has improperly rejected contentions that the notarizations of the petitions were improperly executed, or that a summary statement of the initiative or statements made by circulators were misleading. Of course, the electorate is aggrieved if this court reverses the Board for violating its own regulation — and in so doing gives its imprimatur to the very conduct challenged and found to be violative of statutory mandate.6 Cf. Lee v. District of Co*531lumbia Board of Appeals & Review, D.C.App., 423 A.2d 210, 218 (1980) (Ferren, J., dissenting).7
Moreover, it is as illogical to say that the challengers are estopped from appealing on any bases because the Board found for them below as it would be to deny a “successful” personal injury plaintiff the right to appeal an insufficient award of damages simply because he had “won” below. A successful plaintiff should not, when replying to the appeal of his opponent below, be denied standing to appeal rulings adverse to him, especially when, should his opponent prevail on appeal, he would be left without legal recourse.8 Cf. Telephone Users Association v. Public Service Commission, D.C.App., 304 A.2d 293 (1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 933-34, 94 S.Ct. 1448, 1449, 39 L.Ed.2d 492 (1974) (C & P Telephone Company had standing to appeal what it asserted was an insufficient rate increase).9
IV.
The lead opinion also rules that, even if standing is granted, this court cannot affirm the Board’s action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate basis for that action. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 1577, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947) (Chenery II); Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 87-88, 63 S.Ct. 454, 459, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943) (Chenery I). However, as the Court realized in Chenery I and as this court has recognized in recent cases, “if [an agency’s] action is based upon a determination of law ... an order may not stand if the agency has misconceived the law.” Chenery I, supra at 94, 63 S.Ct. at 462; Thomas v. District of Columbia Department of Labor, D.C.App., 409 A.2d 164, 169 (1979); Gordon v. District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board, D.C.App., 402 A.2d 1251, 1254 (1979). See Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Federal Maritime Commission, 390 U.S. 261, 272, 88 S.Ct. 929, 935, 19 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1968).
In this regard I would note that, even if we needed a “more adequate basis” on which to sustain the Board’s order (which we do not), the petitioners do have standing to challenge the Board’s interpretation of D.C.Code 1973, § 1-501 and its bearing on Willis’ notarization of the challenged petitions.10 It rested solely on a legal determination and, therefore, we may not only reverse the Board’s holding on that issue but may also affirm the Board’s order on that basis. This is especially true in light of the fact that § 1 — 501 is not a Board Rule but a general notary provision. As such, we owe less deference to the Board’s interpretation of it than we would to a Board interpretation of its own rules and procedures. See Capitol Hill Restoration Society v. Zoning Commission of the District of *532Columbia, D.C.App., 380 A.2d 174 (1977), overruled on other grounds, Citizens Association of Georgetown v. Zoning Commission of the District of Columbia, D.C.App., 392 A.2d 1027, 1036 (1978).
Board Rule 1003.4(e) requires a circulator to sign, under penalties of perjury, a statement that he is a qualified elector of the District. To that end, Jo Ann Willis, a Notary as of May 1981, notarized and submitted each of the 1,711 petitions to the Board. The pertinent language of D.C. Code 1973, § 1-501 reads, as follows:
The Commissioner of the District of Columbia shall have power to appoint such number of notaries public, residents of said District, or whose sole place of business or employment is located within said District, as, in his discretion, the business of the District may require: Provided, That the appointment of any person as such notary public, or the acceptance of his commission as such, or the performance of the duties thereunder, shall not disqualify or prevent such person from representing clients before any of the departments of the United States Government in the District of Columbia or elsewhere.... And provided further, that no notary public shall be authorized to take acknowledgments, administer oaths, certify papers, or perform any official acts in connection with matters in which he is employed as counsel, attorney, or agent, or in which he may be in any way interested before any of the departments aforesaid. [Emphasis added.]
The last proviso of § 1-501 was not included in the original bill. There was strong opposition to the bill, however, as many feared that permitting notaries to act in matters where they might also be engaged as attorneys would “open the doors to fraud and deceit.” Hall’s Safe Co. v. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co (I), 31 App.D.C. 498, 503 (1908). Thus, the last proviso was added.
Clearly, the actions of Ms. Willis rendered her an agent and/or an interested party for purposes of § 1-501. She not only hired, housed, registered and organized the circu-lators, but after they returned the petitions to Willis they swore to her as to their qualified elector status. Thus, she was directly involved in creating the facts about which the circulators thereafter swore to her.
The Board rejected the petitioner’s § 1-501 contention ruling, as a matter of law, that the Board was not a department of the United States government for purposes of § 1-501. This conclusion was contrary to the history and purposes surrounding the adoption of § 1-501 and, therefore, I would reverse the Board’s ruling.
D.C.Code 1973, § 1-501 was passed by the Congress in 1906 and has not changed in any material way since. At the time of its passage the District was governed in accordance with the Organic Act of 1878, 20 Stat. 102. Under the Act, the District was governed by a three-member board, two of whom were appointed by the President, with the consent of the Senate, and the third of whom was an active officer of the Army Corps of Engineers. Congress had sole and complete authority to legislate on District matters, and “the municipal government [was] confined to mere administration.” Metropolitan Railroad v. District of Columbia, 132 U.S. 1, 7, 10 S.Ct. 19, 21, 33 L.Ed. 231 (1889). There was no provision made for the franchise; all taxes collected by the District were deposited in the United States Treasury and all claims against the District were to be submitted to the Treasurer of the United States for payment. In effect, then, the District, in 1906, was a federal department.
With the advent of Home Rule (District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, Pub.L. No. 93-198, 87 Stat. 774 (1973), codified at D.C. Code 1978 Supp., §§ 1-121 to -171), Congress could not have intended to exclude the District of Columbia from the provisions of § 1-501. In granting the limited right of self-government, it clearly delineated the areas of federal control which would remain extant. It could not have intended to abrogate a provision which insures that *533the integrity of public processes, electoral or otherwise, shall not be tainted by a less than disinterested notary abusing the public trust. Therefore § 1-501 is applicable; the notarizations were illegal and the petitions void. See Citizens Committee to Recall Rizzo, supra at 242—43.
I would affirm the ruling of the Board rejecting the signatures and would reverse the Board’s ruling that D.C.Code 1973, § 1-501 is inapplicable to this case.
. 1 agree with the conclusion of the lead opinion that the challenge to the petitions of Initiative Seven was timely filed so as to vest the Board with jurisdiction.
. Facts as to the content of Willis’ notary application were alleged by the challengers in their brief before the Board and were not refuted by the proponents of the Initiative. They were also alleged by the cross-petitioner before this court and were not refuted.
. D.C.Code 1980 Supp., § 1-1116(h)(2)(E) provides in pertinent part:
(2) Each petition sheet or sheets for an initiative or referendum measure shall have attached to it, at the time of submission to the Board of Elections and Ethics, a statement made under penalties of perjury, in a form determined by the Board signed by the circu-*529lator of that petition which contains the following . ..
(E) that the circulator of such initiative or referendum petition sheet is a qualified registered elector of the District of Columbia .... The term qualified elector is defined by D.C. Code 1977 Supp., § 1-1102(2) as:
[A] citizen of the United States (A) who resides or is domiciled in the District and who does not claim voting residence or right to vote in any State or Territory; (B) who is, or will be on the day of the next election, eighteen years old; and (C) who is not mentally incompetent as adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Clearly none of the seven circulators were qualified electors as none of them resided in the District. A “residence” must be a “fixed and permanent abode ... for the time being and not a mere temporary locality of existence ... it must be more than a place of mere sojourning or transient visiting.” D’Elia & Marks Co. v. Lyon, D.C.Mun.App., 31 A.2d 647, 648 (1943). E.g., District of Columbia v. H.J.B., D.C.App., 359 A.2d 285, 291 (1976).
. D.C.Code 1980 Supp., § 1-1114(b)(3)(D) provides:
Any person who:
(D) makes any false statement to the Board of Elections and Ethics concerning any initiative, referendum or recall petition, or the signatures appended thereto shall be fined not more than $10,000 or be imprisoned not more than one (1) year, or both.
D.C.Code 1977 Supp., § 1-1107(b) provides: No person shall be registered unless—
(1) he or she is a qualified elector; .... D.C.Code 1980 Supp., § 1-1114(a) provides:
Any person who shall register, . .. under the provisions of this chapter and make any false representations as to his or her qualifications for voting or for holding elective office, ... shall upon conviction thereof be fined not more than $10,000 or be imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
. It is a cardinal principle of legal interpretation that laws are to be construed as to preserve validity. Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp., 305 U.S. 315, 332-33, 59 S.Ct. 191, 199-200, 83 L.Ed. 195 (1938), rehearing denied, 305 U.S. 675, 59 S.Ct. 356, 83 L.Ed. 437 (1939). I do not see the Board’s interpretation to be so unreasonable as to warrant our departure from the rule of affording deference to an agency’s interpretation. See Pendleton v. Board of Elections & Ethics, D.C.App., 433 A.2d 1102 (1981); Snider v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals and Review, D.C.App., 342 A.2d 50, 51 (1975); In re Haworth, D.C.App., 258 A.2d 447 (1969); Sellers v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 143 A.2d 96, 98 (1958); Wright v. Paine, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 100, 102, 289 F.2d 766, 768 (1961); D.C.Code 1978 Supp., § 1-1108(p)(2).
. The three-pronged standing test was enunciated in Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970). In order to seek review of an agency decision:
1) a petitioner must allege injury in fact;
2) the petitioner must be arguably within the zone of interests to be protected; or regulated by the statute in question; and
3) there must be no clear legislative intent to withhold judicial review ....
The second and third prongs are clearly fulfilled here. The petitioners, as qualified electors, are within the zone of interests to be protected by voting rules and regulations enacted, to insure the greatest degree of integrity in the signature solicitation process. See Committee Report, D.C. Council Committee on Government Operations, January 31, 1979. As to the third, D.C.Code 1978 Supp. § 1-1510 provides for appeals to this court of “an order or decision of ... an agency in a contested case....”
. In this regard I would agree with the dissent in Lee v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, supra. The case involved a Board ruling that landlords were not obligated to provide essential services to their tenants. The majority of this court (the same judges who comprised the original division majority here) denied the petitioners’ standing to appeal the Board’s decision because the District had, after the decision, elected to, in its discretion, provide those services itself. The court reasoned that the petitioners had suffered no “injury in fact,” the same barrier advanced here. This left the petitioners without any recourse against the only party which could be legally bound to provide the services. Id. at 219 (Fer-ren, J., dissenting).
. While I disagree with Judge Ferren’s view of the merits of Dixon, et al.’s, claims in Part IV of his concurring opinion, I agree with his analysis of the standing issue as set forth in Part III of that opinion.
. Neither of the other decisions of this court regarding standing to appeal a ruling of a District administrative agency or board are apposite here. This is not a case like Basiliko v. Government of the District of Columbia, D.C.App., 283 A.2d 816 (1971), where a nonparty to the action below sought to stay an order of the Board of Condemnation, nor is it analogous to Telephone Users Association, supra, where an entity which did not subscribe to phone service sought to appeal a rate increase.
. Two other Board determinations, those regarding the misleading nature of the summary statement and statements made by the circula-tors were factually based and, as such, we must give due deference to them.