Opinion ID: 1919304
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: SPOILED v. UNSPOILED BALLOTS.

Text: ¶ 17. Boyd argues that there were ballots cast in the second primary which were marked for more than one candidate yet were not marked spoiled while a valid vote cast for him was voided. Boyd cites to Miss.Code Ann. §§ 23-15-547 [4] and -477 [5] (Rev.2001) as support for his claim that ballots were improperly counted or excluded. These ballots must be considered in light of our earnest desire that the will of voters be ascertained and honored. Riley, 441 So.2d at 1328. ¶ 18. One ballot reflected a vote for Whitlock. Boyd contends that this vote should have been disallowed because the voter wrote in the name David Smith on the line for write-in candidates, though he/she did not blacken the arrow pointing to that write-in candidate. A second ballot reflects a ballot where the voter cast a vote for Boyd but the ballot was voided. Boyd contends that this was a clean ballot that should have been counted, but Whitlock argues that the ballot was properly rejected because, in voting for constable on that same ballot, the voter marked the line for a write-in candidate yet failed to write in the name of any candidate. A third ballot reflects a vote which was counted for Whitlock; however, it also shows that the voter started to vote for Boyd but changed his/her mind because that line was ultimately Xed out. A fourth is a summary of excluded votes from Hubbard Salem Precinct, one being an over-voted ballot. ¶ 19. The record does not reflect that the special tribunal ruled on these spoiled ballot challenges during trial; however, the opinion and judgment of the special tribunal upheld the executive committee's decisions regarding these challenged ballots. We find that the challenge to the summary of excluded votes from Hubbard Salem precinct should be denied as it does not even constitute an actual ballot. Concerning the ballot showing Boyd's name Xed out and then showing a vote for Whitlock, we find that the challenge should be denied as it can reasonably be determined that the voter intended to vote for Whitlock. The ballot listing David Smith as a write-in candidate but voting for Whitlock was properly counted. Since the voter clearly marked the arrow pointing to Whitlock's name and not David Smith, we can determine that the voter's intention was to vote for Whitlock. ¶ 20. We find, however, that the special tribunal erred in excluding the ballot of a voter who declined to vote for anyone in the constable's race but marked the line designated for write-in candidates. In the sheriff's race, the voter clearly cast a vote for Boyd. As the intent of the voter could reasonably be determined as to the office of sheriff, the special tribunal erred in failing to count this vote for Boyd.