Opinion ID: 1691288
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: False Affiant-Poll Workers

Text: This block consists of 19 persons who cast on-site absentee ballots, but who were, nevertheless, in Jefferson County on election day serving as poll workers. This group is composed of E.R.F., J.G., J.K., K.A.M., L.M., B.P., T.F.R., J.S., F.T., G.D.B. R.M.S., J.T., F.W., R.D.C., J.M.D., M.E., E.H.M., O.P., and J.W. Every voter in this block swore on the accompanying affidavit: I am entitled to vote an [on-site] absentee ballot because I will be out of the county or state on election day. Ala.Code 1975, § 17-10-7(c)(5) (emphasis added). However, none of these persons had, at the time they executed their on-site affidavits, plans to be out of the county on election day. With one exception, these persons voted for Woodward. Due process and fidelity to precedent mandate that, where affidavits accompanying on-site absentee ballots cast for Woodward fail to comply with the plain meaning of the absentee-voter law, the Court apply an approach parallel to the one it applied in its disposition of the regular absentee ballots cast for Hale. As I shall explain in more detail later in this dissent, compliance with the plain meaning of the absentee-voter law, that is, strict compliance, does not require the impossible or the absurd. It does, however, require that at the time of the signing of the on-site affidavit the voter planned in good faith to be out of the county on election day. There is no dispute that the voters in this block did not comply with that principle and, therefore, that their votes must be excluded. Woodward's total is reduced by 18, becoming 106,293. Hale's total is reduced by 1, becoming 106,287. Woodward leads by 6 votes. The majority agrees with mebut most reluctantly as to this block of voters. It states: There is no dispute that these citizens were, in fact, authorized to vote by absentee ballot under the provisions of § 17-10-3(a), which authorized them to vote by regular absentee ballot. 752 So.2d at 1153. (Emphasis added.) It concedes: We [were] almost persuaded by the contestants' argument that these voters should have their votes counted, even though they were not authorized by law to vote by on-site absentee ballots. Id. (emphasis added). Furthermore, it states: [W]e conclude, but somewhat reluctantly, that the trial judge did not err ...; id. at 1156 (emphasis added); and we have finally concluded that the contestee met his burden. Id. at 1155 (emphasis added). The significance of the majority's ambivalence is strikingly illustrated by its disposition of five ballots cast by voters in the next block.