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

Heading: The 115 uncounted on-site absentee ballots from the Birmingham Division

Text: One of the central issues involved in this case is whether 115 on-site absentee ballots from voters of the Birmingham Division of Jefferson County that were not counted by election officials because the voters did not check a box on their absentee-ballot affidavit forms should, in fact, have been counted. The contestants argue that they should have been, and they argue that adding those votes to the votes certified by election officials would yield a margin of victory for Woodward of 17 votes. Accordingly, they argue that this Court should reverse the trial judge's order of dismissal and render a judgment for Woodward. The contestee argues, on the other hand, that none of the 115 ballots should be counted because, he argues, they did not comply with the requirements of the law that the voter specify the reason why he or she was authorized to vote absentee. In resolving the issue whether these ballots should or should not have been counted, we are not without legislative guidance. Sections 17-10-3 through 17-10-26, Ala. Code 1975, specify what persons may vote absentee and detail the procedures for casting and counting absentee ballots. Section 17-10-7 specifically prescribes the form of the absentee voter's affidavit that is required to be printed on the envelope accompanying each absentee ballot. Subsection (b) of § 17-10-7 specifies the form of the affidavit for what we refer to in this opinion as regular absentee ballots, and subsection (c) of § 17-10-7 specifies the form for on-site absentee ballots. For regular absentee ballots, that is, those that are mailed in or that are hand delivered, § 17-10-7(b) provides that paragraph (5) of the affidavit shall read as follows: `(5) I am entitled to vote an absentee ballot because: Check only one: ____ I will be out of the county or the state on all of the following days: election day, Saturday ten (10) days prior to election day, and Tuesday of the week immediately preceding election day. ____ I am physically incapacitated and will not be able to vote in person on election day. ____ I work a required workplace shift which has at least ten hours which coincide with the polling hours at my regular polling place. ____ I am a student at an educational institution located outside the county of my permanent residence and am therefore unable to vote at my usual polling place on election day. ____ I am a member of or a spouse/dependent of a member of the armed forces of the United States. ____ I have been appointed as an election officer at a polling place which is not my regular polling place. For on-site absentee voters' affidavits, Subsection 17-10-7(c) provides that paragraph (5) of the affidavit shall read as follows: (5) I am entitled to vote an absentee ballot because I will be out of the county or state on election day. It is apparent from the words used by the Legislature in this statute that the Legislature required that the voter check the appropriate reason for voting a regular absentee ballot, but made no provision for the inclusion of a box or space after the (5) because there is only one reason listed in the statute and on the form, viz.: I am entitled to vote an absentee ballot because I will be out of the county or state on election day. [5] Stated differently, a comparison of the language the Legislature used in subsection (b) of § 17-10-7 for regular absentee affidavits with the language the Legislature prescribed for on-site absentee affidavits in subsection (c) reveals that the Legislature specified spaces in front of the reasons for voting absentee for regular absentee affidavits, with instructions to Check only one, but that the Legislature did not require that there be a space or a box on the on-site absentee form and that there are no instructions to check any such box on that form. It is readily apparent why the Legislature wrote the statute as it did. Subparagraph (5) in § 17-10-7(b) lists the six different reasons for authorizing a person to vote absentee, but in § 17-10-7(c) there is only one reason for voting absentee permitted; thus, there are no alternatives to mark when a voter is voting absentee on site. The signature of the affiant is sufficient to identify the reason for voting absenteethat the voter states that he or she will be out of the county or state on election day. By contrast, for regular absentee ballots, there are six possible reasons for casting an absentee ballot by mail or by hand delivery, only one of which includes the reason that the voter will be out of the county or state on election day. Thus, there is a need for the absentee voter to identify which reason is being claimed. Compare Ala.Code 1975, § 17-10-3(a), with Ala.Code 1975, § 17-10-3(c). The last sentence of the affidavitin both forms of the affidavitreads as follows: Moreover, I further swear (or affirm) that all of the information given above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I understand that by knowingly giving false information so as to vote illegally by absentee ballot that I shall be guilty of a misdemeanor which is punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or confinement in the county jail for not more than six months, or both. Thus, in the case of an absentee ballot cast by mail or by hand delivery, the voter, by checking one of the six possible reasons for casting an absentee ballot and then signing the affidavit, is swearing or affirming that the indicated reason is true and correct. In the case of an absentee ballot cast on site, however, there is only one reason entitling the voter to vote an absentee ballot; therefore, there is no need to indicate which reason the voter has for voting absentee. Simply by signing the affidavit, the voter is swearing or affirming that the single reason stated in paragraph (5) is true and correct, and the voter could be prosecuted for falsely swearing or affirming false information. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that not only is there no statutory requirement that the on-site absentee voter mark paragraph (5) of the affidavit, but an examination of the on-site absentee ballot affidavit (Appendix A) shows that the form comports with the Legislature's direction, by not having any instructions to Check only one, because it is the only one listed. Consequently, we hold that the on-site absentee ballots should not be excluded simply because the voter did not place a check mark in the box beside paragraph (5), and that the contestants were entitled to have these ballots that complied with statutory requirements counted. Consequently, we cannot accept Hale's argument, in which he states: Woodward does not even cite Roe v. Alabama, 43 F.3d 574 (11th Cir.1995), where the Eleventh Circuit held: `We agree that failing to exclude the contested absentee ballots will constitute a post-election departure from previous practice in Alabama.'  Roe v. Alabama at 581. In effect the Eleventh Circuit found that despite this Court's holding in Williams v. Lide, 628 So.2d 531 (Ala.1993). [Sic.] The actual practice in Alabama had been not to count ballots which did not meet the statutory requirements of § 17-10-7[, Ala.Code 1975]. It is now an established fact by way of the Eleventh Circuit's finding, that the practice in Alabama in 1994 and in previous years had been to follow a practice of strict compliance in the counting or excluding of absentee ballots. (Corrected brief of appellee at 5-6; emphasis added.) We cannot accept this argument that the law, either before or after Roe, required poll workers or election officials to set aside and not count on-site absentee ballots that did not have the box checked, because in § 17-10-10, the Legislature specified the procedures for counting absentee ballots. In that Code section, as we have already pointed out, the Legislature provided: No poll worker or other election official shall open an affidavit envelope if the affidavit printed thereon is unsigned by the voter (and unmarked), and no ballot envelope or ballot therein may be removed or counted. No poll worker or other election official shall open an affidavit envelope if the voter's affidavit signature (or mark) is not witnessed by the signatures of two witnesses or a notary public (or other officer authorized to acknowledge oaths) and no ballot envelope or ballot therein may be removed or counted. The Legislature further stated what had been the law prior to Roe, and subsequent thereto, when it provided that  [t]he provision for witnessing of the voter's affidavit signature (or mark) in Section 17-10-7 goes to the integrity and sanctity of the ballot and election.  § 17-10-10, Ala.Code 1975 (emphasis added). Contrary to Hale's argument, the requirement that there be substantial compliance with the election laws, as articulated in Williams v. Lide, 628 So.2d 531 (Ala.1993), was not rejected in the aftermath of Roe v. Alabama, 43 F.3d 574 (11th Cir.1995), cert. denied, Davis v. Alabama, 516 U.S. 908, 116 S.Ct. 276, 133 L.Ed.2d 197 (1995). In fact, it is clear that when the Legislature amended the law relating to absentee voting laws in 1996, [6] in response to the dispute resolved in Roe, the Legislature did not intend that poll workers and election officials would be able to set aside on-site absentee ballots just because the voter did not check a box on an on-site affidavit envelope when it did not require the checking of a space or box. Instead, the Legislature's intent, when it amended the election laws after Roe, was to address the standard that poll workers and election officials should apply in determining whether to count or not to count a particular absentee ballot. It seems clear to us that, so long as any irregularities in the voting process do not adversely affect the sanctity of the ballot and the integrity of the election, substantial compliance with the essential requirements of the absentee voting law is sufficient. Williams, supra, at 536. [7] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that election officials in the Birmingham Division were not at liberty to exclude on-site absentee ballots included in affidavit envelopes that did not have the box checked. The failure of the voters casting those ballots to check the box beside the only reason for casting an on-site absentee ballot did not conflict with the statute and did not adversely affect the sanctity of the ballot and the integrity of the election. Indeed, as we have discussed above, there is no requirement in the law that the box be checked. Those ballots should have been counted. [8] In support of their argument that Woodward won the election, the contestants also argue that on at least two of these Birmingham Division ballots the voter marked the straight-ticket box on the ballot, but then marked a vote for the sheriff candidate of the opposing party. In their objections/exceptions, the contestants argue: Judge Wynn stated before the on-site ballots were counted that he did not count `five or six' votes for Hale where the voter voted `straight ticket' Republican while also voting for Hale. July 7 Hearing at 37. The examination of the on-site absentee ballots revealed only 2 ballots in which the vote for Sheriff contradicted a straight party vote. One of these votes was for Woodward and one was for Hale. In any event, these votes should have been counted because [§ 17-8-16, Ala.Code 1975,] allows a voter to vote for a candidate not on his party ticket. Objections/Exceptions of Contestants at 4, n. 4. Section 17-8-16, Ala.Code 1975, provides: Where only one candidate is to be elected to any office and the elector desires to vote for a candidate not on his party ticket, he may make a cross mark (x) before the name of the candidate for whom he desires to vote on the other ticket. In light of the provisions of § 17-8-16, we conclude that the contestants are correct in arguing that a ballot upon which a voter indicated he or she was voting a straight ticket, but also indicated that he or she was voting for the other party's candidate for sheriff, are due to be counted as votes for the candidates beside whose name the voter made his or her mark. Stated differently, where a voter marked a straight-ticket ballot for party A, but also made a mark beside the name of the candidate for sheriff of party B, that ballot is due to be counted as a vote for the candidate of party B. We have applied this principle of law in reaching the conclusion we do in this case.