Opinion ID: 1779094
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: regular ballots

Text: Exhibit # 25 This regular ballot was cast for Smith. The Tribunal found that, even though neither the manager or the assistant manager initialed the back of the ballot, they should be accepted. We agree. [M]ere technical irregularities will not vitiate the validity of an election where there is no evidence of fraud or intentional wrong. Campbell v. Whittington, 733 So.2d 820, 826 (Miss.1999) (citing Wilbourn v. Hobson, 608 So.2d 1187, 1192 (Miss.1992)). This vote is counted in favor of Smith. However, because this ballot was included in the box and therefore counted, the vote will not affect the final tally. Exhibit # 26 This regular ballot was cast for Smith. The Tribunal found that, even though neither the manager or the assistant manager initialed the back of the ballot, it should be accepted. We agree. See Campbell. This vote is counted in favor of Smith. However, because this ballot was included in the box and therefore counted, the vote will not affect the final tally. Exhibit # 27 This regular ballot was cast for Smith. The Tribunal found that, even though neither the manager or the assistant manager initialed the back of the ballot, it should be accepted. We agree. See Campbell. This vote is counted in favor of Smith. However, because this ballot was included in the box and therefore counted, the vote will not affect the final tally. ¶ 8. Finding that we agree with the Special Tribunal that the final tally from the second primary election is correct, we now address the disputed absentee ballots which were not part of the final tally499 votes for Hollins and 510 votes for Smith. To these totals we will add votes from the disputed absentee ballots that we find were legally cast, as follows: