Opinion ID: 1691288
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evaluation of the evidence and the trial court's dismissal order

Text: Determining that the 115 on-site ballots in the Birmingham Division should have been counted, except two that did not comply with the affidavit portion, does not end our inquiry, however. As we noted in our opinion of July 2, 1999, the trial judge stated, after his in camera examination of the ballots, that he had counted every single uncounted ballot and that those ballots would not have made a difference in the outcome of the election if they had been counted. 752 So.2d at 1120. If the trial judge was referring only to the 115 on-site absentee ballots cast in the Birmingham Division, then his statement that Hale was still the winner is clearly erroneous. Our examination of the 115 Birmingham Division ballots shows that 81 of the votes were cast for Woodward; that 27 were cast for Hale; and that 7 of the absentee voters did not cast a vote for sheriff. Two of the 81 votes for Woodward were not due to be counted, however, because of defects in their affidavits. Consequently, adding 79 (81 minus 2) votes to Woodward's total certified by the Board of Canvassers, and adding 29 votes to the total certified for Hale (27 in the Birmingham Division and 2 not counted in the Bessemer Division, see section II, supra) yields a 13-vote margin of victory for Woodward. In reviewing this case, including the sealed evidence that we have delineated, we cannot determine what evidence the trial judge considered in reaching the conclusion that Hale was the winner and that the contestants' claims were due to be dismissed. Statements made by the trial judge included in the record after our remand do not help us in determining what evidence the trial judge used to reach his conclusion that Hale still received the majority of votes. See 752 So.2d at 1120. We have searched the record in an attempt to determine what evidence he based his calculations on. We find no help in the following exchange, which took place during the hearing that the trial judge conducted after our remand and in which he attempts to explain how he reached the result he did: THE COURT: ... When I did my count, I came up with a different set of numbers from what y'all did. I don't know if it would help anything for me to give you the totals that I came up with or if it would just confuse you. And I've hesitated to mention it, but, you know, both sides agreed that it might help something or that maybe it won't have any effect at all, but I have a total as to the votes I counted, the ones that were indon't agree with the numbers that all of y'all came up with. And I don't understand it and maybe it's best that it just stay right here in my notes. I don't know. MR. DRAKE [counsel for contestee]: We'd like to know. MR. AGRICOLA [counsel for contestants]: We would, too, Judge. THE COURT: All right. I came up with 83 votes for Woodward and 50 votes for Hale. The difference being 33 votes, being within the 37[-vote margin of Hale's victory as declared by the Board of Supervisors/Canvassing Board for Jefferson County on November 6, 1998], and that's the reason that I maintained that Hale was still the winner. MR. JORDAN [counsel for contestants]: Judge, that's 133 votes. THE COURT: I know. MR. JORDAN: And the inventory in the record and what's in the box says it was 115. MR. LANGNER [counsel for contestee]: Well, that clearly indicates that there may be some of those Bessemer on-site ballots that were marked that we are talking about right here. MR. JORDAN: I don't thinkI actually don't think they were requested to be delivered on December 29th. THE COURT: Well, I will say this: These votesI mean these numbers I came up with reflected one or two convicted felons that I took a vote away from Hale, I believe. And reflected six non-registered voters, as per the registrar's office, and beyond that I can't say. I've looked at my notes and it doesn't help. And it could be just a miscount on my part. But I don't know why I would have [come] up with that. And I know of the 115 I recall thatall of the 115 were not due to be counted; some had nobody marked at all. MR. JORDAN: That's correct. THE COURT: Something like 101, I think, that were. MR. JORDAN: Well, I think our count was about 7, 5 to 7, something like that. THE COURT: I had about 14 that I think I found that were not due to be counted. Well, I don't know what that does. I just apologize that I didn't make more specific notes. All right, anything else y'all want to put on record? MR. JORDAN: The only reason I asked you to come out, Judge, was to get clarification about these boxes that were brought by the deputies and I think we have more materials to continue to go through. THE COURT: All right, gentlemen. Well, I'll let you get back to your work. (3d Supp. R. at 20-23.) Based upon this excerpt from the record, we find it apparent that the trial judge could not explain how he arrived at the conclusion that he did, and our examination of the evidence shows that he made a grievous error in his calculations. If the 115 on-site absentee ballots represented every single uncounted ballot that the judge referred to in his dismissal order, then he was clearly wrong. If every uncounted ballot, the phrase used by the trial judge in his dismissal order, included the 25 Bessemer Division ballots, Hale would not be the winner. [9] Hale does not attempt to justify the finding of the trial judge on these 25 Bessemer Division votes, but he argues that there were 23 absentee affidavits in the Bessemer Division where the voter did not mark the box in the on-site affidavit and that those 23 ballots could explain how the judge reached his conclusion that Hale won. [10] At oral argument, members of this Court questioned the attorneys about these ballots. [11] We have carefully searched through each of the exhibits, and we have carefully read the depositions and the transcript of the hearings. The only conclusion we can draw from our review is that the trial judge's statements that he added every single uncounted ballot and added the totals to Woodward and Hale and that doing so supported his finding that Hale still received the majority of votes are without supporting evidence.