Opinion ID: 1662010
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Safford

Text: Seven electors cast challenged ballots at the Safford polling place, and three of those voters testified at trial in an effort to cure defects in their oaths. [4] The trial court found that only one of those voters who had testified had cured defects in his oath. Williams argues that he should have received five more votes from Safford. The record reveals that two of challenged voters from Safford who did not testify did not complete a proof of identity as required by § 17-12-4; therefore, their votes were properly rejected. Further, two of the challenged voters were convicted felons whose votes were properly rejected. As for the three remaining challenged voters, Lide presented evidence that two of them had never registered to vote in Safford and that one of them had moved from Safford prior to November 1992. This evidence supports the trial court's finding that Williams should receive only one challenged vote from Safford.