Opinion ID: 2212163
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: whether the failure to provide procedural safeguards invalidated the election.

Text: Appellants raise two issues which they assert affected the secrecy of the voting during the election. They assert that (1) the use of a cardboard ballot box, and (2) the failure to use a voting booth should invalidate the election. The South Dakota Constitution provides: The Legislature shall by law define residence for voting purposes, insure secrecy in voting and provide for the registration of voters, absentee voting, and the administration of elections, the nomination of candidates and the voting rights of those serving in the armed forces. (Emphasis added.) S.D. Const. art. VII, § 3. SDCL 12-16-26 provides: Ballot boxes shall be so constructed to preclude the removal of any material therefrom except by means of an opening which may be secured in the closed position by means of a metal seal which will preclude opening of the box without the destruction of the seal; materials used in the construction of ballot boxes shall be such that they will prevent tampering with or mutilation of ballots within them. There shall be a second opening in each such ballot box, at the top when the box is upright, not larger than is sufficient to admit a single closed ballot to be inserted therein at one time. (Emphasis added.) In this case, the ballot boxes used at the Claire City and New Effington voting precincts were constructed of heavy duty cardboard with tops securely sealed with masking tape. The ballot box construction did insure the secrecy of the ballots cast. We hold that the use of the cardboard boxes here, despite the informality, did not prevent a fair and free expression of the will of the voters. See Larson, supra . As to whether the lack of the use of voting booths should invalidate the election, we find this argument without merit. Voting booths were available in Claire City, although admittedly, voters voted at a voting table as was the custom. Here, the poll watchers testified that although they could have seen, they did not in fact see how any voters voted. Although there were no voting booths used in New Effington, there were no poll watchers present, and no election official saw how any voter voted. The failure to provide a voting booth was made by the election official and not the voter. It is not the policy of the law to disfranchise voters, because of election officials' mistakes, negligence or misconduct[.] Larson, 262 N.W.2d at 754 (citing Haggard v. Misko, 164 Neb. 778, 83 N.W.2d 483 (1957)). Here, the voters did nothing wrong. They should not be disfranchised due to the election official's inadvertence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. WUEST and MORGAN, JJ., concur. HENDERSON and SABERS, JJ., dissent.