Opinion ID: 1832275
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Disputed Ballots.

Text: A comprehensive set of rules and procedures govern elections in Iowa. See generally Iowa Code chs. 39-63A (2007); see also Iowa Code ch. 277 (2007) (providing the procedure for school elections). These provisions not only apply to general elections, but also to school elections. Iowa Code section 277.2 allows a school board to call a special election to vote on issues such as the one involved in this case. See Bauman, 649 N.W.2d at 12 (Special elections may be called irregularly to decide primarily financial and school property issues. (citing Iowa Code § 277.2 (2001))). Additionally, chapter 277 directs that [t]he provisions of chapters 39 to 53 shall apply to the conduct of all school elections. Iowa Code § 277.3. Chapter 49 specifically addresses the form of ballots to be used in public measure elections. Iowa Code section 49.45 requires the ballots to ask the question, Shall the following public measure be adopted? Id. § 49.45. The specific public measure must then be identified, followed by two boxes or targets that allow the voter to answer the question by marking the box or target identified Yes or by marking the box or target identified No. Id. The public measure ballots must additionally include a notice as follows: [Notice to voters. To vote to approve any question on this ballot, make a cross mark or check in the target before the word Yes. To vote against a question make a similar mark in the target preceding the word No.] Id. § 49.47. Section 49.47 also instructs officials to adapt the notice to voters to describe the proper mark where it is appropriate. Id. There is no claim that the form or content of the ballot in this case did not conform to our statutory requirements. See, e.g., Harney v. Clear Creek Cmty. Sch. Dist., 261 Iowa 315, 321, 154 N.W.2d 88, 92 (1967) (requiring ballot to be in substantial compliance with requirements in statute); Headington v. N. Winneshiek Cmty. Sch. Dist., 254 Iowa 430, 438-39, 117 N.W.2d 831, 836-37 (1962) (same). Instead, the question is whether the voting mark on the disputed ballots complied with the requirements of our statutes. Section 49.46 requires the voter to designate a vote by making the appropriate mark in the voting target.  Iowa Code § 49.46 (emphasis added). The statutes indicate an appropriate mark may be that which is indicated in the notice or instructions, or a check mark or an X. See id. §§ 49.46, 49.92. Thus, the voters in this case were required to mark their ballots by placing an X, checking, or filling in the oval target next to the word Yes or No. While specific sections indicate how a public measure election ballot is to be marked, there is no specific section that deals with counting or rejecting voting marks on public measure ballots. There is a general section that deals with counting ballots in an election, but this section primarily refers to elections involving candidates, rather than public measures. See id. § 49.98 (entitled Counting ballots). The school district argues section 49.98 prohibits the four ballots from being counted in this case. Under section 49.98 at the time of this election, [4] a ballot was required to be rejected if marked in any manner other than authorized in sections 49.92 to 49.97. Id.; see Beck v. Cousins, 252 Iowa 194, 197, 106 N.W.2d 584, 586 (1960) (In the interpretation of a disputed ballot the primary consideration is to arrive at the intent of the voter. This is subject to the conditions that the ballot must not be marked contrary to statutory provisions, and must not have on it any distinguishing marks or writings.). Section 49.92 governs voting marks. While it was clearly drafted by our legislature with elections involving political candidates in mind, it is consistent with the requirements of a voting mark for public measures. Compare Iowa Code § 49.46 (describing the voting marks required for public measure elections), with id. § 49.92 (describing voting marks for candidate elections). The statute contemplates that a ballot will include voting instructions to describe the appropriate mark to be used by the voter, and that the mark shall be consistent with the requirements of the voting system in use in the precinct. Id. § 49.92. Additionally, it states the voting mark used on paper ballots may be a cross or check which shall be placed in the voting targets opposite the names of the candidates. Id. Finally, the statute provides that marks made by instruments other than a black lead pencil are generally permitted. Id. It is clear the provision in section 49.98 governing the rejection of a ballot marked in an unauthorized manner also applies to public measure ballots that are marked contrary to the mandatory provisions of the law. While section 49.98 does not reference section 49.46 dealing with public measure voting marks, it requires the rejection of voting marks that are unauthorized marks under sections 49.92 through 49.97. Id. § 49.98. We see no difference between the basic voting mark requirements in section 49.46 and section 49.92. Both require the use of an appropriate mark, which may include the use of a check or cross. See id. §§ 49.46, 49.92. Moreover, chapter 277which allows the board to conduct the special election in this casedirects that those sections of chapter 49 are applicable to this election. See id. § 277.3 (The provisions of chapters 39 to 53 shall apply to the conduct of all school elections. . . . ). Generally, a vote is counted in an election if the voter affixed any mark to the ballot that fairly indicates an intent to vote for a particular candidate or measure. See Devine, 268 N.W.2d at 623. However, this rule does not apply if the voter violates a mandatory provision of the election law in casting the ballot. Id. Thus, the intent of a voter to vote for or against a public measure is the prevailing issue only if the voter has followed the legal requirements in marking the ballot. The school district argues the four ballots in this case violated the election laws because the voters failed to mark the ballot according to the voting instructions or notice. Even so, the school district argues the marks placed on the ballots do not fairly indicate the intent to vote either Yes or No on Measure B. In this case, the four disputed ballots were neither marked as required by the statute or as directed by the instructions on the ballot. The statutes require that voting marks on paper ballots be placed in the voting targets. Likewise, the instructions or notice on the ballot directed the voter to mark the ballot by placing the voting mark in the voting target. To be counted, a voting mark must be substantially within the target. Frakes v. Farragut Cmty. Sch. Dist., 255 Iowa 88, 91, 121 N.W.2d 636, 638 (1963). In all four ballots, the voters failed to enter any mark of any kind in the target opposite the word Yes or No. This violated sections 49.46 and 49.92, and under section 49.98 the votes cannot be counted. We recognize the possibility that the voters in this case intended to vote No on each ballot, particularly on the three ballots where the voters filled in the letter o in the word No and left the oval target immediately to the left of the word No blank. However, our statutes do not permit such intent to prevail when the ballots were marked in an unauthorized manner. Importantly, this conclusion does not foreclose the necessity of determining intent in certain cases. There are times when a voting mark does not strictly meet the ballot instructions or statutory requirements, but nevertheless is marked in such a way that it is not unauthorized. See Beck, 252 Iowa at 197, 106 N.W.2d at 586 (recognizing the intent of a voter is subject to the requirements of our statutes); Devine, 268 N.W.2d at 628 (The voter's intention, if it can be ascertained, should not be defeated or frustrated by the fact the name of the candidate is misspelled, or the wrong initials were employed, or some other slightly different name of similar pronunciation or sound has been written instead of the actual name of the candidate intended to be voted for.). In these cases the intent of the voter must prevail if it can be determined. That is not the case here, however, as none of the markings were made inside the No target. In such a case, the mark is unauthorized and uncountable. While [t]he primary test of validity is whether the voter's intent is sufficiently shown, this intent cannot be derived from ballots that are marked inconsistently with the voting instructions provided on the ballot and the marking requirements of the statute. Devine, 268 N.W.2d at 628. We also recognize the goal in an election contest is to give effect to the venerable democratic right to vote. It is not to disenfranchise the voter. See, e.g., id. at 623 (The right to vote is a fundamental political right. It is essential to representative government. Any alleged infringement of the right to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized. (Citation omitted.)). Yet, our legislature has established certain basic voting requirements that we are obligated to enforce in the absence of a successful constitutional challenge to the statute.