Opinion ID: 1833463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: legal votes

Text: Having first identified the proper standard of review, we turn now to the allegations of the complaint filed in this election contest. To test the sufficiency of those allegations and the proof, it is essential to understand what, under Florida law, may constitute a legal vote, and what constitutes rejection of such vote. Section 101.5614(5), Florida Statutes (2000), provides that [n]o vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the canvassing board. Section 101.5614(6) provides, conversely, that any vote in which the board cannot discern the intent of the voter must be discarded. Lastly, section 102.166(7)(b) provides that, [i]f a counting team is unable to determine a voter's intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter's intent. This legislative emphasis on discerning the voter's intent is mirrored in the case law of this State, and in that of other states. This Court has repeatedly held, in accordance with the statutory law of this State, that so long as the voter's intent may be discerned from the ballot, the vote constitutes a legal vote that should be counted. See McAlpin v. State ex rel. Avriett, 155 Fla. 33, 19 So.2d 420 (1944); see also State ex rel. Peacock v. Latham, 25 Fla. 69, 70, 169 So. 597, 598 (1936) (holding that the election contest statute affords an efficient available remedy and legal procedure by which the circuit court can investigate and determine, not only the legality of the votes cast, but can correct any inaccuracies in the count of the ballots by having them brought into the court and examining the contents of the ballot boxes if properly preserved). As the State has moved toward electronic voting, nothing in this evolution has diminished the longstanding case law and statutory law that the intent of the voter is of paramount concern and should always be given effect if the intent can be determined. Cf. Boardman v. Esteva, 323 So.2d 259 (Fla.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 967, 96 S.Ct. 2162, 48 L.Ed.2d 791 (1976) (recognizing the overarching principle that, where voters do all that statutes require them to do, they should not be disfranchised solely because of failure of election officials to follow directory statutes). Not surprisingly, other states also have recognized this principle. Cf. Delahunt v. Johnston, 423 Mass. 731, 671 N.E.2d 1241 (1996) (holding that a vote should be counted as a legal vote if it properly indicates the voter's intent with reasonable certainty); Duffy v. Mortenson, 497 N.W.2d 437 (S.D.1993) (applying the rule that every marking found where a vote should be should be treated as an intended vote in the absence of clear evidence to the clear contrary); Pullen v. Mulligan, 138 Ill.2d 21, 149 Ill.Dec. 215, 561 N.E.2d 585 (1990) (holding that votes could be recounted by manual means to the extent that the voter's intent could be determined with reasonable certainty, despite the existence of a statute which provided that punch card ballots were to be recounted by automated tabulation equipment). Accordingly, we conclude that a legal vote is one in which there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter. We next address whether the term rejection used in section 102.168(3)(c) includes instances where the County Canvassing Board has not counted legal votes. Looking at the statutory scheme as a whole, it appears that the term rejected does encompass votes that may exist but have not been counted. As explained above, in 1999, the Legislature substantially revised the contest provision of the Election Code. See H.R. Comm. on Election Reform, HB 281 (February 3, 1999). One of the revisions to the contest provision included the codification of the grounds for contesting an election. See id. at 7. The House Bill noted that one of the grounds for contesting an election at common law was the Receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election. As noted above, the contest statute ultimately contained this ground for contesting the results of an election. To further determine the meaning of the term rejection, as used by the Legislature, we may also look to Florida case law. In State ex rel. Clark v. Klingensmith, 121 Fla. 297, 163 So. 704 (1935), an individual who lost an election brought an action for quo warranto challenging his opponent's right to hold office. The challenger challenged twenty-two ballots, which he divided into four groups. One of these groups included three ballots that the challenger claimed had not been counted. See 121 Fla. at 298, 163 So. at 705. This Court concluded that the rejection of votes from legal voters, not brought about by fraud, and not of such magnitude as to demonstrate that a free expression of the popular will has been suppressed, is insufficient to void an election, at least unless it be shown that the votes rejected would have changed the result. 121 Fla. at 300, 163 So. at 705. Therefore, the Court appears to have equated a rejection of legal votes with the failure to count legal votes, while at the same time recognizing that a sufficient number of such votes must have been rejected to merit relief. This notion of rejected is also in accordance with the common understanding of rejection of votes as used in other election cases. In discussing the facts in Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15, 92 S.Ct. 804, 31 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972), the United States Supreme Court explained: If a recount is conducted in any county, the voting machine tallies are checked and the sealed bags containing the paper ballots are opened. The recount commission may make new and independent determinations as to which ballots shall be counted. In other words, it may reject ballots initially counted and count ballots initially rejected. Id. This also comports with cases from other jurisdictions that suggest that a legal vote will be deemed to have been rejected where a voting machine fails to count a ballot, which has been executed in substantial compliance with applicable voting requirements and reflects, the clear intent of the voter to express a definite choice. See In re Petition of Gray-Sadler, 164 N.J. 468, 753 A.2d 1101, 1105-06 (2000); In re Moffat, 142 N.J.Super. 217, 361 A.2d 74, 77 (1976). Here, then, it is apparent that there have been sufficient allegations made which, if analyzed pursuant to the proper standard, compel the conclusion that legal votes sufficient to place in doubt the election results have been rejected in this case.