Opinion ID: 1859740
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Invalidation of 119 absentee votes for failure to attach medical affidavits.

Text: The trial court also declared 119 votes cast in favor of Mr. Womack to be invalid because the absentee voters failed to attach medical affidavits to their absentee-ballot application forms. The trial court relied on Ark.Code Ann. § 7-5-405 (Supp.1997) in ruling that the attachment of medical affidavits to absentee-ballot application forms was mandatory in certain circumstances. Mr. Womack contends that medical affidavits were not required. We disagree. As previously stated, the absentee-ballot application form provided by the county clerk and used by the voters in this case was substantially similar to the form set out in Ark.Code Ann. § 7-5-405 (Supp. 1997). On that form, each voter must indicate one of five methods listed in section 7-5-405 for delivering the absentee-ballot application to the county clerk: I am delivering this application by: [please check which one] ___ personally delivering this application. ___ mailing this application. ___ authorizing my relative or designated bearer, (please insert name)_____, to deliver this application. ___ authorizing (please insert name)_____ as my agent, to deliver this application, as I am medically unable to deliver it. An affidavit verifying my medical status as unable to deliver the application or to vote on the day of the election is attached. ___ I am transmitting a signed facsimile of this application by facsimile machine transmission over telephone lines to the office of the county clerk. (Emphasis added.) The plain language of section 7-5-405 and the absentee-ballot application form indicate that an affidavit verifying the voter's medical status is required when the absentee voter authorizes an agent to deliver his or her application to the county clerk. On the other hand, if the absentee voter chooses any of the other four methods for delivering the absentee-ballot application, a medical affidavit is not required by section 7-5-405. This interpretation is supported by Ark.Code Ann. § 7-5-403(a)(2)(A) (Supp.1997), which specifically lists the only ways that an application for absentee ballot may be delivered to the county clerk when the form prescribed in section 7-5-405 is used: (2) Delivery of the request for an absentee ballot to the county clerk may be made in one (1) of the following ways, and in no other manner: (A) For applications submitted using the form prescribed in § 7-5-405: (i) In person at the office of the county clerk ... (ii) Applications by mail ... (iii) A designated bearer may deliver the completed application to the office of the county clerk ... (iv)(a) A person declared as the authorized agent of the applicant may deliver the application to the office of the county clerk ... (b) An authorized agent must submit to the county clerk an affidavit of the administrative head of a hospital or nursing home located in this state that the applicant is a patient of the hospital or nursing home and is thereby unable to vote on the election day at his or her regular polling site. (c) A copy of the affidavit shall be retained by the county clerk as an attachment to the application for an absentee ballot; (v)(a) An application for absentee ballot may be requested by facsimile machine transmission ... (b)(1) The completed facsimile-transmitted application must be received in the office of the county clerk.... Thus, a medical affidavit is required only when the voter delivers the application by means of an authorized agent. Furthermore, in order to utilize that manner of delivery, the voter must be in a hospital or nursing home. Ark.Code Ann. § 7-5-403(a)(2)(A)(iv). The record in this case indicates that for all 119 absentee votes invalidated by the trial court, the voters indicated on their absentee-ballot applications that their applications would be delivered to the clerk by authorized agents. However, each of those voters failed to attach the required medical affidavit, notwithstanding the fact that such a requirement was clearly stated on the absentee-ballot application form. We reiterate once again that strict compliance with absentee voting laws is required under these circumstances. Bingamin v. City of Eureka Springs, supra . Therefore, we hold that the trial court correctly invalidated 119 absentee votes cast in favor of Mr. Womack because the voters failed to attach medical affidavits to their absentee-ballot application forms.