Opinion ID: 2349660
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: challenged ballots

Text: [¶ 18] Having determined that we have statutory authority over these matters, we now turn to the results of the elections in question. A single justice of this Court ( Rudman, J. ) conducted a ballot inspection. Challenged ballots were identified and marked as exhibits. The exhibits were then reviewed by all of the parties. All interested parties were then given an opportunity to present their respective positions on whether it is possible to determine the voter's choice with respect to each of the disputed ballots. [¶ 19] Title 21-A M.R.S.A. § 691 (Supp.2003) provides directions for casting a vote in primary elections: A voter shall mark the ballot at a primary election as instructed in the directions on the ballot. 1. INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATE METHOD. The voter must mark the ballot as instructed in the directions on the ballot to indicate the name of each candidate for nomination for whom the voter wishes to vote. 2. WRITE-IN VOTE. If the voter wishes to vote for a person whose name is not on the ballot, the voter must write the name and municipality of residence or paste a sticker containing the name and municipality of residence in the blank space provided at the end of the list of candidates for nomination to the office in question. The voter must then mark the ballot as instructed in the directions on the ballot to indicate a vote for the write-in candidate. Voters have a statutory obligation to follow the instructions appearing on the face of the ballot. The Legislature has established by statute substantive rules that govern the inspection of disputed ballots. Title 21-A M.R.S.A. § 696 addresses the disposition of challenged, defective, and void ballots. Section 696 provides that certain votes, defined as invalid, may never be counted. [3] The first step in determining the outcome of a disputed election is to remove all those ballots containing invalid votes. Because the Legislature has determined that these votes may never be counted, there is no need to attempt to discern the voter's intent. [4] [¶ 20] Once all ballots containing invalid votes have been removed, if the number of remaining challenged ballots still affects the outcome of the election then the Court must decide whether it is possible to determine the voter's choice as reflected on the remaining ballots. Section 696(4) provides: 4. DETERMINATION OF CHOICE POSSIBLE. If a voter marks the voter's ballot in a manner that differs from the instructions at the top of the ballot but in such a manner that it is possible to determine the voter's choice, then the vote for the office or question concerned must be counted. A mark made on or in the voting indicator that differs from the instructions at the top of the ballot but that clearly indicates the voter's choice is not a distinguishing mark. 21-A M.R.S.A. § 696(4) (Supp.2003). Thus, notwithstanding the voter's statutory duty to follow the instructions on the ballot pursuant to section 691, if a voter deviates from the instructions on the ballot in a way that does not make it invalid under section 696, we must determine the voter's choice if it is possible.
[¶ 21] In the election for State Senator for District 20, candidates Dana L. Dow and Leslie T. Fossel both agree that they each received 1834 properly cast votes in the election. There are four disputed ballots, which we have marked as Exhibits 239-A, 239-B, 239-C, and 239-D. Because these ballots will affect the outcome of this election we must determine whether, and for whom, these votes will be counted. 21-A M.R.S.A. § 696(1) (Supp.2003). We address each disputed ballot in turn.
[¶ 22] Ballot 239-A contains three check marks made by the voter. Two of the check marks were made in the indicator boxes, obviously demonstrating intent to vote for two of the candidates. With respect to the race for State Senate District 20, rather than place a check mark in the indicator box for candidate Dow, the voter made a check mark to the right of Dow's name, within the space on the ballot containing the candidate's name and municipality. Because this vote is not invalid pursuant to section 696(2)A-E, it must be counted if it is possible to determine the voter's choice. 21-A M.R.S.A. § 696(4). [¶ 23] The significance of marking the voter indicator box cannot be understated. If the voter does not mark the indicator box for a listed candidate there must be some indicia of the voter's intent on the ballot itself before it is possible to reasonably determine the voter's choice pursuant to section 696(4). [5] The proximity of a mark to a candidate's name is an indicia of the voter's choice. Here the voter placed the mark directly adjacent to candidate Dow's name. [¶ 24] It is clear from the face of the ballot that the check mark is the mark used by this voter to cast a vote. The mark adjacent to Dow's name is consistent with the manner in which this voter cast his or her votes. Therefore, given the proximity of the mark to Dow's name and the consistency of the mark with other votes on this ballot, we conclude the voter intended to vote for candidate Dow.
[¶ 25] This ballot contains four marks. An X appears in three of the indicator boxes on this ballot: the indicator box for a named Representative for the State Legislature; the indicator box for a write-in candidate for the State Legislature; and in the indicator box for a named candidate for the office of the Judge of Probate. The voter drew an arrow connecting the box containing Dow's name to the X in the write-in indicator box for the Representative to the Legislature. Because this vote is not invalid, we must determine the voter's choice if possible. [¶ 26] Here we cannot say that it is impossible to determine the voter's choice. While the correct indicator box was not marked, the voter attempted to connect Dow's name to the X in the indicator box for the write-in candidate. It appears that the voter did not see the indicator boxes on the left of the candidate's name and therefore cast a vote in the indicator box on the right that was situated closest to Dow's name. In an attempt to clarify her or his choice, an arrow connects the name with the X. The proximity of the mark to the candidate's name, and the fact that the voter had clearly voted for another candidate for the Representative race both indicate that the voter intended the mark as a vote for candidate Dow.
[¶ 27] Ballot 239-C provides ovals as indicator boxes and instructs the voter to Complete the oval at the left of the name of the candidate. The voter darkened six of the indicator ovals. Two of the darkened ovals, however, contain markings outside of the borders of the oval. In the oval marked for the race for Representative for Congress, the oval is darkened with an asterisk drawn over it. In the race for Senate District 20 there are two darkened ovals. The voter darkened the oval for candidate Dow and the oval for candidate Fossel, and then made scribble marks over the oval darkened for Dow. Thus, the vote for Fossel is cleanly darkened while the oval for Dow appears to have been scribbled over. [¶ 28] This ballot is not invalid pursuant to section 696, and therefore, because it is possible to discern the voter's choice, it must be counted. The appearance of cleanly darkened ovals indicates that the voter was capable of properly casting a vote. Scribbling out, making an X, or making an asterisk over a marked vote indicator are all common methods used by voters to retract a cast vote. [¶ 29] It has been suggested that the voter may have been merely attempting to emphasize her or his choice. While this is one possible interpretation, our obligation under the statute is to determine the most reasonable interpretation. If multiple interpretations are equally reasonable, then the vote may not be counted. See 21-A M.R.S.A. § 696(2), (4). Here, while there is more than one possible interpretation of the extraneous scribbles over the vote for Dow, it is most reasonable to interpret the scribbles as a revocation of the voter's choice. Such an explanation is consistent with the cleanly cast vote for candidate Fossel. Therefore, vote 239-C shall be counted as a vote for candidate Fossel.
[¶ 30] This ballot uses boxes as voter indicators and instructs the voter to use an X or a check in the box to indicate her or his intent. The voter placed five Xs in various vote indicators on the ballot. In the race for State Senator an X was placed in the box corresponding to both candidate Dow's name, as well as candidate Fossel's name. The X corresponding to candidate Fossel, however, has been scribbled over. This clearly appears to be an attempt to revoke the vote cast for candidate Fossel. [6] It is unlikely that the voter intended to vote for two candidates for the same office. Because the vote for Dow conforms to the ballot's instructions as well as the other votes on the ballot, we conclude that the voter intended to cast a vote for candidate Dow. Accordingly, Dow is declared to be the winner of this primary election.
[¶ 31] After a recount in the election for Representative to the Legislature for District 137, Alan Casavant received 435 votes, Richard Rhames received 437 votes, and three disputed ballots were certified to the Court. Because these ballots may affect the outcome of this election we must determine whether, and for whom, these votes will be counted. 21-A M.R.S.A. § 696.
[¶ 32] This ballot uses ovals for write-in indicators. Voters are instructed to complete the oval to the left of the candidate. The voter partially darkened two ovals for the race in question: the oval to the left of candidate Casavant and the oval for a write-in candidate. The voter left the line provided for writing in the write-in candidate's name blank. Pursuant to section 696(2)(A) when a voter marks more names for office than there are vacancies to be filled, the voter's vote for that office may not be counted. Therefore if the voter voted for more than one person for District 137 the vote is invalid and we do not attempt to ascertain voter intent. The issue, therefore, is whether a vote was cast for a write-in candidate, even though no name was written in. [¶ 33] The voter casts a vote by marking the indicator boxes. Marking of the indicator box is the ultimate act of voting. Section 696(2)(D) provides that even if a voter writes in a candidate's full name and correct municipality in the write-in section, if the voter does not mark the appropriate indicator box, that vote may not be counted. Thus, the statute places central ultimate significance on the indicator box as the space allotted to the voter for expressing choice. The write-in line adjacent to the voter indicator oval is provided so that the voter may state the individual for whom the voter has voted, but the oval itself is the vote. [¶ 34] Because the voter marked the indicator box for a write-in candidate and made no attempt to revoke it with extraneous marks, the vote for candidate Casavant must be seen as a second vote. [7] Because this vote is invalid under section 696(2)(A), we do not attempt to determine the voter's choice under section 696(4).
[¶ 35] On this ballot, the voter darkened ovals for various candidates in accordance with the directions on the ballot. One oval is completely darkened in each contested race on the ballot. In the race for District 137, however, in addition to neatly darkening the oval corresponding to candidate Casavant, a line appears in the oval corresponding to candidate Rhames. The voter has consistently marked the ballot according to the directions, and has voted for only one candidate in every other contested election. The stray mark appearing in the oval corresponding to candidate Rhames is nothing more than a stray mark, in no way resembling a vote. Therefore, we hold that the vote for candidate Casavant is not invalid, and must be counted.
[¶ 36] On this ballot, the voter has clearly cast three votes in three different races by darkening an oval in accordance with the directions. In the race for District 137 no oval is darkened. A single dot appears in the oval corresponding to candidate Rhames. Given the voter's demonstrated ability to comply with the instructions and fully darken ovals when voting, we cannot reasonably interpret this mark as anything other than a stray marking. Therefore we do not count this vote. [¶ 37] Counting disputed ballot 240-B for candidate Casavant, the election results for Representative to the Legislature for District 137 are as follows: Alan Casavant receives 436 votes and Richard Rhames receives 437 votes. Therefore, Richard Rhames is declared the winner of this primary election.
[¶ 38] Kim M. Bagley ran in the Democratic primary election for Senate District 29 as a write-in candidate. As a write-in candidate she was required to receive 200 votes in order to receive the nomination. See 21-A M.R.S.A. §§ 723, 335 (1993 & Supp 2003). There are a total of 279 ballots with markings in the Senate District 29 space. At the conclusion of the recount, the municipalities in the District reported that 173 valid write-in votes were cast for candidate Bagley. Candidate Bagley contends that, out of the 279 ballots containing some markings in the District 29 space, she received 211 votes. Because the number of disputed ballots may affect the outcome of the election, pursuant to 21-A M.R.S.A. § 737-A, we determine its outcome. [¶ 39] In order to support her claim that she received 211 votes, candidate Bagley relies, among other things, upon 17 votes on which the indicator box for the write-in candidate was not marked. These votes are clearly invalidated by section 696(2)(D) which provides: If a voter writes in a name and municipality of residence, but does not mark the write-in square, the vote for that office shall not be counted. (Emphasis added). 21-A M.R.S.A. § 696(2)(D) (Supp.2003). The plain language of title 21-A M.R.S.A. § 696(2)(D) makes it clear that, with respect to write-in candidates, if a voter fails to mark the voter indicator that vote may not be counted. The fact that the voter may have written in the correct name and municipality for the candidate does not matter. Because the 17 votes on which the indicator box for the write-in candidate was not marked cannot be counted, candidate Bagley received at most 194 votes. [¶ 40] In section 696(2)(A-E), the Legislature has determined that certain markings may never be counted as votes, irrespective of whether a voter's choice can be determined pursuant to section 696(4). Because the remaining disputed ballots cannot affect the outcome of the election we need not consider their validity; the initial election results are hereby affirmed. Candidate Bagley did not receive the requisite 200 valid votes. [¶ 41] The decisions in SJC Docket Nos. 239, 240, and 241 shall, in accordance with 21-A M.R.S.A. § 737-A(10), be certified to the Governor by the Chief Justice. /s/ Leigh I. Saufley Chief Justice /s/ Robert W. Clifford Associate Justice /s/ Paul L. Rudman Associate Justice /s/ Howard H. Dana Associate Justice /s/ Donald G. Alexander Associate Justice /s/ Susan Calkins Associate Justice /s/ Jon D. Levy Associate Justice