Opinion ID: 2212163
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the failure to follow mandatory absentee voting procedures should invalidate a school consolidation election when there was substantial compliance with the mandatory absentee voting requirements.

Text: Appellants argue that the failure to follow mandatory absentee voting procedures should invalidate the election. They assert that the absentee voting affected the merits of the election and prevented an honest and free expression of the will of the voters. In support of their argument, appellants assert that (1) twenty-three people failed to make written application requests for an absentee ballot, citing SDCL 12-19-2, [1] ARSD 5:02:10:01; (2) sixteen written requests failed in one or more ways to satisfy the provisions of SDCL 12-19-2, in that they were not signed by the applicant, failed to state a voting precinct or place of voting residence, or the reason for which the ballot was requested; (3) sixteen of the alleged written requests were not stamped with the date they were received in the office of the person in charge of the election, citing SDCL 12-19-2; (4) none of the alleged written requests for absentee ballots were transmitted to the person in charge of the election (Bisek) in the proper envelope, citing ARSD 5:02:10:02; (5) in twenty-one instances, no written instructions were given to persons requesting to vote absentee, citing SDCL 12-19-3, [2] ARSD 5:02:10:04; (6) in twenty-one instances, proper return envelopes were not used for the return of absentee ballots, citing SDCL 12-19-3, ARSD 5:02:10:05; (7) there were twenty-one instances where the return envelope for the absentee voter's ballot failed to contain any affidavit whatsoever as required by SDCL 12-19-4 [3] and ARSD 5:02:10:05; (8) in twenty-one instances, the absentee voter failed to execute the required affidavit in the presence of a person authorized to administer oaths or take acknowledgments as required by SDCL 12-19-7; [4] (9) in twenty-one instances the absentee voter failed to seal an official return envelope with all enclosed ballots in the presence of a person authorized to administer oaths or take acknowledgments prior to the delivery of the absentee ballot to the person in charge of the election, citing SDCL 12-19-9. [5] In Brown v. Dakota Public Service Co., 68 S.D. 169, 299 N.W. 569 (1941), a utilities company operating in Mobridge, South Dakota, applied to the city council of Mobridge for a franchise permitting the company to engage in the business of selling electric light, heat and power. A special election was called and held on November 7, 1939, to approve the franchise. At this election, the vote, as canvassed, was 712 votes in favor of and 657 votes against. The city council determined that the ordinance had been adopted. The issue in the case involved the construction of the statutes relating to absentee voting. The court determined the ultimate issue to be: Should such statutes be held to be directory or mandatory? 68 S.D. at 173, 299 N.W. at 571. In Brown: The record in this case establishes that the general practice followed was to deliver official ballots and other necessary documents to election workers, without any application of any kind having been filed with the city auditor. No record was made by the city auditor of any applications received by him; and no such record was available for public inspection. Election workers, armed with a liberal supply of ballots and other necessary documents, called upon voters and had them sign applications and, at the same time and as part of the same transaction, mark their ballots, sign the identification slips and other papers and they were then enclosed in the return envelope and sealed up, except the application and one identification slip were not placed in the envelope, but were attached thereto. The envelopes were handed to such workers who delivered the fruits of their labor to the city auditor, who in turn delivered the same to the election boards on election day. Little or no attention was paid to the provision limiting the privilege of voting in this manner to absentees or persons physically unable to attend the election; and little heed was given to the secrecy of the ballots. 68 S.D. at 174-75, 299 N.W. at 571-72. The court in Brown held: That so far as the acts and duties of the elector are concerned, he must substantially comply with the requirements of the election statutes if he is to cast a valid ballot; on the other hand, he should not be disfranchised by the mere negligence or omissions of election officials; and that the election statutes so far as the acts and duties of such officials are concerned, should be held to be directory unless otherwise expressly declared by statute, or it is made to appear that such acts and conduct affected the merits of the election and prevented an honest and free expression of the will of the voters. (Emphasis added.) 68 S.D. at 177, 299 N.W. at 573. Further, the court concluded that the absentee voting statutes were mandatory as far as the duties of the voters were concerned, and that failure to substantially comply with the absentee voting statutes on the part of the voter rendered his vote void. Id. To differentiate between directory and mandatory provisions of election laws one must look to the consequences of the nonobservance of an act done in violation of a mandatory provision or the nonobservance of an act done in violation of a directory provision. An act done in violation of a mandatory provision is void whereas an act done in violation of a directory provision, while improper, may nevertheless be valid and constitutes a mere irregularity not vitiating the election. Larson v. Locken, 262 N.W.2d 752, 754 (S.D. 1978) (citing Sommerfeld v. Board of Canvassers, 269 Wis. 299, 69 N.W.2d 235 (1955)). In Larson, we considered an election contest under SDCL ch. 12-22. Larson involved an appeal from a final judgment ordering that the ballots cast in an election for a director of an irrigation district be disallowed and that a new election be held for the director's position between Locken and Keith Larson. In that case, the night before the election, while Locken was present in an adjoining room at least one voter cast an absentee ballot for the office of director of the district. Further, Locken on the day of the election, delivered three notarized absentee ballots to the polling place. This was coupled with the fact that several other absentee ballots were delivered to election officials by individuals other than the absentee voter or the officer required by law. Evidence also showed that blank absentee ballots were distributed without first receiving written applications therefor. It was also shown that various ballots and return envelopes were not properly notarized, though each envelope contained a properly signed and notarized affidavit. Also, several written applications did not identify their respective voting precinct, voters' places of permanent residence, or the reasons for being unable to attend the polling place on election day, all contrary to SDCL 12-19-2. In Larson, this court noted that the purpose of absentee voting statutes is to allow voters who are unable to attend the polling place on election day the opportunity to vote, to prevent fraud, and to achieve a reasonably prompt determination of the result of the election. Further, we held that it was not the policy of the law to disfranchise voters because of an election official's mistakes, negligence, or misconduct. Absentee ballot voting laws are considered mandatory. As a general rule, the statutory directions to the voter with respect to the time and manner of making applications for an absentee ballot, the manner of marking the same, the taking of the prescribed affidavit, and the return of the ballot, together with the affidavit, are regarded as mandatory and strict compliance therewith is required. Id., 262 N.W.2d at 755 (citing 26 Am. Jur.2d, Elections § 245 (1966) (citing Brown, supra )). The South Dakota Legislature has specifically spoken on this issue. It has provided through SDCL 12-19-34 that it is inappropriate for informalities to invalidate an election. SDCL 12-19-34 provides: No mere informality in the matter of carrying out or executing the provisions of this chapter shall invalidate the election or authorize the rejection of the returns thereof, and the provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed for the purposes herein expressed or intended. Although absentee ballot voting laws are considered mandatory, the violations here do not mandate that this election be set aside. Here, the absentee voters substantially complied with the absentee voting requirements, albeit informally. The procedural irregularities concerning the absentee ballots included: (1) voters who voted in front of Bisek, the business manager; (2) the messenger voters; (3) those who made a telephone call for an absentee ballot; (4) written requests for absentee ballots; and (5) those who appeared in person for absentee ballots. Here, there is no credible evidence that the voters' vote was not secret, nor that any unqualified voter cast an absentee ballot. Ms. Bisek had received a list of qualified voters from the Roberts County Auditor and all of the people who voted in this manner were properly registered to vote. As to the messenger voters, Bisek and another individual personally delivered the absentee ballots to each of the eight voters at their homes. These voters were shutins who were physically unable to vote at the polling places. The voting was secret, and Bisek did not observe how any of these people marked their ballots. In addition, Bisek personally delivered these ballots to the appropriate polling place on the day of election. Obtaining a single ballot as the result of a telephone call to the election official in charge of the election does not rise to the level of invalidating the entire election. As to the sixteen voters who sent written requests for absentee ballots, the primary objection to their voting is based on SDCL 12-19-2. See supra note 1. Appellants' objections are based on the allegations that the absentee ballot requests were not signed by the applicant, failed to state a voting precinct or place of voting residence, the reason for which the ballot was requested, were not stamped with the date they were received, and were not delivered to Bisek in the proper envelope. Here, Bisek knew the voting residences, not only because she knew the voters personally, but also because she was in possession of the auditor's list which gave the voters' voting residences and precincts. Bisek knew that the absentee voters were snowbirds, students, or otherwise out of the city, and she knew they had a valid reason for requesting the absentee ballots. Further, the envelopes were returned to Bisek by certified or registered mail. After receipt of the envelopes by Bisek, she placed them in a safe at the New Effington School until election day and then personally delivered them to the appropriate precinct. Finally, one voter went to Ms. Bisek in person requesting an absentee ballot. This occurred on the day of the election. The voter did not fill out a written application for the ballot. However, the voter's ballot was delivered to the proper precinct and was secret. We therefore hold, under the facts of this case, that there was no substantial violation of the South Dakota absentee voting statutes which, viewed cumulatively, prevented a free and fair expression of the will of the voters. Larson v. Locken, 262 N.W.2d at 754.