Court Opinion

ID: 9531076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:07:13.248063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:20.235271
License: Public Domain

HATHAWAY, Judge,
dissenting.
The trial court’s factual finding of “many irregularities in the override election” is supported by the record and the court’s voiding the absentee ballots, I believe, was appropriate. A.R.S. § 16-542 states in relevant part:
B. The recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall mail postage prepaid to the requesting elector the absentee ballot ... pursuant to § 16-545. Only the elector may be in possession of that elector’s unvoted absentee ballot, either at his place of residence or at a location where he is temporarily residing while absent from his precinct.
(Emphasis added.)
As noted by the majority, our supreme court has enunciated the following cardinal rule governing election contests:
[GJeneral statutes directing the mode of proceeding by election officers are deemed advisory ... unless they affect the result, or at least render it uncertain.
Findley v. Sorenson, 35 Ariz. 265, 269, 276 P. 843, 844 (1929) (emphasis added). The majority acknowledges the trial court found that: “The statute is clear and precise as to mailing. Forty-one absentee votes were acquired by irregular techniques in violation of A.R.S. § 16-542(B). The forty-one irregular ballots made the difference in the election and are hereby voided.”
The majority seems to believe that the trial court had to find the votes obtained irregularly were “fraudulent.” I believe the trial court’s conclusion that the election “result” was affected by the irregular ballots is sufficient. Findley expressed concern where results were involved. 35 Ariz. at 269, 276 P. at 844. The trial court’s determination as fact finder that the irregular absentee ballots “affect[ed] the result” of the election is supported in the record and should not be disturbed. Paul Schoonover, Inc. v. Ram Const., Inc., 129 Ariz. 204, 205, 630 P.2d 27, 28 (1981); Yano v. Yano, 144 Ariz. 382, 384, 697 P.2d 1132, 1134 (App.1985).
Violation of the statutory provisions for absentee ballot delivery by “[njumerous representatives and employees of the ... District” in utilizing personal delivery1 afforded inordinate opportunity for undue influence and abuse circumventing fair elections reflecting the will of the people. The insider influence by District representatives disregarding mandatory statutory provisions calculated to protect the purity of the election clearly registered its impact *459in the results — all 41 absentee votes were “yes.” Without the absentee votes the override was losing with 85 “no” votes and 60 “yes” votes.
Linda Lou Miller, clerk of the school district governing board, and co-appellee, along with 11 district residents, recognized the impropriety of the situation and filed the election contest petition. It was further brought out at trial that the superintendent of the school district had offered school employees $1,000 raises if they helped to get the override passed.2
Ballots cast in violation of statutes safeguarding the free and fair expression of the will of electors from undue influence or intimidation, “affects the freedom and purity of the ballot to exactly the same extent as a ballot tainted with actual fraud____ Violations of those statutes, such as the absentee voting statutes, present the opportunity for fraud, whether committed or intended.” Emery v. Robertson County Election Comm’n, 586 S.W.2d 103, 109 (Tenn.1979).
The official application for an absentee ballot is initiated by a “signed request” from the elector. Once requested, the “recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall mail postage prepaid to the requesting elector the absentee ballot____” A.R.S. § 16-542(B) (emphasis added). Invalidation of tainted ballots which do not follow this statute is the implicit remedy and the one appropriately invoked by the trial court. The record amply supports the trial court’s factual findings.
There is a close connection between the statutory delivery requirements and legislative concerns about fraud and secrecy. Fraud, in particular, is difficult to prove. The purpose of our statutes is to prevent fraud and preserve secrecy through strict procedural controls. A violation of these procedures, therefore, becomes very significant.
* * * * * *
In short, two of the vital concerns of the Legislature in enacting absentee voting legislation — preservation of the secrecy of the ballot and prevention of fraud— were placed in jeopardy by the procedure adopted in these cases. The importance of vindicating these interests outweighs any countervailing concern over the disenfranchisement of voters____ [T]he court has concluded that the intent of the Legislature will best be served by voiding the ballots.
Petition of Byron, 165 N.J.Super. 468, 475-76, 398 A.2d 599, 603 (Law Div.1978), aff'd, 170 N.J.Super. 410, 406 A.2d 982 (App.Div.1979) (emphasis in original).
All votes turned in favored the override. In addition to the concern for the selective and personal delivery of absentee ballots by those charged with impartially making them available, the method employed runs the risk of “the loss” (perhaps with a wink and a nod) of unfavorable, unsealed ballots. The foregoing statutes criminalizing behaviors not conforming to A.R.S. § 16-542 underscore the importance the legislature places upon compliance. The record discloses absentee ballots were presented to electors and retrieved unsealed by unauthorized solicitors with a vested interest in the election outcome. This goes beyond normal electioneering within legal parameters as a recognized and accepted part of the democratic process.
The majority notes, and I agree, that no mere “irregularity” should invalidate an election. However, statutory safeguards calculated to insulate against illegal and out-of-bounds trafficking in absentee ballots is no mere “irregularity.” The absentee vote violated those fundamental safeguards; to also require a showing of actual *460fraud in each of those “out-of-bounds absentee votes” effectively writes out of the law the preventive defensive shields mandated by the legislature to help keep Arizona elections honest reflections of the free and fair will of the people. Here, reversal of the trial court’s ruling ignores egregious, slipshod absentee balloting practice filching the election and rewards the statute’s violators.
I would affirm the trial court; therefore, I respectfully dissent.

. A.R.S. § 16-1016(7) proscribes as a class 5 felony acts by a person who "knowingly and unlawfully ... removes a ... ballot ... from possession of the person authorized by law to have custody thereof." A.R.S. § 16-1018(5) proscribes as a class 2 misdemeanor acts by a person who "[k]nowingly ... receives from a voter a ballot prepared for voting, unless he is an election official.”

. A.R.S. § 16-1014(A), corruption of electors, proscribes as a class 2 misdemeanor, acts by a person who (1) offers or promises "money or other valuable considerations ... to or for any other person to induce the voter to vote ... for any particular ... measure ..." and “(3) re-ceivefs], agree[s], or contracts] for, before, during, or after an election provided by law, money, gifts, loans, or other valuable consideration, office, place or employment ... for voting or agreeing to vote ... or for inducing any person to vote or refrain from voting, or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular person or measure at an election.”