The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 707 So.2d 720 707 So.2d 720, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S149 (Cite as: 707 So.2d 720) Page 1 the election result. Briefs and Other Related Documents Supreme Court of Florida. Gus BECKSTROM, Appellant, v. VOLUSIA COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD and Robert L. Vogel, Appellees. No. 91642. March 19, 1998. Unsuccessful sheriff candidate challenged election results, alleging fraud and substantial failure on part of county election officials in complying with requirements of election laws pertaining to absentee ballots. The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Volusia County, John V. Doyle, J., determined re-marking procedure used on unreadable absentee ballots was not in substantial compliance with statutes and officials were grossly negligent, but there was no fraud. Candidate appealed. The Fifth District Court of Appeal certified to the Supreme Court the issue of whether there could be a finding of gross negligence on part of election officials yet an election could be validated. The Supreme Court, Wells, J., held that: (1) court can sustain certified election result even after court has found substantial noncompliance with elections statutes where court finds result reflects will of the people; (2) in cases of substantial noncompliance with election statutes caused by unintentional wrongdoing, court can only void election if it finds that the noncompliance resulted in doubt as to whether certified election reflected voters' will; (3) county's process of remarking ballots was not in substantial compliance with statute even though it was widely used and recommended by manufacturer's representative; and (4) trial court had jurisdiction to decide issue presented in election contest. Trial court affirmed. West Headnotes [1] Elections 227(8) 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases Trial court could find gross negligence in handling of absentee ballots but find there was no fraud and still sustain 144 [2] Elections 227(1) 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases Trial court can sustain a certified election result, even after court has found substantial noncompliance with the election statutes, where court finds that result reflects the will of the people despite the substantial noncompliance. [3] Elections 227(1) 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases If court finds substantial noncompliance with statutory election procedures and makes factual determination that reasonable doubt exists as to whether a certified election expressed the will of the voters, then court must void contested election even in the absence of fraud or intentional wrongdoing. West's F.S.A. § 102.168. [4] Elections 227(1) 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases Trial court's factual determination that contested certified election reliably reflects the will of the voters will outweigh finding of unintentional wrongdoing resulting in substantial noncompliance with election procedures, even if noncompliance is result of gross negligence. [5] Elections 227(1) 144k227(1) Most Cited Cases In holding that trial court's factual determination that contested certified election reliably reflects the will of the voters outweighs a court's determination of "unintentional wrongdoing" by election officials, unintentional wrongdoing means noncompliance with statutorily mandated election procedures in situations in which noncompliance results from incompetence, lack of care, or election officials' erroneous understanding of the statutory requirements. [6] Elections 227(8) 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases Term "gross negligence" as used in factors set out to be considered in determining effect of absentee ballot irregularities, considering presence or absence of fraud, gross negligence, or intentional wrongdoing, is not used as in a tort action and is not measurement of degree of care by election officials, but rather, means negligence that is so pervasive © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.