Boardman v. Esteva 323 So.2d 259. 323 So.2d 259 (Cite as: 323 So.2d 259) Page 6 enactment of the absentee voting law (Rinehart), it would be naive of us to fail to recognize that the accommodation of the public has become the primary basis for the privilege of voting absentee. The Legislature of Florida recognized this when it amended the statute to provide absentee voting for persons who may be absent from the county on election day or who are physically unable to make it to the polls, or who may be prevented by their religious beliefs from voting on a particular day. See Fla.Stat. s 101.62(3), F.S.A. *265 [3][4] In developing a rule regarding how far irregularities in absentee ballots will affect the result of the election, A fundamental inquiry should be whether or not the irregularity complained of has prevented a full, fair and free expression of the public will. Unless the absentee voting laws which have been violated in the casting of the vote expressly declared that the particular act is essential to the validity of the ballot, or that its omission will cause the ballot not to be counted, the statute should be treated as directory, not mandatory, Provided such irregularity is not calculated to affect the integrity of the ballot or election. Fla.Stat. s 101.67(3), F.S.A., for example, declares that the absentee ballot shall be counted only where the 'application for absentee elector's ballot' is properly executed and placed in an envelope separate from the absentee ballot. It is clear, therefore, that the Legislature intended that any application not so properly executed and separated from the ballot must not be counted. This does not mean, however, that insignificant omissions or irregularities appearing on the application form suggested in Fla.Stat. s 101.62, F.S.A., must void the ballot where the information that does appear on the application is sufficient to determine the qualifications of the applicant to vote absentee, and the omissions or irregularities are not essential to the sanctity of the ballot. The Legislature did not define what it meant by the term 'properly executed,' nor did it say that the application form suggested in Fla.Stat. s 101.62, F.S.A., had to be strictly complied with.[FN4] To the contrary, Fla.Stat. s 101.62, F.S.A., states that the application shall be in substantially the same form as that found in the statute. On the other hand, the Legislature has clearly mandated that if the absent elector's ballot is not placed in an envelope separate from the absentee ballot, as required by Fla.Stat. s 101.67(3), F.S.A., the ballot will in no event be counted. FN4. Although not controlling here, we note that in the Legislative session subsequent to this contested election, Fla.Stat. s 101.67, F.S.A., was amended in two interesting particulars. First, the elector is no longer required to restate on the elector's certificate his reason for voting absentee, although the elector must state that he or she is voting absentee for the reason stated in the application for absentee ballot. Second, no longer is the elector required to fill in the number of the precinct in which he or she is registered to vote on the elector's certificate. That is now the duty of the election official. At the very least the Legislature has by these amendments recognized the repetitiousness of the information appearing on the two forms for the application and elector's certificate. We feel that the Legislature has also recognized that certain items previously required to be complied with are not essential to the sanctity of the ballot. Absolute strict compliance, even with mandatory provisions in every case, however, could reach absurd proportions. For example, under a former version of Fla.Stat. s 101.64, F.S.A., an elector who certified that he would be absent from the State on election day would not have strictly complied with the statutory requirement that the elector certify his intention to be absent from the county on election day. Could it serously be doubted that such an elector failed to state his intention to be absent from the county? Yet, his ballot would have been void under the strict compliance rule. Frink, supra. [5][6] It is true that the absentee voting statutes are in derogation of the common law and therefore must be strictly construed. Strict construction, however, does not necessarily mean strict compliance. In Brown v. Grzeskowiak, 230 Ind. 110, 101 N.E.2d 639 (1951), the Supreme Court of Indiana agreed that absentee voting laws are generally strictly construed. The Court then said: 'Even though such statutes do, under certain circumstances, extend a special privilege to those who may be away from their voting place on election day, It must be kept in mind, even when applying the rules of strict construction, *266 in ascertaining the meaning of the lan- © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 159