Boardman v. Esteva 323 So.2d 259. 323 So.2d 259 (Cite as: 323 So.2d 259) Page 10 the voter, the right of secrecy may be waived by the voter and it would appear that the voter himself is the only party who has standing to protest a violation of the right to vote in secret. We therefore conclude that the absentee ballots cast in Hillsborough County were not invalidated by reason of a violation of the right of secrecy of the ballot. [18][19] In summary, we hold that the primary consideration in an election contest is whether the will of the people has been effected. In determining the effect of irregularities on the validity of absentee ballots case, the following factors shall be considered: (a) the presence or absence of fraud, gross negligence, or intentional wrongdoing; (b) whether there has been substantial compliance with the essential requirements of the absentee voting law; and (c) whether the irregularities complained of adversely affect the sanctity of the ballot and the integrity of the election. The underlying concern of the election officials in making the initial determination as to the validity of the absentee ballots is whether they were cast by qualified, registered voters, who were entitled to vote absentee and who did so in a proper manner. The substantial compliance test used by the *270 trial judge comports with our conclusion that strict compliance with the statutory requirements for absentee balloting is not required to validate the ballots. Since the trial court found only 88 ballots to be invalid, petitioner Edward F. Boardman is hereby declared the winner of the October 3, 1972, election for the Second District Court of Appeal by a total of 161 votes. Therefore, the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, is quashed. This cause is remanded to the District Court of Appeal with instructions to reinstate and affirm the judgment of the trial court. It is so ordered. ROBERTS, J., and CHAPPELL, Circuit Judge, concur. OVERTON, J., concurs with an opinion. ENGLAND, J., concurs specially to conclusion with an opinion. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, concurs specially with an opinion. OVERTON, Justice (concurring). I have been strict in the exercise of our conflict jurisdiction. A reading of the election contest cases concerning absentee ballots reveals a maze of confusing doctrines and rules. There are cases to sustain the position of both sides. The following are cases which may be asserted to sustain the validity of the critical absentee ballots: McDonald v. Miller, 90 So.2d 124 (Fla.1956); Burke v. Beasley, 75 So.2d 7 (Fla.1954); Jolley v. Whatley, 60 So.2d 762 (Fla.1952); State ex rel. Hutchins v. Tucker, 106 Fla. 905, 143 So. 754 (1932). On the other hand, the following cases may be asserted to invalidate the absentee ballots: Parra v. Harvey, 89 So.2d 870 (Fla.1956); Wood v. Diefenbach, 81 So.2d 777 (Fla.1955); Griffin v. Knoth, 67 So.2d 431 (Fla.1953); Frink v. State ex rel. Turk, 35 So.2d 10 (Fla.1948); State ex rel. Whitley v. Rinehart, 140 Fla. 645, 192 So. 819 (1940); Spradley v. Bailey, 292 So.2d 27 (Fla.App.1st 1974); Papy v. Englander, 267 So.2d 111 (Fla.App.3d 1972). Our role in conflict jurisdiction is to stabilize the law by a review of decisions which form patently irreconcilable precedents. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Bell, 113 So.2d 697 (Fla.1959). The aforementioned cases are impossible to reconcile. In my opinion, we also have jurisdiction because the instant decision of the District Court accepts earlier decisions of this Court as controlling precedent in a situation which is materially at variance with the instant case. See McBurnette v. Playground Equipment Corp., 137 So.2d 563 (Fla.1962). The instant case concerns an 18-county election. The District Court decision invalidates all absentee ballots in all 18 counties by applying the rule that: '. . . (W)here the number of illegal absentee ballots cast is sufficient to change the result of an election, none of the absentee ballots cast in the election will be accepted and counted. . . .'[FN1] FN1. Esteva v. Hindman, 299 So.2d 633, 637 (Fla.App.1st 1974). In all the cases cited for this rule, invalid ballots were com- © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 163