The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges • The Democratic Party committee did not convene after the election as it was required to, and it was not until five days after the election that some non-committee people, who had proxies from the Democratic committee members, showed up to meet. • When the Democratic committee (made up of the proxy people) met, some of the Grant Par- ish returns and all of the Rapides Parish returns were still missing, so the proxy committee members adjourned for another four days while the ballot boxes were obtained under court order and opened to retrieve the missing returns. • When the ballot boxes were opened, it was discovered that the tally sheets in the ballot boxes were not signed and sworn by the precinct officials as required by state law. • There were no voting booths at four precincts, making the secrecy of the ballot an issue: at two of the precincts, voters could go into a separate room to vote; at the third, there was an area screened off by a curtain; and in the fourth, there was an area screened off by a “suspended blanket.” Mr. Blackman won the vote district-wide with or without the yellow ballots, which is probably why Mr. Andrews sought to have the election invalidated and did not seek to just have the yellow ballots thrown out. Moreover, after a recount was held, Mr. Andrews admitted that, except for the four precincts at which there were no voting booths, there was no tampering with the ballot boxes from the time they were sealed following the election, that no tally sheet was altered, and that the voting took place at the usual polling places for each precinct. On these facts, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that, The testimony of all the witnesses, whether for contestant or contestee (and there are quite a number), practically concurs to the effect that there was no fraud, no intimidation, no overlooking of voters who were preparing their ballots; that the votes were counted and entered on the tally sheets; that the ballots were replaced in the boxes, with the tally sheets and poll lists; that the boxes, having been sealed, were delivered to the returning officers, and by them delivered to the clerk. On the whole, we are satisfied that the election was fairly conducted; that the result as promulgated represents the declared wishes of a majority (by some 300) of the qualified electors who participated therein; that no one who desired to vote, and was entitled so to do, was deprived of that privilege by reason of any action of the officers conducting the election; and that, if all the errors shown to have been committed were corrected, and all the omissions supplied, the result would be the same—the contestee would still be entitled to the nomination. At 771-772 (emphasis supplied).26 On the law, the supreme court held “that it is the casting of the ballots, by the legally qualified electors, unimpeded by force or fraud, which determines the result…” The supreme court continued, The officers charged with its conduct are merely agents, whose duty it is to facilitate the electors Litigation over the election results is, of necessity, usually hastily prepared, and lawyers rarely have the time to prepare a well-organized, thorough record. For example, the Louisiana Supreme Court pointed out with regard to Verda, one of the precincts involved in this case, “We find no oral testimony in regard to Verda, though in view of the confused mass of papers of which the record is composed, and the short time allowed for this examination, it may have escaped our search.” At 771. 26 20