The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 323 So.2d 259. 323 So.2d 259 (Cite as: 323 So.2d 259) Page 3 Angerer, Ervin, Varn, Jacobs & Odom, Tallahassee, for petitioner. Leo Foster, Tallahassee, and Henry Esteva, in pro. per., for respondent. ADKINS, Chief Justice. On petition for certiorari, we have for review a decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Esteva v. Hindman, 299 So.2d 633 (Fla.App.1st, 1974), which allegedly conflicts with this Court's decision in State ex rel. Hutchins v. Tucker, 106 Fla. 905, 143 So. 754 (1932). The source of our jurisdiction is Fla.Const., art. V, s 3(b)(3), F.S.A. This is a contest of the October 3, 1972, election for a seat on the Second District Court of Appeal, in which the petitioner, Boardman, was declared winner over respondent, Esteva. Although Esteva received 404 more machine or regular votes than did Boardman, the latter received 653 more absentee ballots, for an overall majority of 249 votes. This dispute solely involves the validity of the 3.389 absentee ballots cast in the election. Esteva brought suit in the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit seeking to have the court declare him the winner of the election on the basis of the machine vote only, and to have the election declared illegal in respect to the absentee ballots cast. Although no fraud or wrongdoing was charged, Esteva alleged that there were some 1450 irregularities or errors in the absentee ballots. Therefore, since 250 votes for Esteva could change the result of the election and it was impossible to identify for whom the illegal ballots had been cast, the ballots being commingled, the absentee ballots should be thrown out. The trial judge, after considering the pleadings, admissions, affidavits and other matters on file, together with arguments of counsel for the respective parties and their briefs, granted summary judgment for Boardman, finding that of the 1450 alleged flaws, only 88 set forth a real basis to conclude that the ballots were illegal. Among these were 13 in which the application was not signed by the applicant, 17 in which return envelopes were not signed across the flap, 39 in which the official title of the subscribing witness was not indicated and 19 in which the names of the electors were not on record. 156 The trial court concluded that the remainder of the alleged irregularities involved *262 a number of 'clerical misprisions or omissions, most of which are of so little real significance as to be fairly classified as unsubstantial.' For example, the court found: '(d) There are shown 16 in which the reason for voting absentee was not specifically indicated on the application and 79 in which such reason was not indicated on the return envelope. Each of these forms contains the five categories of persons who may vote absentee with instructions to 'check appropriate reason'. Failure to put a check mark into one or more of those designations is not deemed fatal to the validity of the ballot. The signature of the elector is adequate to at least certify that one or more of the reasons is applicable and in the case of the certificate on the return envelope it is under oath. Even if these are to be counted illegal they would not change the results. '(e) The other irregularities, such as address of attesting witness omitted, post office cancellation stamp not affixed, vague identification of witnesses, failure of deputies to record oath, and the other discrepancies are not of vital consequence and may be attributed more logically to human misunderstanding of minute technicalities than to lack of diligence to comply with essential requirements. Fraud, corruption or gross negligence are completely absent. '(f) The plaintiff urges that all absentee votes of Hillsborough County, of which Esteva received 133 and Boardman 320, must be suppressed because they were counted and returns made in accordance with an injunction order of the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County in the case of Levine, et al. v. Falsone, et al., constituting the Canvass Board, Case No. 213299. It is contended that such procedure ordered by the Court violated F.S. 101.68 and other statutes and breached the fundamental requirement of secrecy. This Court does not interpret the Hillsborough Circuit Court order as having that effect and has not overlooked Papy v. Englander, Fla.App. (Third) 267 So.2d 111. However, in any event this Court has no appellate supervision of the circuit court which rendered the injunctive order, and will make no judgment except to approve the obedience of the election officials to its commands and to accept their returns pursuant thereto.' © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.