The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges The following statement was quoted in the discussion of Boardman in Chapter 1. As to the actual validity of the ballots whose return envelopes are missing, we first point out that as a general rule election officials are presumed to perform their duties in a proper and lawful manner in the absence of a sufficient showing to the contrary…and also there is a presumption that returns certified by election officials are presumed to be correct…The burden is clearly on the contestor to establish that the ballots have been irregularly cast…There is nothing in the record to indicate that the absentee ballots in question were not cast by qualified registered voters who were entitled to vote absentee, therefore, the presumption of the correctness of the election officials’ returns stands. At 268. The finishing touch in this analysis was the Florida Supreme Court’s conclusion that errors by election officials, while resulting in irregular ballots, do not deprive a voter of his or her vote. When the voters have done all that the statute has required them to do, they will not be disfranchised solely on the basis of the failure of the election officials to observe directory statutory instructions. At 268 (emphasis supplied). Note that this conclusion depends totally on the earlier part of the decision where the supreme court defined the irregularities committed by the election officials as being directory, not mandatory. What the Florida Supreme Court said in Boardman about irregularities in absentee ballots holds true with regard to all irregularities in the election process. In fact, a case that the Florida Supreme Court relied upon heavily in Boardman was Wilson v. Revels, 61 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1952), which involved ballots cast on voting machines, not absentee ballots. The court in Boardman said, Although we recognize that we were dealing primarily with regular machine votes in Wilson, it would be stretching the law to unreasonable lengths to conclude that the result should be different in this case simply because we are dealing with absentee ballots. At 267. The court ended its opinion this way: 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 [sic] 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; (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 54