The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges The trial court invalidated 885 ballots that it found had no voter or witness signature or that had no address for the witness. This ruling narrowed incumbent sheriff Vogel’s margin of victory to 2,005 votes. Mr. Beckstrom appealed to an intermediary court, which certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court saying, “This Court has found no case wherein the trial court has made a finding of gross negligence by a Canvassing Board and many technical violations of [the law] by the supervisor of elections, yet validated the election.” At 724. C.1. Election officials’ gross negligence can void the election The Florida Supreme Court first affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the 885 absentee ballots without signatures or addresses were illegal and thus invalid, and the trial court’s conclusion that there was an accurate count of the absentee ballots. These rulings were affirmed on the ground that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.60 The supreme court then reviewed the Boardman decision, quoting large portions of it, and proceeded to discuss the extent to which gross negligence by election officials will invalidate an election. The supreme court said, We set forth in Boardman the following factors to be considered in determining the effect of absentee ballot irregularities: (a) the presence or absence of fraud, gross negligence, or intentional wrongdoing… At 725. The emphasis on the words “gross negligence” is the court’s. The supreme court took several steps to define “gross negligence,” but their effort boils down to a question of whether the will of the voters can be shown by the facts of a case. If the will of the voters can be shown by the facts, and the election officials’ wrongdoing is unintentional, then the results of the election will stand. To get to this result, first the supreme court contrasted two situations: • where there were substantial irregularities and the will of the voters could not be determined, and • where there were substantial irregularities and the will of the voters could be determined. …[I]f a court finds substantial noncompliance with statutory election procedures and also makes a factual determination that reasonable doubt exists as to whether a certified election expressed the will of the voters, then the court in an election contest…is to void the contested election even in the absence of fraud or intentional wrongdoing. …[T]he essence of our Boardman decision is that a trial court’s factual determination that a contested certified election reliably reflects the will of the voters outweighs the court’s determination of unintentional wrongdoing by election officials in order to allow the real parties in interest—the voters—to prevail. At 724 (emphasis supplied). Then, to distinguish “unintentional wrongdoing” from situations involving intentional wrongdoing, including fraud, the supreme court said, 60 This manner of proceeding on review is discussed in Chapter 6. 56