Jacobs v. Seminole County Canvassing Board 773 So.2d 519 773 So.2d 519, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S1123, 26 Fla. L. Weekly S6 (Cite as: 773 So.2d 519) Page 1 144k216.1 Most Cited Cases Briefs and Other Related Documents Supreme Court of Florida. Harry N. JACOBS, etc., et al., Appellants, v. SEMINOLE COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, etc., et al., Appellees. No. SC00-2447. Dec. 12, 2000. Action contesting certification of state results in presidential election was brought against county canvassing board and others, alleging thousands of absentee ballots should be invalidated for failing to comply with laws governing absentee ballots. The Circuit Court, Leon County, Nikki Ann Clark, J., entered judgment denying all relief. Appeal was taken. The First District Court of Appeal certified judgment as being of great public importance and requiring immediate resolution by the Supreme Court. On review, the Supreme Court held that: (1) conduct of county supervisor of elections in allowing representatives of one political party access to her office for purpose of adding voter identification numbers to requests for absentee ballots, but failing to notify other political parties or any other group or to invite them to take same action, did not amount to illegal disparate treatment, and (2) information on application forms for absentee ballots was sufficient to establish the qualifications of each applicant, and thus, supervisor's conduct did not amount to fraud, gross negligence, or intentional wrongdoing in connection with any absentee ballots. Affirmed. West Headnotes [1] Elections 227(8) 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases Unless a statutory provision governing absentee voting specifically states that the lack of information voids the ballot, the lack of the information does not automatically void the ballot. [2] Elections 216.1 [2] Elections 227(8) 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases The statutory requirement that the requester "must" disclose the nine items listed as necessary for a request for an absentee ballot is simply not a definitive statement by the Legislature that requests which are missing the voter's registration number are illegal or void. West's F.S.A. § 101.62. [3] Elections 216.1 144k216.1 Most Cited Cases [3] Elections 227(8) 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases Conduct of county supervisor of elections in allowing representatives of one political party access to her office for purpose of adding voter identification numbers to requests for absentee ballots in presidential election, but failing to notify other political parties or any other group or to invite them to take same action, did not amount to illegal disparate treatment such that integrity of the ballots or election was compromised in connection with any absentee ballots, where only political party that was allowed access mailed out preprinted request forms without either a space for identification numbers or a preprinted number, and there was no evidence that any other political party or subdivision requested similar access and was denied it. [4] Elections 216.1 144k216.1 Most Cited Cases [4] Elections 227(8) 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases Information on application forms for absentee ballots in presidential election, which included each applicant's name, address, signature, and the last four digits of the applicant's social security number, was sufficient to establish each applicant's qualifications, and thus, conduct of county supervisor of elections in allowing third parties to correct omissions on the forms by adding voter identification numbers to forms that were already signed and returned did not amount to fraud, gross negligence, or intentional wrongdoing such that election results were compromised in connection with any absentee ballots. © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 289