The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 736 A.2d 104 772 250So.2d Conn.1240 241, 736 A.2d 104, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 1019 772 So.2d 1240, 25 Fla. L. 736 Weekly (Cite as: 250 Conn. 241, A.2dS1102 104) (Cite as: 772 So.2d 1240) of Connecticut. Tallahassee,Supreme Florida, Court on behalf of George W. Bush; StevenWest BORTNER and Leonard Berger, Palm Beach, Florida; v. A. Pohl, Fort LauderBruce Rogow and Beverly TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE et al.Jr., West dale, Florida; and Robert M. Montgomery, No.on16114. Palm Beach, Florida, behalf of Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, and Theresa Lepore, SuArgued June 11, 1999. in Case No. pervisor of Elections, for Appellees Decided Aug. 17, 1999. SC00-2373. Unsuccessful write-in candidate for P.A., elementary Michelle G. Trca of Michelle G. Trca, Fort board of education brought action against reLauderdale, Florida; and Charles Frederick town, Chester gistrars of voters, and successful candidates, chalof the Law Offices of Charles F. Chester, Washinglenging results based onNo. alleged voting maton, D.C.,election for Appellants in Case SC00-2376. chine malfunctions. The Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, Pittman, J., ordered new Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel, Florida Deelection. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, partment of State, Tallahassee, Florida; Victoria L. Borden, held that: (1) trialTallahassee, court abusedFlorida, its disWeber andJ.,Donna E. Blanton, cretion open evidence consider and DavidinI.refusing Spector, to West Palm Beach, to Florida, of election records offeredLLP, by defendants, andthe (2)Secnew Steel, Hector & Davis, on behalf of election warranted. retary of was Statenot and the Elections Canvassing Commission; Barry Richard of Greenberg, Traurig, Reversed and remanded with P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, on direction. behalf of George W. Bush; *1242 Leonard Berger, West Palm Beach, Berdon, J., concurred and filed opinion. Florida, on behalf of Palm Beach County Canvassing Board; andWest Bruce Rowgow and Beverly A. Headnotes Pohl, Fort Lauderdale, [1] Elections 8.1 Florida, and Robert M. Montgomery, Jr., West Palm Beach, Florida, on be144k8.1 Most Cited Cases half of Theresa Lepore, Supervisor of Elections, Purpose of election statutes is to ensure the true for and Appellees in Case No. SC002376. most accurate count possible of votes for candidates in the election. PER CURIAM. [2] Elections 227(8) We have for review a trial court order appealed to 144k227(8) Most Cited Cases the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which certified When individual ballot is questioned, no voter is to the order to be of great public importance and to rebe disfranchised on a doubtful construction, and quire immediate resolution by this Court. We have statutes tending to limit exercise of ballot should be jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(5) of liberally construed in his or her favor. the Florida Constitution. [3] Elections 298(1) [1] The issue in this case concerns the legality of 144k298(1) Most Cited Cases the form of the ballot used in Palm Beach County, Election laws generally vest primary responsibility Florida, in the November 7, 2000, general election for ascertaining intent and will of voters on election for the President and Vice President of the United officials, subject to court's appropriate scope of reStates. The remedy sought by the appellants [FN1] is a re-vote, a new election, or a statistical reallocation of the election totals in Palm Beach County. Page 1 Page 2 view when officials' determination is challenged in a judicial proceeding. FN1. The appellants in this case are electors from Palm Beach County. [4] Elections 227(1) Most below, Cited Cases In144k227(1) the trial court the appellants filed comNo losing candidateseveral is entitled to the equiplaints containing claims forelectoral declaratory, valent of aand "mulligan," whichAfter is a holding free shota hearsomeinjunctive, other relief. times to adenied golferrelief. in nontournament play ing, theawarded trial court The appellants when preceding wasDistrict poorly played. appealed to the shot Fourth Court of Appeal, which certified the trial court's order to this Court [5] Elections 298(3) based on the Court's "pass-through" jurisdiction. 144k298(3) Most Cited Caseshave asked this Court In their briefs, the appellants (Formerly 144k227(1)) to rule on the legality of the Palm Beach County To secure judicial order municipal election, ballot. They claim thatfor thenew ballot is patently dechallenger is not required to establish that, but for fective on its face in that the form and design of the irregularities that he has established as a factual ballot violated the statutory requirements of Florida matter, law. he would have prevailed in that election; inelection The appellants contend the balstead, must be that they (1) there lot wascourt confusing and,persuaded as a result, fear were that substantial errors in rulings of election official they may have cast their vote for a candidate otheror officials, or they substantial mistakes in count of votes, than the one intended. and (2) as a result of those errors or mistakes, reliability result of election, by elec[2] The of ballot form alleged toasbedetermined patently defective tionattached officials, in asdoubt. C.G.S.A. was to is theseriously complaints an exhibit. Ex-§ 9-328.attached to a pleading become a part of the hibits pleading for all purposes. See Fla. R. Civ. P. [6] Elections 305(2)facially negates the cause 1.130(b). If an exhibit Most Cited Cases attached as an exof144k305(2) action asserted, the document Although underlying facts to be established by a hibit controls and must be are considered in determinpreponderance of evidence and are subject on aping a motion to dismiss. See Health Application peal Inc. to the clearly erroneous standard,Ins. ultimate deSys., v. Hartford Life & Accident Co., 381 termination of whether, based on underlying facts, a So.2d 294, 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). new municipal election is called for, that is, whether there substantial violations statute au[3][4] As were a general rule, a court shouldofnot void an thorizing to form order defects new election reelection forcourt ballot unlessthat suchrender defects liability resulttoofbeelection seriously in doubt, is a cause the of ballot in substantial noncompliance mixed fact and law that is subject with thequestion statutoryofelection requirements. See Nel-to plenary review on § 9-328; Pracson v. Robinson, 301appeal. So.2d C.G.S.A. 508, 510 (Fla. 2d DCA tice Book 1998, §a60-5. 1974) (rejecting post-election challenge based upon an alleged defect in the alignment of the can[7] Statutes didates' names on 181(1) the ballot). When considering a 361k181(1) Mosta Cited Cases petition alleging violation in the form of the ballot, [FN2] "a vital consideration guiding the courts [7] Statutes 188 in determining whether an election should be 361k188 Most Cited Cases voided is the reluctance to reach a decision which would result in the disfranchisement of the voters. Indeed, as regards defects in ballots, the courts have generally declined to void an election unless such 214 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.