Chapter 1 on the voting machines in the polling places, but Mr. Boardman got 653 more absentee ballot votes and won by an overall margin of 249 votes. Thus, the election result could be changed by only 250 votes. Not surprisingly, the post-election battle was over the absentee ballots.22 Mr. Esteva said that there were 1,450 errors in the absentee ballots, and they all should be thrown out.23 He said that because the 1,450 invalid absentee votes had been commingled with the valid absentee voters, nobody could tell which was which. Mr. Esteva argued that he should win the election because the votes on the voting machines were the only reliable votes cast, and he won the most votes on the voting machines. Mr. Boardman disagreed, and so did the trial court. The court examined all of the absentee ballots and found that while there were many irregularities, only 88 of the absentee ballots were illegal. Obviously, the trial court did not agree with Mr. Esteva about many of the 1,450 errors he claimed in the absentee ballots. Mr. Esteva appealed. On appeal, among other things, the state district court of appeal viewed as illegal 429 ballots that were missing their return envelopes, which contained the absentee voters’ affidavits required by state law. The envelopes had been either lost or destroyed by the canvassing boards in three Florida counties in the judicial district that was being contested. Mr. Esteva prevailed on his appeal. Mr. Boardman then appealed to the Florida Supreme Court. The supreme court, in a wide-ranging opinion, considered the whole body of voting laws in the light of their goal of honoring “a full, fair and free expression of the voters’ will.” At 265. It is in that context that the supreme court considered Mr. Esteva’s burden of proof with regard to those 429 ballots without envelopes and said, 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 (emphasis supplied). As we will see when the Boardman case is discussed in detail in Chapter 3, this statement by the Florida Supreme Court meant that Mr. Esteva lost the lawsuit. Mr. Boardman won the election. F. Summary: Written authority is necessary for election challenges. • There is no common law basis for an election challenge. o However, courts will apply common law principles in an election challenge when fairness demands. Grounds for being able to vote by absentee ballot under Florida law included being in the military service, being absent from the county on election day, being physically unable to get to the polls and being unable to go to the polls on the particular election day because of a religious belief. Boardman at 264. See also the discussion of absentee ballots in Chapter 1, Section C. Common law principles ensure fairness in election challenges: due diligence. 23 The errors included applications for absentee ballots (1) that were not signed by the applicant, (2) whose return envelopes were not signed across the flap, (3) in which the official title of the subscribing witness was not indicated, (4) for which the names of the electors were not on record, (5) for which the reason for voting absentee was not specifically indicated on the return envelope, (6) in which the address of the attesting witness was omitted, (7) which had no post office cancellation stamp and (8) which had vague identification of witnesses. 22 17