The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges At 725-726.62 This case, therefore, is a good example of the push and pull between the legislative and judicial branches of government in the United States. Here, the state legislature set out the exact procedures that election officials were to follow. There is no issue in either of these two cases that the statutes were vague about what actions the election officials should take with respect to absentee ballots. Rather, it is clear what the statutes required, and it is clear that the officials did not do what the statutes said. Thus, the legislature well may have thought it had done all it needed to do to make election officials ensure that absentee ballots are cast only according to the rules and under the circumstances that the legislature set out. But the court used its equitable powers to look to the result of applying the statutory requirements. The court found that the ballots of legitimate, registered voters would be disqualified if the legislature’s requirements were given mandatory effect. And there was no legislative statement that those ballots should be disqualified if the legislature’s requirements were not followed. So the court adopted an analysis that divorced the unintentional mistakes of the election officials from the effect of those actions on the ballot. This approach allowed the court to examine whether the effect of the election officials’ actions made the ballots illegal. The court defined illegality in terms of: a) whether the voters were qualified to cast the ballot, and b) whether the vote on the ballot could be determined. When these two factors were found in the affirmative, the ballots, taken together, reflected the will of the people. The will of the people could only be defeated by evidence of fraud or some other condition that tainted the fundamental character of election, or by a statute that specifically says the votes are invalid and cannot be counted. Otherwise, the ballots should be considered to be valid, and should be counted. The actions of the election officials, on the other hand, can be addressed on their own, in a later proceeding. Thus, the Florida Supreme Court concluded that, We approve the trial court’s findings in respect to fraud. We construe the trial court’s finding of gross negligence in this instance to be a measurement of the culpability of the election officials but not a finding that the election failed to express the will of the voters. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court was within its discretion in determining from the evidence that the election was a “full and fair expression of the will of the people. Vogel won it.” At 727. C.3. Courts interpret laws to allow the expression of voters’ intent The principles of Boardman and Beckstrom affect challenges to the election of federal officials too. Among their progeny is Jacobs v. Seminole County Canvassing Board, 773 So.2d 519 (Fla. 2000), a contest of the November 7, 2000 United States Presidential election. The facts were not in dispute. State law required that a voter’s request for an absentee ballot carry (among other things) the voter’s registration number as shown on his or her registration identification 62 The Florida Supreme Court was equally adamant in Jacobs v. Seminole County Canvassing Board, 773 So.2d 519, 524 (2000), that wrongdoing by election officials should not go unpunished. The avenues of prosecution and disciplinary action remain open to be used against election officials after cases involving election contests have concluded. Of course, it would be difficult to mount a criminal prosecution of an official whose actions had been found by a state supreme court to be unintentional. Disciplinary action would be the more realistic response to those officials’ misdeeds. 58