Opinion

Becker v. Pfeifer

  • 588 N.W.2d 913
  • 1999 SD 17
  • 1999 S.D. LEXIS 20
Court
South Dakota Supreme Court
Filed
Feb 4, 1999
Status
Published
Author
Amundson
On the bench
Miller, Sabers, Konenkamp, Gilbertson, Amundson
Cited by
7 cases
Authority
More cited than 0.2%

holding voters will not be disenfranchised due to an election official’s mistakes, negligence, or misconduct, “unless that conduct has been carried to such an extent as to affect the true outcome of the election and put the results in doubt[,]” as elevating form over substance when the right to have one’s vote counted is at stake is unwarranted

How later courts described this case

  • holding voters will not be disenfranchised due to an election official’s mistakes, negligence, or misconduct, “unless that conduct has been carried to such an extent as to affect the true outcome of the election and put the results in doubt[,]” as elevating form over substance when the right to have one’s vote counted is at stake is unwarranted
  • Amundson, J., concurring: "Election results that show a free and fair expression of the will of the voters should not be overturned due to the mistakes or neglect of an election official.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

AMUNDSON, Justice

(concurring in result).

[¶ 27.] I agree with the result, but would go further to hold that election official’s mistakes, negligence or misconduct, such as failure to stamp absentee ballots, should no longer invalidate ballots and disenfranchise voters unless it is shown that irregularities amount to more than a minor mistake or neglectful act by an official. In Larson v. Locken, this Court held that failure to affix the official stamp to an absentee ballot which, “SDCL 12-20-6 has specifically made mandatory ... invalidates all such ballots.” 262 N.W.2d at 756 (internal citations omitted). Larson, has not been followed in the present ease and should be overruled as far as it is inconsistent with this decision. I would reiterate it is, “not the policy of this state to disenfranchise a voter because of an election official’s mistake or negligence, but rather, ‘to determine and carry out the intent of the elector when satisfied that the elector has endeavored to express such intent in the manner prescribed by law[.]’ ” Christensen, 500 N.W.2d at 215 (quoting Duffy v. Mortenson, 497 N.W.2d 437, 438 (S.D.1993) (citations omitted)). Election results that show a free and fair expression of the will of the voters should not be overturned due to the mistakes or neglect of an election official.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.