# Becker v. Pfeifer

> South Dakota Supreme Court · February 4, 1999 · 588 N.W.2d 913

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9514683

## Case

- **Full name:** Larry BECKER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Julie PFEIFER, Defendant and Appellee
- **Court:** South Dakota Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 4, 1999
- **Citations:** 588 N.W.2d 913; 1999 SD 17; 1999 S.D. LEXIS 20
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Amundson
- **Judges:** Miller, Sabers, Konenkamp, Gilbertson, Amundson
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9514683

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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…

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9514683. Public record. Not legal advice.