Taylor v. Cox
Decision Date | 13 February 1998 |
Citation | 710 So.2d 406 |
Parties | Regina R. TAYLOR v. John C. COX, Jr. John C. COX, Jr. v. Regina R. TAYLOR. 1960578, 1960786. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Collins Pettaway, Jr., of Chestnut, Sanders, Sanders & Pettaway, P.C., Selma, for appellant/cross appellee Taylor.
David A. Simon of Wills & Simon, Bay Minette, for appellee/cross appellant.
These appeals stem from a contest of an election for the position of city council member for district four in Bay Minette. In the August 27, 1996, election, the incumbent, John C. Cox, Jr., was challenged by Regina R. Taylor. Cox was determined to have won the election; that result was contested by Taylor, who disputed the validity of several absentee ballots cast for Cox.
The trial court determined that Cox had received 109 valid nonabsentee votes and that Taylor had received 112 valid nonabsentee votes. 1 The trial court also determined that Cox had received four valid absentee votes, 2 for a total of 113 votes, one more than Taylor. The trial court ruled that although the four absentee voters had not themselves signed the application form for the absentee ballots, as Taylor argued was required by Ala.Code 1975, § 17-10-4, the absentee votes were valid and Cox had won the election. Taylor appealed. 3
The decisive issue is strictly a question of law; thus, the de novo standard of review applies to that issue. We are asked to determine the meaning of § 17-10-4, Ala.Code 1975 (Cum.Supp.1997), specifically the portion thereof emphasized below:
(As amended by Act No. 96-885, § 2, Ala. Acts 1996, effective August 2, 1996.) (Emphasis added.)
The signatures of the voters on the four absentee ballots at issue were properly notarized or witnessed, as required by § 17-10-17. Taylor challenges the absentee ballots strictly because the voters did not themselves sign the application forms for the absentee ballots, but had a designated agent sign the application form for them. Thus, we must determine whether § 17-10-4 requires that in all instances absentee ballot application forms must be signed by the voters themselves. In other words, is an otherwise valid absentee vote made invalid by the fact that the absentee voter did not himself or herself sign the application form?
In interpreting § 17-10-4, we have kept in mind the first rule of statutory construction: to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Hines v. Riverside Chevrolet-Olds, Inc., 655 So.2d 909 (Ala.1994); Beavers v. County of Walker, 645 So.2d 1365 (Ala.1994). If possible, a court should gather the intent of the legislature from the plain language of the statute. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc. v. Hopkins, 678 So.2d 1052 (Ala.1996); Beavers, supra.
After reviewing the text of § 17-10-4, we find its language and meaning clear. The wording "shall be manually signed by the applicant" clearly means that the applicant for an absentee ballot must himself or herself sign the application for the absentee ballot form. The record does not indicate that any voter whose ballot was challenged by Taylor because he or she did not personally sign the absentee ballot application was physically unable to sign the application. 4 Although § 17-10-4 makes no exception or accommodation for a person physically incapable of making his or her own signature, such as a quadriplegic, or for one who is otherwise similarly infirm, it is not this Court's place to question the wisdom of the legislature. However, because it appears that § 17-10-4 has the effect of depriving certain persons who are incapable of manually signing an absentee ballot application form of their right to vote, we suggest that the legislature reconsider the wording of this statute.
Thus, the trial court erred in holding that the absentee ballots were valid even though the applications for the ballots had not been manually signed by the applicants. We reverse the judgment of the trial court, which held that Cox had received four valid absentee ballots, and we remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
I concur with the majority opinion, and I write specially to address the importance of upholding the Legislature's procedural protections of the voting process.
This simple election case concerns a principle at the very heart of the democratic process--the integrity of elections. Voters elect representatives to perform the legislative function of setting public policy through the enactment of statutes. See Ala. Const.1901, § 46 ( ); § 42 ( ). It is the province of the courts to interpret those statutes to effect the intent of the people's elected representatives. See Ala. Const.1901, § 42 ( ); id. at amend. 328, § 6.01(a) ( ). Nowhere is this fundamental principle of more obvious consequence than in the interpretation of statutes governing the election of those who represent the people.
Section 17-10-4, Ala.Code 1975, provides in pertinent part: "Any applicant may receive assistance in filling out the application as he or she desires, but each application shall be manually signed by the applicant ...." (Emphasis added.) The simple words "shall be manually signed by the applicant" plainly mean that the applicant himself must sign the application for the absentee ballot. The applications in this case were not manually signed by the applicants. 5 Therefore the applications are illegal and the ballots obtained thereby should not be counted. 6
Justice Cook, in his dissent, 710 So.2d at 410, emphasizes that "it is the ultimate act ... of casting a fraudulent ballot " that is the evil. He concludes that the plain meaning of § 17-10-4, which regulates the intermediate step of obtaining the absentee ballot by signing an application, may therefore be ignored. Id. Yet, such an intermediate step can facilitate the ultimate fraud. For example, in Williams v. Lide, 628 So.2d 531, 537 (Ala.1993), this Court described a use of applications to fraudulently obtain and cast absentee ballots:
7
The Legislature is not restricted to regulating only the final step in an illegal scheme, but may regulate intermediate steps, steps seemingly innocent in themselves, to combat a danger to the citizenry. 8
The danger of allowing absentee ballots to be procured by political "agents" for subsequent fraudulent casting can be largely eliminated by requiring that each absentee voter manually sign the application for his individual ballot, thus limiting the use of applications, and ballots, to one per voter. The Legislature, by enacting § 17-10-4, made the policy choice to limit the use of applications to one per voter. Today, this Court respects the Legislature's policy choice, and I concur.
It is undisputed that the four absentee ballots actually cast for the appellee John Cox, Jr., and counted by the trial court, were either witnessed by two persons or were notarized. See Ala.Code 1975, § 17-10-7. The majority's analysis of Ala.Code 1975, § 17-10-4, violates well-established principles of statutory construction. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
Section 17-10-4 provides in pertinent part:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Evans v. State
...we must determine whether the state established a prima facie case of illegal absentee voting. We recognize that, in Taylor v. Cox, 710 So.2d 406, 408 (Ala.1998), the Alabama Supreme Court held that an applicant for an absentee ballot must sign the application form himself or herself, and t......
-
U.S. v. Smith
...is no such thing as proxy voting: A voter cannot legally authorize or direct another to vote his ballot in his place. See Taylor v. Cox, 710 So.2d 406 (Ala.1998) (absentee voting ballot invalid where voter's name not signed by voter but by designated agent with permission). Consequently, to......
-
Hanes v. Merrill
... ... conduct, both through properly framed litigation and through ... the political process. An "election case concerns a ... principle at the very heart of the democratic process -- the ... integrity of elections." Taylor v. Cox, 710 ... So.2d 406, 408 (Ala. 1998) (See, J., concurring specially) ... "Confidence in the integrity of our electoral process is ... essential to the functioning of our participatory ... democracy." Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4 ... (2006). This ... ...
-
Adkins v. Huckabay
...absentee voting statutes. Some states conclude that absentee voting statues must be strictly construed. See, e.g., Taylor v. Cox, 710 So.2d 406, 407 (Ala.1998) (holding that the language "shall be manually signed by the applicant" clearly meant that the elector must himself sign the applica......