The shorthand can be misleading. In Seminole County, Republican representatives added missing voter identification numbers to already signed absentee-ballot applications, using the elections office and equipment. Those requests enabled ballots to be sent out. The litigation did not establish that representatives changed voters’ candidate selections on returned ballots.[1]
The Florida Supreme Court upheld the refusal to invalidate the votes. It criticized the supervisor’s judgment and stressed compliance with election procedures, while distinguishing requirements for requesting a ballot from requirements governing the ballot itself. The cited opinion states that the actual ballots complied with the applicable ballot requirements. Its result was not approval of partisan favoritism.[1]
In Martin County, Republican representatives were allowed to take several hundred defective request forms out of the office, add missing identification numbers, and return them for processing. The trial court found the procedure contrary to Florida law and creating an opportunity for fraud and an appearance of favoritism. It also found no evidence of fraud or other intentional misconduct affecting the election’s integrity. The Supreme Court affirmed.[2]
Both parts belong in the account. Access granted to party operatives can undermine confidence even if the resulting votes are valid. But “an application was improperly repaired” is not synonymous with “a candidate’s vote was forged.” The courts declined to disenfranchise qualified voters on the record before them.