Yes: a peer-reviewed study by Jonathan Wand and colleagues found strong evidence of systematic mistaken choices in Palm Beach County. Their estimate was that more than 2,000 Democratic voters selected Pat Buchanan unintentionally—enough to exceed the certified Florida margin. The conclusion is an estimate of behavior, not a list of identifiable people whose ballots can simply be transferred.[1]
The researchers tested competing explanations using several datasets. Buchanan’s election-day support in Palm Beach was about four times his absentee share; absentee voters used a different ballot. That discrepancy was unusually large compared with other Florida counties. Precinct patterns and other choices on the same ballots also supported the confusion explanation. An unusual result alone would have been weaker evidence than these comparisons.[1]
The legal challenge asked a different question. In Fladell, Florida’s Supreme Court held that the ballot’s form did not amount to the substantial statutory noncompliance required to void the election. It dismissed that challenge without deciding that the design was clear or that nobody had made a mistake.[2]
These findings can coexist. A ballot can satisfy the court’s threshold while still confusing voters in ways large enough to matter. The study supports that counterfactual; it does not establish that officials deliberately designed a trap, and a judge could not turn its estimated preferences into individually authenticated votes.