"Both federal and state law recognize that where an election process is fundamentally flawed as a result of systemic irregularities that place the outcome in doubt, remedial action, including conducting a new election, is warranted.

Subsequently, in Beckstrom v. Volusia County Canvassing Board, 707 So.2d at 725, the court noted that where there was "substantial noncompliance with statutory election procedures," and where there was "reasonable doubt" that the election "expressed the will of the voters," then the proper course "is to void the contested election even in the absence of fraud or intentional wrongdoing.

Because of the overriding importance of equal voting rights, the remedial powers of the courts are particularly broad in this area of the law. See Alabama v. United States, 304 F.2d 583, 590 (5th Cir. 1961). The courts have enjoined and set aside the results of elections held in violation of the law, Hamer v. Campbell, 358 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1966), Bell v. Southwell, ordered new elections, Hadnott v. Amos, 394 U.S. 358 (1969), ...ordered excluded minorities placed on the registration rolls, Alabama v. United States, 304 F.2d at 594, and issued injunctions against economic coercion and intimidation, United States v. Bruce, 353 F.2d 474 (5th Cir. 1965).

Ordering a new election is not a matter lightly to be undertaken by a court ... But where an election is a flawed process or violates fundamental standards of fairness a court has an obligation to intercede to insure that the integrity of the ballot is preserved. It is far preferable to require a new election than deny voters the constitutionally protected right to vote. Bell v. Southwell, 376 F.2d at 662.

There is ample precedent for requiring new elections "where broad-gauged unfairness permeates an election, even if derived from apparently neutral action." Griffin v. Burns, 507 F.2d at 1077. See, e.g., Hadnott v. Amos, 394 U.S. 358, 367 (1969) (directing "state and local officials to conduct a new election in Greene County" Alabama); Busbee v. Smith, 549 F.Supp. 494, 519 (D.D.C. 1982) (implementing an election schedule for the 4th and 5th Congressional Districts in Georgia); Fain v. Caddo Parish Police Jury, 312 F.Supp. 54, 57 (W.D.La. 1969) (requiring a special election); Scott v. Lack, 332 F.Supp. 220, 222 (E.D.Tex. 1971) (requiring a special midterm election); United States v. Post, 297 F.Supp. 46, 51 (W.D.La. 1969) (special election required despite the fact that defendants had acted in "good faith"); Swann v. Adams, 263 F.Supp. 225 (S.D.Fla. 1967) (special election ordered).

Given the facts as presently known in this case, there is "reasonable doubt" that the election has not "expressed the will of the voters." Beckstrom v. Volusia County Canvassing Board, 707 So.2d at 725.

The design of the ballot in Palm Beach County failed to conform to state law in several important respects. The candidates were not arranged in the order prescribed by statute and the directive of the Florida Division of Elections. Fla. Stat. ß 103.021(2).

In addition, the instructions accompanying both the offical ballot and the sample ballot were misleading in that they advised the voter to "punch straight down through the hole to the right of the arrow by the candidate or issue of your choice." Even when the ballot was aligned properly in the voting machine, there were three punch holes to the right of the Democratic candidates. [and NO holes to the right of Buchanan's name] The first of these corresponded to a vote for the Reform party candidates. [Buchanan]

The evidence that voters were misled by the ballot irregularities seems undeniable. More than 19,000 votes were thrown out because voters punched two holes in the presidential race. The Reform candidate received unprecedented support in heavily Democratic Palm Beach County, the only county in the state to use the butterfly ballot.

Statistical analysis and the statements of voters themselves support the conclusion that there was a systemic flaw in the election. Confusion over the flawed ballot was apparently compounded by an official policy against helping voters who experienced difficulty in voting."