Applicable Law The right to vote should be as zealously guarded as are natural rights, and statutes regulating that right should be liberally interpreted in favor of the right. Mahaffey v. Gill, 459 S.W.2d 919, 922 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1970, no writ); Wooley v. Sterrett, 387 S.W.2d 734, 738 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1965, no writ). For this reason, the statutes regulating the manner of holding an election are generally directory, and a departure from their provisions will not ordinarily invalidate an election unless such departure affects or changes the results of the election.
Other courts, however, have refused to void the improperly delivered ballots, and thereby disenfranchise those electors, unless actual fraud is shown. In Matter of Rodriguez, 558 S.W.2d 356 (Mo.App. 1977); Mahaffey v. Gill, 459 S.W.2d 919 (Tex.Civ.App. 1970); Sommerfield v. Board of Canvassers of City of St. Francis, 269 Wis. 299, 69 N.W.2d 235 (1955); Lanser v. Koconis, 62 Wis.2d 86, 214 N.W.2d 425 (1974). We adopt the holding of these cases because we believe it is consistent with the prior case law of this jurisdiction.
In re Whitlow, 59 Tex. 273; Moore v. Plott, 206 S.W. 958 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 1918, n.w.h.); Stephens v. Dodds, 243 S.W. 710 (Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo, 1922, n.w.h.); Kincannon v. Mills, supra; Thurston v. Thomas, 7 S.W.2d 105 (Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont, 1928, n.w.h.). If such purpose cannot be obtained, then any reason for the contest is perfunctory. Therefore, if it cannot be shown from the evidence that the irregularities, if there were any, affected the result of the election, then such irregularities would be immaterial. Mahaffey v. Gill. 459 S.W.2d 919 (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana, 1970, n.w.h.); Roberts v. Hall, 167 S.W.2d 621 (Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo, 1942, n.w.h.); Kennelly v. Gates, 406 S.W.2d 351 (Tex.Civ.App., Houston, 1966, n.w.h.); Day v. Crutchfield, 400 S.W.2d 377 (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana, 1965, n.w.h.). A district judge has very wide discretion in determining whether the ballot box should be opened and the votes recounted.
Several courts have refused to void the ballots. In Matter of Rodriguez, 558 S.W.2d 356 (Mo.Ct.App. 1977); Mahaffey v. Gill, 459 S.W.2d 919 (Tex.Civ.App. 1970); Sommerfeld v. Board of Canvassers, 269 Wis. 299, 69 N.W. 235 (Sup.Ct. 1955); Lanser v. Koconis, 62 Wis.2d 86, 214 N.W.2d 425 (Sup.Ct. 1974). All of these courts concluded that they would not disenfranchise voters because of irregularities in the delivery of absentee ballots without showing of actual fraud.