author’s writing. [¶ 42.] If Heinemeyer was a “qualified voter of the district” of Subdivision 10 at the time of the election within the meaning of SDCL 49-36-1, the Office of the Secretary of State’s certification of Heinemeyer as having been elected to the Board of Heartland Consumers Power District for Subdivision 10 must stand. If we answer that question in the positive, then the next question becomes did Heinemeyer create a vacancy within the definition of SDCL 49-36-6 by “removal from the subdivision from which the director was elected.” See SDCL 49-36-6(2). Heinemeyer was a “qualifted voter” during the election and eligible for the Subdivision 10 seat. [¶ 43.] SDCL 49-36-11 provides: No person shall be qualified to hold office as a member of the board of directors W.2d 913, 919 (<HOLDING>). [¶ 45.] The South Dakota Constitution
holding voters will not be disenfranchised due to an election officials mistakes negligence or misconduct unless that conduct has been carried to such an extent as to affect the true outcome of the election and put the results in doubt as elevating form over substance when the right to have ones vote counted is at stake is unwarranted holding that an erroneous decision to exclude evidence is considered harmless unless the error had a substantial influence on the outcome or leaves this court in grave doubt as to whether it had such an effect holding that election case was not moot after election because there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining parties would be subject to that same action in the future holding that election officials acted under color of state law when they in the course of their official duties willfully altered and falsely counted the ballots of voters in a primary election holding that when a constitutional right is vested in a party and there is a doubt as to whether that right has been waived the doubt should be resolved in the defendants favor