were capable of signing the applications, as demonstrated by their signing of the affidavits attached to the ballots. Thus, I need not address the issue of physical incapacity to sign an application. 6 .The 1996 amendment of § 17-10-7, Act No. 96-885, 1996 Ala. Acts, p. 1699, reinforced that section’s two-witnesses-or-notarization requirement without adding similar reinforcing language to § 17-10-4 regarding applications for absentee ballots. Justice Cook interprets this amendment to mean that, notwithstanding the plain language of § 17-10-4, the Legislature intended for applications not to be manually signed by the applicant. This interpretation ignores the history that gave rise to the amendment of § 17-10-7. See Roe v. Mobile County Appt. Bd., 676 So.2d 1206, 1226 (Ala.1995) (<HOLDING>). In my view, far from approving this Court's
holding that plan did not comply holding that a threepage memorandum opinion  order containing the district courts reasoning and case citations failed to comply with the separate document requirement holding defendants could not be guilty as parties when the state failed to show they knew the criminality of the conduct they assisted holding that absentee ballots could be counted even if they failed to comply with the twowitnessesornotarization requirement of  17107 holding that habeas relief would be proper if the state failed to comply with the statutory requirement that all members of the multidisciplinary team sign the report supporting the commitment petition