A brief analysis of the Supreme Court's reasoning

I've read the decision, and it boils down to the issue of administrative review and enjoining an election.  The legal standard that the plaintiffs had to meet to enjoin the election is to show that the statute regarding the write-in was ambiguous, and that the interpretation of the Board of Election Commissioners was not a permissible construction of the statute.  In other words, was the decision of the Board of Election Commissioners arbitrary and capricious?

Of the Supreme Court justices, eight agreed that the write-in election is a permissible construction of the statute.  Justice Randolph felt that the decision of the Board was debatable because he believed, as I do, that appointment followed by a special election next year during the general election, is the appropriate remedy for a judicial vacancy, but a decision of an administrative board that is fairly debatable is by definition not arbitrary and capricious.  Justice Pierce, who partly joined in Justice Randolph's decision, opined, as I did, that the write-in statute does not apply to the 13th Circuit  Court District election, although for entirely different reasons than I do.    Basically, Justice Pierce's opinion turned neatly on the fact that Judge Evans's name is NOT on the ballot, and thus 23-15-365 does not apply, since it contemplates that the person on the ballot is not eligible to be elected due to death, resignation, or withdrawal from the ballot.  Under Justice Pierce's reasoning, the write-in provision may actually apply to the 10th Chancery Court District election.  Justice Dickinson did not participate, for some reason.