The aggregation of multiple opinions plays a crucial role in decision-making, such as in hiring and loan review, and in labeling data for supervised learning. Although majority voting and existing opinion aggregation models are effective for simple tasks, they are inappropriate for tasks without objectively true labels in which disagreements may occur. In particular, when voter attributes such as gender or race introduce bias into opinions, the aggregation results may vary depending on the composition of voter attributes. A balanced group of voters is desirable for fair aggregation results but may be difficult to prepare. In this study, we consider methods to achieve fair opinion aggregation based on voter attributes and evaluate the fairness of the aggregated results. To this end, we consider an approach that combines opinion aggregation models such as majority voting and the Dawid and Skene model (D&S model) with fairness options such as sample weighting. To evaluate the fairness of opinion aggregation, probabilistic soft labels are preferred over discrete class labels. First, we address the problem of soft label estimation without considering voter attributes and identify some issues with the D&S model. To address these limitations, we propose a new Soft D&S model with improved accuracy in estimating soft labels. Moreover, we evaluated the fairness of an opinion aggregation model, including Soft D&S, in combination with different fairness options using synthetic and semi-synthetic data. The experimental results suggest that the combination of Soft D&S and data splitting as a fairness option is effective for dense data, whereas weighted majority voting is effective for sparse data. These findings should prove particularly valuable in supporting decision-making by human and machine-learning models with balanced opinion aggregation.