Fultz v. Newkirk 475 N.E.2d 706 475 N.E.2d 706 (Cite as: 475 N.E.2d 706) Page 3 not constitute a distinguishing mark, and that the X was a retracing. While two Xs in one party circle have been held to invalidate a ballot in Lorch, supra, the making of inadvertent marks or a retracting the X seems sanctioned by I.C. 3-1-25-1 in that they do not constitute distinguishing marks. Neither did the trial court err in excluding the ballots marked with a checkmark instead of an X. Dobbyn, supra. IND.CODE 3-1-25-18 now allows the use of checkmarks, however, this statute did not take effect until January 1, 1984, several weeks after the election at issue in this appeal. As a result of the foregoing, the trial court did not err in declaring Newkirk as the winner. Judgment affirmed. RATLIFF, P.J., and NEAL, J., concur. 475 N.E.2d 706 END OF DOCUMENT © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 219