Chapter 3 Before reviewing the trial court’s determinations on the particular election irregularities claimed by the parties, the Illinois Supreme Court discussed the principles that apply to such challenges. The Election Code is a comprehensive scheme which regulates the manner in which elections shall be carried out. Strict compliance with all applicable provisions in the Election Code is not necessary, however, to sustain a particular ballot. Rather, our courts draw a distinction between violations of “mandatory” provisions and violations of “directory” provisions. Failure to comply with a mandatory provision renders the affected ballots void, whereas technical violations of directory provisions do not affect the validity of the affected ballots… There is no universal formula for distinguishing between mandatory and directory provisions. Rather, whether a particular statutory provision is mandatory or directory depends upon the intent of the legislature, which is ascertained by examining the nature and object of the statute and the consequences which would result from any given construction… [W]here a statute, in prescribing the duties of the election officials, expressly states that failure to act in the manner set out in the statute will void the ballot, that statute will generally be given a mandatory construction. However, if the statute simply prescribes the performance of certain acts in a specific manner, and does not expressly state that compliance is essential to the validity of the ballot, then the statute generally will be given a directory construction…We do not mean to suggest, of course, that election officials may simply ignore directory provisions of the Election Code. All of the provisions of the Election Code are mandatory in the sense that election officials are obligated to comply with their terms. It does not follow, however, that every failure to comply should invalidate the ballot in question. Literal compliance with directory provisions will not be required if it appears that the spirit of the law has not been violated and the result of the election has been fairly ascertained. At 595-596 (emphasis supplied). But this seemingly clear iteration of the distinction between mandatory and directory provisions, which we will see used to void ballots later in this chapter, cannot be mechanically applied. The Illinois Supreme Court in Pullen, after setting out the above statement of principles, proceeded to chip away at the cornerstone principle: that a statute is mandatory when it says that failure to act in the way the statute describes will void the ballot. Paper ballots were used in the 1990 Republican primary election between Ms. Pullen and Ms. Mulligan. Illinois procedure required the election judges to put the voters’ ballots in the ballot box and to initial each ballot before it was put into the ballot box. The Illinois Supreme Court noted that under Illinois law “‘[n]o primary ballot, without the endorsement of the judge’s initials thereon, shall be counted,’” and that “If any ballot card or ballot card envelope is not initialed it must be marked ‘Defective’ on the back and not counted.” At 596. Some ballots cast in the precincts had not been initialed by the election judges, and some absentee ballots had not been initialed by the election judges. The parties agreed that the uninitialed inprecinct ballots should not be counted, but disagreed on whether the uninitialed absentee ballots should be counted. 61