McNally v. Tollander 302 N.W.2d 440 100 Wis.2d 490, 302 N.W.2d 440 (Cite as: 100 Wis.2d 490, 302 N.W.2d 440) 60 Op.Atty.Gen. 219 (1977). A canvass of the referendum votes was finally conducted in August of 1977. On August 17, the chairman of the Burnett county board certified the results of the county seat removal election to acting Governor Martin Schreiber. This certification was not attested to by the new Burnett County Clerk as required by sec. 59.11(3), Stats. The new county clerk refused to do so because he was not county clerk at the time of the election. On September 9, 1977, the results were recertified and the new clerk did attest to the County Board Chairman's signature. On September 27, 1977, acting Governor Schreiber sought further clarification as to the validity of the election from the Attorney General. The Attorney General responded on November 3, 1977, that he would be "unable to say with the same assurance as before that the election would be held valid if a court test were brought," given notice of further procedural irregularities in the election. Nonetheless, Schreiber issued a proclamation on November 25, 1977, designating and establishing the Town of Siren as the Burnett County seat and this proclamation was published in the official state newspaper.[FN4] FN4. The proclamation was revoked by the acting Governor in December, 1978. This action was commenced on December 9, 1977. The named plaintiffs are the wives of three members of the Burnett County Board of Supervisors who opposed the *497 relocation of the county seat. The action was brought as a class action on behalf of the plaintiffs and other persons who were allegedly without notice of the referendum or were denied the opportunity to vote. The plaintiffs sought judgment against the defendant county and the chairman of the county board declaring the election invalid and a permanent injunction restraining any action to effectuate the removal of the county seat. A three day trial was held in April of 1978. The trial court, finding "reasonable doubt overall that the election fairly **444 represented the will of the voters of Burnett County," entered judgment on October 18, 1978, amended November 7, 1978, in which he declared the election void, granted the injunction and awarded costs against Burnett County in the amount of $1,633.91. The Page 4 Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiffs-respondents-petitioners' (plaintiffs) petition for review was granted on July 10, 1980. This Court has decided many election contest cases. Typically, these actions are brought by losing candidates who have discovered irregularities in election procedures and sought to overturn the election results through quo warranto actions. In cases of that kind, the Court has traditionally looked to the specific statutory election provisions involved to determine whether they were "directory or mandatory" provisions. Lanser v. Koconis, 62 Wis.2d 86, 214 N.W.2d 425 (1974). The Court has consistently sought to preserve the will of the electors by construing election provisions as directory if there has been substantial compliance with their terms. Gradinjan v. Boho, 29 Wis.2d 674, 682, 139 N.W.2d 557 (1966). This approach is consistent with sec. 5.01(1), Stats. (1977) which provides: "5.01. Scope. (1) Construction of Title II. Title II shall give effect to the will of the electors, if that can be ascertained from the proceedings, notwithstanding *498 informality or failure to fully comply with some of its provisions." This case, however, is fundamentally different from other election cases considered by this Court. Here, in addition to numerous procedural irregularities, some forty percent of the qualified voters were actually denied the opportunity to cast ballots. Whether such an election can be valid is a question of first impression in this Court. We hold that the election must be set aside. The Court of Appeals identified six instances of noncompliance with election statutes that occurred in this referendum election: "(1) Notice was defective contrary to secs. 10.06(2)(h), 10.01(2)(a), (b) and (c), and 10.06(2)(m), Stats.; (2) Printing of the referendum ballots was arranged by a county board committee and not the county clerk contrary to secs. 7.10(2) and 7.50(1)(a), Stats.; (3) Ballots were distributed by a county board committee, not the county clerk contrary to sec. 7.10(3), Stats.; (4) Ballots were not distributed to voters in eight districts contrary to sec. 7.15(1)(c), Stats.; (5) Ballots were canvassed by a county board committee, not the county clerk contrary to sec. © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 327