Chapter 3 To determine if voting marks that were not in the oval were “appropriate marks” in a referendum election, the supreme court looked at other state statutes that relate to elections where candidates are on the ballot. The state law on counting ballots said that a ballot was required “to be rejected” if it was not marked in the way required for ballots in elections where candidates were on the ballot. The state statute on candidate elections said that marks “shall be placed in the voting targets opposite the names of the candidates.” At 659-660. The supreme court then read those statutes together, and applied the universal rule that a violation of a mandatory statute makes the ballot invalid. Generally, a vote is counted in an election if the voter affixed any mark to the ballot that “fairly indicates” an intent to vote for a particular candidate or measure. See Devine, 268 N.W.2d at 623. However, this rule does not apply if the voter violates “a mandatory provision of the election law” in casting the ballot. Id. Thus, the intent of a voter to vote for or against a public measure is the prevailing issue only if the voter has followed the legal requirement in marking the ballot. The supreme court rejected all four ballots, and the measure passed. In reaching its conclusion, the supreme court cited, quoted and distinguished its decision in Devine v. Wonderlich, 268 N.W.2d 620 (1978), a case brought by Francis P. Devine and decided by the Iowa Supreme Court nine years before it decided Taylor. Mr. Devine was a write-in candidate for a Keokuk, Iowa, county supervisor (commissioner) seat in 1976. The details of Devine are set out in Chapter 4. The outcome of the case, however, is important here because entries by voters on the ballots, including stickers with Mr. Devine’s name that were put in various places on the ballots, and varying ways of spelling Mr. Devine’s first and last names, were accepted by the Iowa Supreme Court in sufficient numbers to make Mr. Devine the victor. Mr. Devine’s opponent, Raymond James Wonderlich, claimed that 52 of the sticker ballots for Mr. Devine violated the Iowa statutes that required write-in ballots to be put “in the proper place.” The supreme court said of this requirement, To be valid, the write-in vote must be cast in substantial compliance with the statute…We hold, in accordance with the majority rule, that the standard is met when the sticker is close enough to the space designated for the write-in to show the elector’s intention. At 626 (emphasis supplied). And in approving the placement on the ballot of the stickers with Mr. Devine’s name on them, the supreme court said, We have examined the 52 ballots on which Wonderlich contends stickers were incorrectly placed. We find the placement of these stickers substantially complies with the statute. Although on 30 ballots they conceal the words “Township Ticket,” printed on the ballot directly below the space for supervisor write-ins, the voters’ intent to cast these sticker votes for Devine in the board of supervisors race remains clear. At 626-627 (emphasis supplied). Faced with this precedent, the supreme court in Taylor said, There are times when a voting mark does not strictly meet the ballot instructions or statutory requirements, but nevertheless is marked in such a way that it is not unauthorized Devine, 268 N.W.2d at 628 (“The voter’s intention, if it can be ascertained, should not be defeated or frustrated by the fact the name of the candidate is misspelled, or the wrong initials were employed, or some other 79