Boevers v. Election Board of Canadian County 640 P.2d 1333 640 P.2d 1333, 1981 OK 138 (Cite as: 640 P.2d 1333) Page 4 law. [FN6] The term is one of art. It does not include every form of excess material penned on the ballot but not needed to show the voter's designated intention. Under the proscribed rubric fall only those marks-not used in an attempt to indicate a voter's choice-which show on the face of the ballot, or from evidence aliunde, a deliberate intent of having been placed there to set the ballot apart from others.[FN7] The upper ballot in contest here does not evince any such unlawful design. The lines drawn across contestee's name are all compatible with the designated intent of the voter to favor contestant's candidacy. They are plainly consistent with the choice indicated by the vote cast. Contrary proof is absent. FN6. McClelland v. Erwin, 16 Okl., 612, 86 P. 283, 287 (1906); Moss v. Hunt, 47 Okl. 1, 145 P. 760, 163 (1915). HODGES, Justice, dissenting. I would allow the count of the upper ballot but would disallow the lower ballot, resulting in a tie vote to be governed by 26 O.S.Supp.1977 s 8-105. The markings on the lower ballot, in my opinion, completely distort the intention of the voter. I am authorized to state that Justice SIMMS concurs in the views herein expressed. 640 P.2d 1333, 1981 OK 138 END OF DOCUMENT FN7. A ballot bearing distinguishing marks is capable of being identified. The purpose of the rule making such ballots void is to protect the secrecy of elections and to discourage bribery, fraud or corruption. Gentry v. Reinhardt, 350 Ill. 582, 183 N.E. 631 (1932). The lower ballot in contest here does no more than evince the voter's designated intention to favor contestant's candidacy. It is manifestly valid. The provisions of s 7-127(3) clearly include, among "valid markings", "a circle or square which has been blackened in ink, even if the entire circle or square is not filled and even if the blackened portion may extend beyond the boundaries of the circle or square." (Emphasis added). The markings used are within the permissible limits of the statutory language in s 7-127(3). Neither ballot in contest here bears improper marks and both clearly designate the voter's intention to favor contestant. Writ granted commanding respondent-board to declare contestant to be his party's nominee. IRWIN, C. J., BARNES, V. C. J., and LAVENDER, DOOLIN and HARGRAVE, JJ., concur. HODGES and SIMMS, JJ., dissent. © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 169