Devine v. Wonderlich (1978) 268 N.W.2d 620 268 N.W.2d 620 (Cite as: 268 N.W.2d 620) Page 3 for such candidate votes containing slight name variations such as "France Devine," "France P. Defvine," and "Franics P. Deiven," since all such votes appeared to be attempts by voters to cast their ballot for such candidate. [16] Elections 188 144k188 Most Cited Cases In election contest involving write-in county board of supervisors candidate Francis P. Devine, ballot cast for "Frank Devine" should have been counted for such candidate, since it sufficiently reflected an attempt to vote for such candidate. [17] Elections 188 144k188 Most Cited Cases In election contest involving write-in county board of supervisors candidate Francis P. Devine, no error occurred in rejecting votes cast for "Dan Devine," "Dan P. Devine," "Danny Devine," "D. Devine," "Daniel P. Devine," "James Devine," "James P. Devine," "Jim Devine," "Russell Devine," "P. Devine," "R. P. Devine," "Louis P. Devine," "Francis Levine," "Frances D. Levine," and "V. Devine," in that voters' intent was not adequately shown for variations in given name were not similar to candidate's true name nor did it appear he was known by any of those names. [18] Elections 186(1) 144k186(1) Most Cited Cases Primary test of validity of a ballot is whether voter's intent is sufficiently shown. [19] Elections 194(1) 144k194(1) Most Cited Cases Extraneous erasures, crossed out words or other markings do not void a ballot unless they have been placed on it as identifying marks. I.C.A. § 49.98. [20] Elections 194(1) 144k194(1) Most Cited Cases In election contest involving write-in county board of supervisors candidate, ballots on which such candidate's name was written in twice with one of names crossed out, ballot on which his first name was crossed out and full name correctly written in, ballot on which a "blot" preceded candidate's surname with his first name written under "blot" and ballot on which name was written three times and crossed out twice should have been counted for such candidate, in that voter's confusion regarding where to write in candidate's name caused voters to cross out and rewrite name and there was no evidence of an attempt to place identifying marks on the ballot. I.C.A. § 49.98. [21] Elections 194(2) 144k194(2) Most Cited Cases [21] Elections 194(9) 144k194(9) Most Cited Cases In election contest involving write-in county board of supervisors candidate, ballot on which erasure existed in box next to office of state senator, and ballot on which erasure existed in box next to name of incumbent supervisor should have been counted for write-in candidate; likewise where election officials had given voter ballot marked "sample ballot" in red ink. [22] Elections 183 144k183 Most Cited Cases In election contest between write-in county board of supervisors candidate and incumbent, disputed ballot for incumbent, which contained a vote for an additional person for supervisor position, was properly rejected as ambiguous. [23] Elections 186(1) 144k186(1) Most Cited Cases In election contest between write-in candidate and incumbent county board supervisor, ballots on which write-in candidate's name was put under incumbent's name in incumbent's party column should have been counted for write-in candidate, since mistake as to such candidate's party was not a mistake of his identity and since at least three write-in votes were cast for incumbent in another party column and were counted. I.C.A. § 49.99. [24] Elections 186(1) 144k186(1) Most Cited Cases Ballots on which write-in candidate's name was written in twice, once in his party's column and once in independent column, were valid as single votes for write-in candidate and should have been counted for him, since statute providing that a voter may not © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 201