Johnson v. Trnka 154 N.W.2d 185 277 Minn. 468, 154 N.W.2d 185 (Cite as: 277 Minn. 468, 154 N.W.2d 185) facsimile of the official signature, and they may not otherwise mark the ballots.' The foregoing is a common statutory requirement and is intended to assure the voter that he is given an authentic ballot, to enable the public to identify the actual ballot cast in the event of an election contest, and to prevent fraud. 29 C.J.S., Election, s 172; Morandi v. Heiman, 23 Ill.2d 365, 178 N.E.2d 314; State ex rel. Braley v. Gay, 59 Minn. 6, 60 N.W. 676; Truelsen v. Hugo, 87 Minn. 139, 91 N.W. 434; Moyer v. Van De Vanter, 12 Wash. 377, 41 P.2d 60, 29 L.R.A. 670; 6 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) s 2919. These purposes must be considered in light of the numerous decisions of this court which express the well-established policy of giving effect to the votes of legal voters regardless of irregularities in the election. No person should be deprived of his right to vote because of the neglect or carelessness of election officials unless that conduct has been carried to such an extent as to affect the true outcome of the election and put the results in doubt. Clayton v. Prince, 129 Minn. 118, 151 N.W. 911; Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Minn. 81 (107); McEwen v. Prince, 125 Minn. 417, 147 N.W. 275; 6 Dunnell, Dig. (3d ed.) s 2960. We said in In re Contest of Election of Vetsch, 245 Minn. 229, 238, 71 N.W.2d 652, 658: '* * * (A)fter an election is over, statutory regulations are usually construed to be directory rather than mandatory unless the departure from the statutes casts uncertainty upon the result.' *471 With these preliminary observations, we may focus upon the provisions of s 204.20, which specifically directs the procedure to be followed as applied to the facts before us. It appears that in the Township of Cambridge 505 voters were registered in the election register. 507 ballots were found in the box. Six of the ballots were not initialed by the election judges. Of the 6 uninitialed ballots, 4 were for Johnson and 2 were for Trnka. The court held that these were properly counted and resolved the issue of the excess ballots by withdrawing at random 2 ballots from the box containing 507 ballots, thus reducing the number of ballots to the correct total as shown by the register. This left contestant Johnson with a majority of 2 votes. [3][4][5] It should be kept in mind that s 204.20 expressly provides what should be done when an excess of ballots is Page 3 found in an election box. The liberal principles which generally hold that neglect and carelessness of election officials should not deprive a person of his right to vote must yield to the express provisions of this statute as it applies to the disposition of excess ballots. Section 204.20, subd. 1, requires that the first thing the judges shall do in the counting process is to ascertain that each ballot is single, 'and count them to determine whether the number of ballots corresponds with the number that the election register or registration file shows were cast.' The outcome of an election should rest upon ballots received according to law and should not be determined by illegal votes. Obviously, 2 of the votes which were cast cannot be said to be legal. Under the circumstances, it was the duty of the election judges, as required by s 204.20, subd. 2, to examine the ballots in the box 'to ascertain that all are properly marked with the initials of the judges, and if any are not so marked, they shall preserve but not count them.' As we understand the language of the statute, a 'properly marked **188 ballot' is one 'marked with the initials of the judges.' The statute specifically provides that uninitialed ballots should not be counted. [6][7] Apparently, the trial court felt that, since there was no evidence of actual fraud here, a result should be reached in some manner and therefore employed the method provided for in the last part of s 204.20, *472 subd. 2, by withdrawing 2 ballots from the total of the ballots cast. That part of the statute provides: '* * * If there is still an excess of properly marked ballots, the judges shall replace them in the box, and one judge, without looking, shall withdraw from the box a number of ballots equal to the excessive number, and the withdrawn ballots shall be preserved but not counted.' We are of the view that the method used in attempting to determine the outcome was not correct. The above provision of the statute applies to the conduct of election judges only where, after removing the uninitialed ballots, it is found that there is 'still an excess of properly marked ballots * * *. ' Here, of course, there was no excess of properly marked ballots. If the uninitialed ballots were laid aside and not counted, as the statute requires, the total number of ballots would be within the limit of registered voters as shown by the election register or registration file. © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 303