Chapter 4 different name of similar pronunciation or sound has been written instead of the actual name of the candidate intended to be voted for. At 628. The deviations accepted by the supreme court included “France Devine,” “France P. Defvine,” and Franics P. Deiven.” However, the supreme court agreed with the trial court and rejected ballots cast for a variety of other names including “Dan Devnine,” “Danny Devine,” “James Devine,” “Russell Devine,” “Louis P. Devine,” Frances D. Levine” and “V. Devine.” For these, the supreme court continued, The variations in given name are not similar to the candidate’s true name nor did it appear he was known by any of those names. Finally, there were 51 ballots with other marks on them. Among them were 13 ballots where Mr. Devine’s name was written twice, one where his name was written three times and crossed out twice, one where his first name was crossed out and his full name was written-in, and other instances where Mr. Devine’s first or last name was written and crossed out and rewritten. Of these and other similar markings the supreme court said, [I]t is obvious the voters were confused regarding where to write in Devine’s name. We believe this confusion caused the voters to cross out and rewrite the name, and no evidence exists of an intent to place identifying marks on these ballots. At 629 (emphasis supplied). The court also allowed to be counted ballots with erasures where there was no evidence that the voter intended to make identifying marks. Following the voters’ intent, the Iowa Supreme Court also allowed to be counted ballots where Mr. Devine’s name was written under both the Democratic and Republican headings, and ballots where Mr. Devine’s name was written under Mr. Wonderlich’s on the Republican heading. Three ballots where Mr. Wonderlich’s name was written under the Democratic heading also were counted. As to all of these ballots, the supreme court said, We believe common sense and general principles should govern. No doubt exists regarding the voters’ intent to vote for Devine. At 629 (emphasis supplied). When all of the marks on the ballots were considered, and all the ballots were counted, Mr. Devine won the election by 20 votes, with 2,667 votes to Mr. Wonderlich’s 2,647 votes.81 There was a similar result in Boevers v. Election Board of Canadian County, 640 P.2d 1333 (Okla. 1981), a dispute between Henry Boevers and Wayne Kremeier over the Republican Party nomination for county commissioner in District 1 of Canadian County, Oklahoma. After a recount, Mr. Kremeier was ahead of Mr. Boevers by one vote: 228 to 227. Two ballots were at issue. One had Mr. Kremeier’s name crossed out and an X placed in the box next to Mr. Boevers’ name. The other had no mark in the box next to Mr. Kremeier’s name and a squiggly marking in the box next to Mr. Boevers’ name. 81 Mr. Wonderlich served as county supervisor from the time of the election until after Mr. Devine won his case. When Mr. Devine won this case he took Mr. Wonderlich’s place as county supervisor. Then Mr. Devine sued Mr. Wonderlich to get the money Mr. Wonderlich had been paid as county supervisor during that time. The Iowa Supreme Court specifically overturned its own clear precedent to hold that Mr. Devine could not recover the money from Mr. Wonderlich, saying that “the de jure officeholder who ultimately prevails in an election may not recover from the de facto officeholder the salary he or she received while serving in office during the pendency of the contest litigation.” Devine v. Wonderlich, 288 N.W.2d 902, 905 (1980). 97