Devine v. Wonderlich (1978) 268 N.W.2d 620 268 N.W.2d 620 (Cite as: 268 N.W.2d 620) Page 1 must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized. Supreme Court of Iowa. Francis P. DEVINE, Appellant, v. Raymond James WONDERLICH, Appellee. No. 60823. June 28, 1978. In election contest between write-in candidate and incumbent county board supervisor, the Keokuk District Court, Ira F. Morrison, J., entered judgment in favor of incumbent, and write-in candidate appealed. The Supreme Court, McCormick, J., held that: (1) statute barring identifying marks on ballots was not violated by presence of extra words on write-in ballots, which accurately stated office and term for which write-in candidate was running by using precise duplicate of words printed on ballot just above space for writing in a candidate's name; (2) placement of stickers on write-in ballots substantially complied with statute requiring write-ins to be inserted "in proper place," and thus such ballots should have been counted for such candidate; (3) ballots on which only write-in candidate's surname or first initial and surname were written in should have been counted for such candidate; (4) under circumstances, ballots on which write-in candidate's name was written in twice with one of names crossed out should have been counted for such candidate; (5) ballots on which write-in candidate's name was put under incumbent's name in his party's column should have been counted for write-in candidate, and (6) ballots on which write-in candidate's name was written in twice, once in his party's column and once in independent column, should have been counted for such candidate. Reversed and remanded. West Headnotes [1] Elections 269 144k269 Most Cited Cases In view of fact that an election contest involves right of qualified voters to have their ballots counted for candidate of their choice, right of franchise is at stake, which is a fundamental political right essential to representative government, and thus any alleged infringement of right to vote [2] Elections 24 144k24 Most Cited Cases Statutory regulation of voting and election procedure is permissible so long as statutes are calculated to facilitate and secure, rather than subvert or impede, right to vote; among legitimate statutory objects are shielding elector from influence of coercion and corruption, protecting integrity of ballot, and insuring orderly conduct of elections. I.C.A. § 62.1 et seq. [3] Elections 161 144k161 Most Cited Cases Statutes regulating voting and election procedure must be construed liberally in favor of giving effect to voter's choice and every vote cast enjoys a presumption of validity. [4] Elections 186(4) 144k186(4) Most Cited Cases As a general rule, if a voter affixes any mark to his ballot which fairly indicates his intention to vote for a particular candidate, vote should be counted for candidate unless a mandatory provision of election law is violated. I.C.A. § 62.1 et seq. [5] Elections 161 144k161 Most Cited Cases [5] Elections 300 144k300 Most Cited Cases Statute barring identification marks on ballots originated from desire to guard against possibility of a vote seller indicating to a vote buyer in advance how his ballot could be distinguished so buyer could determine if bribed voter had carried out his agreement; issue as to whether a particular ballot violates prohibition is ordinarily one of fact. I.C.A. § 49.98. [6] Elections 194(1) 144k194(1) Most Cited Cases Statute barring identifying marks on ballots was not violated by presence of extra words on write-in ballots, which accurately stated office and term for which write-in candidate was running by using precise duplicate of words printed on bal- © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 199