The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 268 N.W.2d 620 268 N.W.2d 620 (Cite as: 268 N.W.2d 620) Page 10 column. The issue is whether this is "the proper place" for a write-in. Although space existed where the name was placed, the form for the write-in was not printed on the ballot like it was under all but one of the other columns, and, of course, Devine was a Democratic and not a Republican candidate. If it was not wrong for the voters to write the name in the Republican column, it was not wrong for them to place it under Wonderlich's name because that was within the space in which the office was designated. We have not had a case on this issue, but a decision from Washington in which a similar problem was involved is persuasive. In Knowles v. Holly, 82 Wash.2d 694, 513 P.2d 18 (1973), the court held the correct party designation is not essential to the validity of a general election write-in vote. A mistake as to the candidate's party is not a mistake of his identity. No doubt exists here of the voters' intent to cast these eight ballots for Devine. We hold they should have been counted for him. See also Sizemore v. Henson, 264 S.W.2d 865 (Ct.App.Ky.1954) (write-in of independent under the name of the Republican candidate ballot held valid); Frothingham v. Woodside, 122 Me. 525, 120 A. 906 (1923) (ballot valid where Democratic write-in placed in Republican column). We note that at least three write-in votes were cast for Wonderlich in the Democratic column and were counted. We believe the district court was right in holding invalid the remaining three disputed Devine ballots. However, of the 41 disputed ballots discussed in this division which Devine claims, we hold the district court should have counted *630 38 for him instead of four. Of the ten disputed votes claimed by Wonderlich, we hold the court should have counted nine. We have held 164 ballots rejected by the district court should have been counted for Devine, making his total 2667. Nine additional votes should have been counted for Wonderlich, making his total 2647. We hold Devine won the election. The case is reversed and remanded for judgment ordering issuance of a certificate of election to him in conformity with this holding. REVERSED AND REMANDED. All Justices concur. 268 N.W.2d 620 END OF DOCUMENT [24] On seven other ballots Devine's name was written in twice, once in the Democratic column and once in the Independent column. A voter may not vote for more than one candidate for a single office. s 49.93, The Code. However, the statutes do not speak to the problem of voting twice on a single ballot for one candidate. We believe common sense and general principles should govern. No doubt exists regarding the voters' intent to vote for Devine. These ballots are valid as single votes for Devine and should have been counted for him. See Sizemore v. Henson, 264 S.W.2d 865 (Ct.App.Ky.1954) (ballot marked twice for same candidate); Howard v. Harrington, 114 Me. 443, 96 A. 769 (1916) (ballot not invalid when same name placed on it in writing and by sticker); Frothingham v. Woodside, 122 Me. 525, 120 A. 906 (1923) (marking ballot twice for same candidate was a mere emphasis of choice). 208 © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.