Chapter 3 court decided that the absence of precinct identification information on some ballots did not invalidate the ballots. Other irregularities, however, were found to be more serious, so serious that some of the ballots were ruled to be invalid. The discussion of these ballots demonstrates how closely a court will look at the particular facts regarding the ballots, and how particularly the contestants in an election challenge must present the facts. D.2. Legitimate voters represent the will of the electorate, but ballots of ineligible voters are invalid In Illinois, the statute on voter eligibility said that a person, in addition to other qualifications, had to reside in his or her precinct for 30 days before the election. In Pullen, five ballots had the wrong precinct number on them: three were absentee ballots on which the wrong precinct number was handwritten, and two were in-precinct ballots on which the wrong precinct number was pre-printed. An additional four ballots had no precinct number, but had written on them the name of a precinct that is outside of the 55th Representative District in which Ms. Pullen and Ms. Mulligan ran.63 Remember that Ms. Pullen and Ms. Mulligan finished in a tie for the nomination after the vote totals were adjusted according to the trial court judge’s rulings on the ballots that each of the candidates challenged. So every vote that could be added to or subtracted from one of the candidates was vitally important in this election contest. The Illinois Supreme Court began its analysis of the first five ballots by noting that the statute that required residency in the precinct for 30 days before the election did not say that a ballot cast in the wrong precinct is invalid. The supreme court then recognized that earlier cases—between 1944 and 1964—had decided that the ballots of voters who voted in the wrong precinct were illegal and should not be counted. But the court once again distinguished past cases on their facts, saying that in Pullen “there is no evidence that any voter cast a ballot in the wrong precinct. The evidence established only that certain ballots bore the wrong precinct number.” At 602. The court recognized that the problem of having the wrong precinct numbers was different from the problem in Hester where there was no precinct number at all. In order to determine whether the statute required that those ballots be counted or invalidated, the supreme court stated the opposing policy considerations that were involved. [I]ignorance, inadvertence or mistake on the part of the election officials should not be permitted to disfranchise an election district or to defeat the will of the electorate… At the same time, courts have not hesitated to invalidate the ballots of voters who were not qualified to vote in the election in question. At 602 (emphasis supplied). This emphasis on the qualifications of the voter, as opposed to the technical requirements for ballots, creates a solid basis for the basic distinction between mandatory and directory provisions. Using this basis for decision, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the trial judge’s decision that the five ballots with the wrong precinct number on them should be counted. There was no allegation that the ballots 63 Precincts are the geographical area where polling places are located; voter registration books are arranged by precinct. Precincts, in other words, are areas set up for the administration of elections. Districts are geographic areas from which persons are elected to legislative offices; legislators represent people in their particular district. 63