Chapter 3 the method of voting, and no one testified he or she was confused or intimidated during the process.” At 207. The municipal election commission upheld the election results. The South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision begins similarly to the other court decisions discussed earlier in this chapter. In fact, the decision starts as if it will just be one more ruling that a violation of the laws governing election procedures will not nullify an election if the irregularities do not change the result of the election. As was noted in Chapter 2, the supreme court began its opinion by saying, The court will employ every reasonable presumption to sustain a contested election, and will not set aside an election due to mere irregularities or illegalities unless the result is changed or rendered doubtful. This Court, like many others, recognizes that perfect compliance in every instance is unlikely, and the Court is loathe to nullify an election based on minor violations of technical requirements. At 208. The supreme court continued by reciting the kind of standard statements about the mandatory/directory dichotomy that have been discussed earlier in this chapter. As a general rule, such provisions are mandatory in two instances: when the statute expressly declares that a particular act is essential to the validity of an election, or when enforcement is sought before an election in a direct proceeding. After an election in which no fraud is alleged or proven, when the Court seeks to uphold the result in order to avoid disenfranchising those who voted, such provisions are merely directory even though the Legislature used seemingly mandatory terms such as “shall” or “must” in establishing the provisions. At 208. But then the South Carolina Supreme Court added other grounds for finding that seemingly technical statutory requirements are mandatory even after an election. The Court still may deem such provisions to be mandatory after an election—and thus capable of nullifying the results—when the provisions substantially affect the free and intelligent casting of a vote, the determination of the results, an essential element of the election, or the fundamental integrity of the election....Furthermore, “where there is a total disregard of the statute, it cannot be treated as an irregularity, but it must be held and adjudicated to be cause for declaring the election void and illegal.” At 208 (internal citation omitted) (emphasis supplied). These grounds bear lingering over, since they are several and, as we shall see, capable of having facts fit into them, or not, as a court might desire. In fact, after George, the South Carolina Supreme Court came to the opposite conclusion in Taylor v. Town of Atlantic Beach Election Commission, 609 S.E.2d 500 (2005). But let’s finish the analysis of what the South Carolina Supreme Court concluded in George. 71