The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges [T]here was no systematic invasion of privacy, as was evident in George…which affected the fundamental integrity of the election and gave rise to a constitutional violation sufficient to set aside the election results. We conclude this issue constitutes an irregularity that did not affect the result of the election, and the record does not demonstrate evidence of fraud, a constitutional violation, or a statute providing this irregularity should invalidate the election. At 505 (emphasis supplied). So Taylor is distinguishable from George because the irregularities are isolated instances when viewed in the context of all of the ballots cast. As a result, violation of the secrecy of the ballot—ruled to be a violation of a mandatory procedure in George—was found, in essence, to be only a violation of a technical requirement in Taylor. Once again, the facts of the case, and not the reliance on a legal theory, drove the result of the case. Note that in neither case did the supreme court find that the irregularities affected the result of the election. F. Substantial compliance with directory procedures will make ballots valid. In Boardman the Florida Supreme Court determined that portions of the statutes that set out the requirements for casting absentee ballots were directory, not mandatory, and then analyzed the validity of absentee ballots by determining whether the ballots substantially complied with those directory provisions. In Boardman the supreme court said, At issue is whether the absentee voting law requires absolute strict compliance with all its provisions, or whether substantial compliance is sufficient to give validity to the ballot. At 262 (emphasis supplied). Then the supreme court concluded, [W]e hold that the primary consideration in an election contest is whether the will of the people has been effected. In determining the effect of irregularities on the validity of [sic] absentee ballots case, the following factors shall be considered: (a) the presence or absence of fraud, gross negligence, or intentional wrongdoing; (b) whether there has been substantial compliance with the essential requirements of the absentee voting law; and (c) whether the irregularities complained of adversely affect the sanctity of the ballot and the integrity of the election. The underlying concern of the election officials in making the initial determination as to the validity of the absentee ballots is whether they were cast by qualified, registered voters, who were entitled to vote absentee and who did so in a proper manner. The substantial compliance test used by the trial judge comports with our conclusion that strict compliance with the statutory requirements for absentee balloting is not required to validate the ballots. At 269-270 (emphasis supplied). Likewise, the Wisconsin Supreme Court emphasized the substantial compliance test in summarizing the basis for deciding whether a statute is mandatory or directory. In McNally v. Tollander, 302 N.W.2d 440 74