Chapter 3 A lawsuit was filed by voters who said they had been confused by the butterfly ballot and were afraid that they had voted for the wrong candidate. They claimed that the butterfly ballot was defective on its face and that its form and design violated the requirements of the Florida election statutes. The trial court, in an unreported decision, issued a declaratory judgment holding that the law did not allow the plaintiffs to get a new election for Presidential electors, which was the remedy they asked for, and so the court denied the claims without an evidentiary hearing about the ballot confusion and the denial of the right to vote. Fladell v. The Elections Canvassing Commission of the State of Florida, Case Numbers CL 00-10965 AB, CL 00-10970 AB, CL 00-10988 AB, CL 00-10992 AB, CL 00-11000 AB, slip op. (15th Cir. Palm Beach County, Fla., November 20, 2000). An appeal on the plaintiffs’ butterfly ballot claim was certified directly to the Florida Supreme Court, where the plaintiffs lost again. Although there had been no evidentiary trial, a butterfly ballot had been attached to the plaintiffs’ complaints that had been filed and therefore became a part of the pleadings and available to the court to look at. The Florida Supreme Court looked at it and said, As a general rule, a court should not void an election for ballot form defects unless such defects cause the ballot to be in substantial noncompliance with the statutory election requirements… In the present case, even accepting appellants’ allegations, we conclude as a matter of law that the Palm Beach County ballot does not constitute substantial noncompliance with the statutory requirements… Fladell v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 772 So.2d 1240, 1242 (2000). The double negative (“does not constitute substantial noncompliance”) seems to mean that the ballot was in substantial compliance, or was at least close to substantial compliance, with the statute. But the effect of the supreme court’s ruling went even further than a judgment about the butterfly ballot. The ruling that the ballot was not in substantial noncompliance with the statute led to vacating all of the trial court’s decision, including a ruling on the law that applies to choosing Presidential electors. The supreme court then said that the plaintiffs’ claim about the butterfly ballot was the threshold issue in respect to whether the complaints stated a cause of action. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of the complaints. Because the dismissal would be proper on that basis, we conclude that all other issues ruled upon by the trial court were not properly reached and, therefore, the court’s rulings thereon are a nullity. At 1242-1243. The rulings that the Florida Supreme Court decided were a nullity involved laws about choosing Presidential electors. Those laws were discussed in detail when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), the case that resulted in the defeat of Al Gore and the election of George W. Bush as President of the United States. But substantial compliance with a mandatory statute is not enough. Taylor v. Central City Community School District, 733 N.W.2d 655 (Iowa 2007), involved a July 13, 2004 special referendum election on whether to issue $4,605,000 worth of general obligation bonds and whether to authorize a tax levy to pay for the bonds. To vote yes or no, the voter had to fill in an oval next to the words “yes” or “no.” Each of those questions needed 60% of the vote in order to be adopted. The first question passed easily. However, the second question—whether to pay for the bonds—passed with just 60.09% of the vote. 77