Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 204.22 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Repealed, 1975 c 5 s 135]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1961–1975 · leading case: Fitzgerald v. Morlock, 120 N.W.2d 339 (Minn. 1963).
Fitzgerald v. Morlock, 120 N.W.2d 339 (Minn. 1963). “The first paragraph of § 204.22, which provides rules for the counting of ballots, reads as follows: “In counting ballots a ballot may not be rejected for any technical error that does not make it impossible to determine the voter’s choice even though the ballot may be slightly…”
Johnson v. Swenson, 119 N.W.2d 723 (Minn. 1963). “3, prohibits any voter, judge, or any other person from placing any mark as a means of identification upon a ballot other than the signature and initials of the election judges which are required by law, when we come to § 204.22, which prescribes the rules for counting ballots…”
Bell v. Gannaway, 227 N.W.2d 797 (Minn. 1975). “The provisions of § 204.22(d) apply. [3] Ballot No. 67 should *801 have been accepted as valid, and its rejection is overruled.”
Munnell v. Rowlette, 145 N.W.2d 531 (Minn. 1966). “” Section 204.22 provides: “In counting ballots a ballot may not be rejected for any technical error that does not make it impossible to determine the voter’s choice even though the ballot may be slightly soiled or defaced.”
Marshall v. Stepka, 108 N.W.2d 614 (Minn. 1961). “To hold otherwise would be to ignore the clear legislative directives embodied in § 204.22 that a ballot should not be rejected for any technical error that does not make it impossible to determine the voter’s choice; and in § 204.”
Sperl v. Wegwerth, 120 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. 1963). “In considering the merits of this objection, we must keep in mind § 204.22(d), which provides: “When a mark (X) is made out of its proper place, but on or so near a name or space as to indicate clearly that the voter intended to mark the name, the vote shall be counted as so…”
Ganske v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 84, 136 N.W.2d 405 (Minn. 1965). “1, has on the canons of construction embodied in § 204.22 governing general elections. Section 200.”
Minn. Stat. § 204.22(b): 1 case
Fitzgerald v. Morlock, 120 N.W.2d 339 (Minn. 1963). “The first paragraph of § 204.22, which provides rules for the counting of ballots, reads as follows: “In counting ballots a ballot may not be rejected for any technical error that does not make it impossible to determine the voter’s choice even though the ballot may be slightly…”
Minn. Stat. § 204.22(d): 3 cases
Fitzgerald v. Morlock, 120 N.W.2d 339 (Minn. 1963). “The first paragraph of § 204.22, which provides rules for the counting of ballots, reads as follows: “In counting ballots a ballot may not be rejected for any technical error that does not make it impossible to determine the voter’s choice even though the ballot may be slightly…”
Bell v. Gannaway, 227 N.W.2d 797 (Minn. 1975). “The provisions of § 204.22(d) apply. [3] Ballot No. 67 should *801 have been accepted as valid, and its rejection is overruled.”
Sperl v. Wegwerth, 120 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. 1963). “In considering the merits of this objection, we must keep in mind § 204.22(d), which provides: “When a mark (X) is made out of its proper place, but on or so near a name or space as to indicate clearly that the voter intended to mark the name, the vote shall be counted as so…”
Minn. Stat. § 204.22(g): 1 case
Fitzgerald v. Morlock, 120 N.W.2d 339 (Minn. 1963). “The first paragraph of § 204.22, which provides rules for the counting of ballots, reads as follows: “In counting ballots a ballot may not be rejected for any technical error that does not make it impossible to determine the voter’s choice even though the ballot may be slightly…”
Minn. Stat. § 204.22(h): 2 cases
Fitzgerald v. Morlock, 120 N.W.2d 339 (Minn. 1963). “The first paragraph of § 204.22, which provides rules for the counting of ballots, reads as follows: “In counting ballots a ballot may not be rejected for any technical error that does not make it impossible to determine the voter’s choice even though the ballot may be slightly…”
Sperl v. Wegwerth, 120 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. 1963). “In considering the merits of this objection, we must keep in mind § 204.22(d), which provides: “When a mark (X) is made out of its proper place, but on or so near a name or space as to indicate clearly that the voter intended to mark the name, the vote shall be counted as so…”
Minn. Stat. § 204.22(i): 1 case
Fitzgerald v. Morlock, 120 N.W.2d 339 (Minn. 1963). “The first paragraph of § 204.22, which provides rules for the counting of ballots, reads as follows: “In counting ballots a ballot may not be rejected for any technical error that does not make it impossible to determine the voter’s choice even though the ballot may be slightly…”
Minn. Stat. § 204.22(k): 3 cases
Johnson v. Swenson, 119 N.W.2d 723 (Minn. 1963). “3, prohibits any voter, judge, or any other person from placing any mark as a means of identification upon a ballot other than the signature and initials of the election judges which are required by law, when we come to § 204.22, which prescribes the rules for counting ballots…”
Fitzgerald v. Morlock, 120 N.W.2d 339 (Minn. 1963). “The first paragraph of § 204.22, which provides rules for the counting of ballots, reads as follows: “In counting ballots a ballot may not be rejected for any technical error that does not make it impossible to determine the voter’s choice even though the ballot may be slightly…”
Marshall v. Stepka, 108 N.W.2d 614 (Minn. 1961). “To hold otherwise would be to ignore the clear legislative directives embodied in § 204.22 that a ballot should not be rejected for any technical error that does not make it impossible to determine the voter’s choice; and in § 204.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.