In Shambach v. Bickhart, 577 Pa. 384, 845 A.2d 793 (2004), the Court noted the general principles that "longstanding and overriding policy" calls for protection of the elective franchise and that, while election laws must be strictly construed to prevent fraud, some voting requirements should be construed liberally in favor of the right to vote so that minor irregularities in casting a vote result in striking that vote only if there exists compelling reason. Id. at 392, 845 A.2d at 798. In Shambach, the Court considered whether the language in Section 1112-A(b)(3), directing that a write-in vote may be cast for "any person not already on the ballot," rendered invalid those ballots on which the voter had cast a write-in vote for a candidate named on the ballot. The Court noted the distinction between the language in Section 1112-A(b)(3), 25 P.S. 3031.12(b)(3), (pertaining to paper ballots counted electronically), which directs that a write-in vote not be cast for a person already listed on the ballot, and the language in Section 1216(e), 25 P.S. 3056(e), (pertaining to votes cast on a voting machine), which explicitly prohibits counting a write-in vote for a person already named on the ballot. The Court stated: "We refuse to read an all-out prohibition into Section 1112-A(b)(3) where one is not explicitly required, particularly given the Commonwealth's longstanding policy to protect the elective franchise. Furthermore, we simply do not agree that the reasons for Section 1216(e)'s bar safeguarding against double voting are present with respect to Section 1112-A(b)(3) where the use of a paper ballot makes ascertainment of double voting easy as compared to when a voting machine is used." Id. at 398, 845 A.2d at 802. Finally, the Court held "that Section 1112-A(b)(3), . . . must be liberally construed to protect voters' right to vote, and, therefore, write-in votes cast for listed candidates may be counted so long as the voter's intent is clear and there is no sign of fraud." Id. at 397, 845 A.2d at 802.