determined properly that the ballot expressed a certain intent held by the voter, the very kind of subjective determination where the canvassers ought to be accorded the most deference. Id. Petitioners here contend there are limitations to the reach of deference that Wis. Stat. § 9.01(8) affords the canvassers and that it does not work to abrogate Wiegand or Wis. Stat. § 7.54 wholesale. This case does not contest the canvassers with respect to their factual findings regarding the intent of any given ballots. Here, Petitioners are challenging the counting of the ballots. That is in fact a further novelty of this case which commends it for review. Petitioners interpret the deference accorded a board of canvassers under Wis. Stat. § 9.01(8) as not extended to counting the ballots –a ministerial function that is carried out separately from making findings of fact to determine the intent of a voter. This distinction is crucial and explains why the legislature has continued to re-enact the Contested Elections statute. Furthermore, the general abrogation suffered by Wiegand may not actually extend to referenda, which this case concerns –a further novelty. Wis. Stat. § 9.01(11) sets forth that Wis. Stat. § 9.01 “constitutes the exclusive judicial remedy for testing the right to hold an elective
20
