during the election, such observers had been of special importance to guard the rights of the candidates. The Supreme Court considered this a serious fault of the election process. The Supreme Court referred to the fact that it was the role of the legislature to establish clear and unambiguous rules for the conduct of public elections which take into account the circumstances resulting from their special nature. It was however not lawful for the government to deviate from the clear provisions of the laws concerning elections, because of the number of candidates or because of new procedures thought suitable for electronic tallying of votes. The Court further pointed to case law supporting its decision. The Court referred to the fact that in Icelandic jurisprudence there was precedent for declaring elections null and void when the election process was in breach of law and suited to violate election secrecy. For example, elections in Helgafellssveit regarding the unification of municipalities had been declared null and void. That judgement was reached because the ballot paper was of such a make that it was possible to see writing though it, even though it was folded. In its reasoning in that case the Supreme Court said: The ballot paper does thus not ensure, that the election is secret in accordance to Article 17 of Act no. 8/1986, which is among fundamental provisions in Icelandic law concerning public elections, pursuant to Article 87. and Article 91. of Act no. 80/1987 and Article 31. of the Icelandic Constitution. A fault in this regard is by its very nature conductive to influence the outcome of elections Another precedent from jurisprudence where elections have been declared null and void because of faults in election secrecy is the election to a Municipal Commission in Geithellnahreppur 25 June 1978. Like the precedent the Supreme Court referred to in its decision on the Constitutional Assembly, the ballot papers were of such a make that it was possible to see writing through them when folded. The Supreme Court stated: We concur with the District Court decision, that the ballot paper was not of the make that is prescribed by law in Article 50. of Act no. 52/1959, pursuant to Article 1. of Act no. 5/1962, pursuant to Article 1. of Act no. 5/1966 and the principal rule of Article 7., 2. para, of Act no. 5/1962, and does not ensure, that the elections