"Nonsense. If the oval were filled in but the voter went a little outside the line, one could reasonably posit that the voter was trying to fill in the oval precisely but lacked the coordination to do so. in this case, the voter clearly intended to mark the ballot in a manner other than the legally-prescribed one. Consequently, the ballot is void."
You are sentencing a whole bunch of old people to not having their votes count. They can't see the little circles. I'm not referring to a few. I'm referring to large numbers. When I teach elderhostel, about half of the seniors cannot pick buttons and links out on a computer screen. They need BIG views with high contrast.
Personally, I don't think a technicality should rule out a vote by a qualified voter who made the vote clear. As long as the rules are the same for everybody, it's fair.
If it's not clear, it shouldn't be counted. If it is clear, count it. (IMHO)
The solution to that problem is not to throw out required marking standards for ballots, but rather to provide equipment that anyone can use to mark ballots properly (e.g. go into specian "assisted" booth, insert ballot, punch buttons in response to either large on-screen messages or headphone-delivered audio prompts, and then have the machine mark the choices on the ballot).
To rule that ballots can be marked in any way other than the indicated method and still count is to render machine counts worthless and turn the election into a free-for-all.