As a follow-up to the original question re: oath-taking as a condition of voting, I will say that a voter had to comply with Section 1 of the Convention Ordinance which, in summary, prevents persons from voting who have "since the 17th day of December A.D. 1861 willfully taken up arms or levied war against the United States...." This is an often seen oath and is quoted in several sources. The source before me is "Cases of Contested Elections in Congress from 1834-1865, Inclusive" Washington 1865
In Lindsay vs Scott Contested Election, from a special election held August 3, 1863, that I have researched, one of the main complaints of the loser, James Lindsay, was that persons did not subscribe to the "convention oath" ie: to prevent possible disloyal men from voting. It was Lindsay's contention that he lost because the disloyal voted for the Copperhead, John Scott. In addition, taking the oath formally but not truthfully would also disqualify the vote. To aid the judges/clerks at the election the Enrolled Missouri Militia lists were available. In Lindsay vs. Scott, Order # 24 was not mentioned but it was in James Birch vs. Austin King of Nov. 1862. In the latter case, the rolls of the disloyal were not complete prior to the election so not all potentially ineligible voters could be identified but some were and these men were prevented from voting. Use of these "disloyal lists" obviously was an important tool for the election judges/clerks.
In Lindsay vs. Scott there were also complaints that eletion judges themselves did not take the oath and it is known from other research that quite a few of them had sons then in/formerly in the rebel service. On the whole, it is quite amazing that any semblance of a fair election could take place in Civil War Missouri.