Opinion ID: 2622780
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Coday Contest

Text: ¶ 35 Coday's first two claims, that the election was not free as required by the constitution because Gregoire was allowed to purchase the right to a hand recount and that the election was not equal as required by the constitution because not all citizens had an equal, unqualified right to contest the election, are not cognizable under the election contest statute. The procedure for commencing a recount and the requirement that a deposit be made to cover the costs of a recount should the result of the election not be changed are established by statute. See RCW 29A.64.011, .030, .081. A party requesting a recount does not purchase the right to a recount, but makes a deposit, which is refunded if the result of the election is reversed as a result of the recount. See RCW 29A.64.030. Furthermore, any elector, along with four other electors, has the right to request a recount. RCW 29A.64.011. Neither of the provisions Coday challenges violates the free and equal requirement of article I, section 19 of the constitution. ¶ 36 The third claim, that the State violated its own laws by counting different sets of ballots in each recount, is meritless in light of our decision in Washington State Republican Party, which addressed this very issue and approved the practice of counting certain ballots in a recount that had not been previously counted, under certain circumstances. See Wash. State Republican Party, 153 Wash.2d at 224, 103 P.3d 725. Coday's fourth issue, that the State's ballot counting procedures were statistically flawed, is not addressable under any provision of the election contest statute. The recounts were properly conducted pursuant to the methodology established in statute. The statute governing recounts, chapter 29A.64 RCW, neither provides for, nor allows, the statistical averaging of recount results. Nothing about this recount methodology violates article I, section 19's requirement of free and equal elections. ¶ 37 The fifth issue raised by Coday is similarly without merit. Coday claims that the practice of ballot enhancement violates the constitutional requirement of an equal election. The practice of ballot enhancement does not actually enhance a ballot, but instead allows a vote recorded on a ballot to be made readable by electronic voting equipment consistently with the voter's intent. WAC 434-261-005. The secretary of state has authorized the practice of ballot enhancement ( see WAC 434-261-005, -070, -080, and -085), and has dictated procedures to ensure that ballot enhancement occurs in a fair and transparent manner. See WAC 434-261-070(3)(c), -080. This process does not in any way run afoul of our constitution's requirement for an equal election.