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

Heading: Summary of Contests

Text: ¶ 11 Arthur Coday, Jr., a registered voter in King County, argues that the state violated the Washington Constitution in conducting the 2004 gubernatorial election. Specifically, he contends that article I, section 19 of the Washington Constitution was violated. Article I, section 19, entitled Freedom of Elections provides that [a]ll Elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage. He claims that the State ran afoul of this provision in five particular ways. ¶ 12 Coday first argues that article I, section 19 was violated because Gregoire and the Democratic Party were allowed to purchase the right to a hand recount. Coday Br. at 5 (the Democratic . . . Party made payment of money to the State in order to purchase the right to recount a State-certified election). The election was literally not free as required by article I, section 19, Coday argues, because the recount, and therefore the election, could be bought or sold. Id. ¶ 13 Coday next argues that the election was not equal because all voters did not have the unconditional right to call for a recount. Id. at 7. He asserts that the opportunity to call for a recount must be unconditional, i.e., unlimited. Because effectively only one party may call for a recount under Washington's recount statute, the opportunity for other parties to seek a recount is necessarily limited. Furthermore, Coday argues, the person who actually does get to request a recount is afforded a special favor. Id. ¶ 14 Coday's third argument is that the State improperly counted additional ballots not tabulated in the initial count. He observes that in the three counts of ballots in the election process for the Governor, there has been one count each of three different sets of ballots, and not a single `recount' of the original set of approved ballots. Id. According to Coday, the failure to count only one set of ballots violates the principle of `equal [sic].' Id. at 8. ¶ 15 Next, Coday claims that Washington's recount laws are statistically flawed. Id. at 10. He argues that the proper statistical method for determining the winner of an election during a recount is to average the results of each of the counts. Because Washington's recount method considers only the results of the final count, it is contrary to [m]odern statistical theory. Id. ¶ 16 Coday's final argument is focused on the practice of enhancing ballots. He asserts that the practice of enhancing ballots is inherently illegal, claiming that [a]n `enhanced' ballot is merely a pseudonym for a ballot tainted by tampering. Id. at 11. ¶ 17 Coday asks this court to require the State to return the money provided to it by the Democratic Party in advance of the recount. He also asks us to [s]trike down any law that provides private parties with the unconditional right to call for a recount, require the use of a single set of ballots for each of the recounts, require the State to average the results of each of the recounts, reject all enhanced ballots, and inaugurate Dino Rossi as governor of Washington. Id. at 12.
¶ 18 Michael J. Goodall, a registered voter in King County, filed a Citizens Complaint contesting the election of Christine Gregoire as governor. He alleges that Gregoire is unfit to be governor because she impermissibly offered Washington voters a reward in exchange for their votes. ¶ 19 Goodall's son, C.N., has severe autism and was placed in foster care because neither Goodall nor C.N.'s mother could properly care for him. Goodall argues that while in foster care, his son was abused and maltreated. He contends that then-Attorney General Gregoire was aware of this abuse but conspired with other individuals in the Office of the Attorney General and with other state agencies and the King County Superior Court to cover up this abuse in order to shield the State from a large judgment. Goodall maintains that Gregoire was motivated to prevent a large judgment against the State because it would be politically embarrassing for the Office of the Attorney General and would hurt her chances of being elected governor. ¶ 20 Goodall contends this alleged cover-up falls within RCW 29A.68.020(4) and is a basis for invalidating the results of the election. RCW 29A.68.020(4) provides that any registered voter may contest the right of any person declared elected to an office to be issued a certificate of election . . . . . . . (4) Because the person whose right is being contested gave a bribe or reward to a voter or to an inspector or judge of election for the purpose of procuring the election, or offered to do so. ¶ 21 Goodall asks this court to not allow Christine Gregoire to become Governor because her alleged deliberate acts of covering up [acts of child] abuse and maltreatment by state foster homes violated RCW 29A.68.030(4). Citizens Complaint at 7.
¶ 22 Suzanne D. Karr, a registered voter in Snohornish County, filed an Affidavit of Error or Omission in which she contests the results of the 2004 gubernatorial election. Karr charges that the election is invalid because of misconduct on the part of King County election officials and illegal votes counted in the governor's race. ¶ 23 With respect to her claim of misconduct on the part of election officials, Karr claims that (1) a number of provisional ballots in King County were counted without having first been deemed valid, (2) election officials impermissibly released to the Democratic and Republican parties names of provisional voters whose signatures on file did not match their signatures on their ballots and allowed the parties to submit signature verification affidavits on behalf of voters, and (3) election officials failed to obtain or to adequately verify voter signatures on some ballots, resulting in a greater number of votes being cast than voters appearing on the list of electors having voted. ¶ 24 Karr claims that a number of illegal votes were counted because some voters cast more than one vote or were disqualified under article VI, section 3 of the Washington Constitution, [2] because they were felons or had been declared incompetent. Karr contests the right of Gregoire to be elected but asks for no particular relief.
¶ 25 Daniel P. Stevens, a registered voter in King County, claims that the results of the election are invalid because [t]he delta value of votes given to both candidates is exponentially within the tally's margin of error, to the point that error must be assumed as a certainty, as given by three separate counts resulting in three different outcomes. Stevens' Br. at 1. ¶ 26 Stevens requests that this court [n]ullify the election and [o]rder a revote. Id.