Wash. Rev. Code » Title 29A · Chapter 29A.60
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.60.110 (2026)

Ballot containers, sealing, opening

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Immediately after their tabulation, all ballots counted at a ballot counting center must be sealed in containers that identify the primary or election and be retained for at least sixty days or according to federal law, whichever is longer.
(2) In the presence of major party observers who are available, ballots may be removed from the sealed containers at the elections department and consolidated into one sealed container for storage purposes. The containers may only be opened by the canvassing board as part of the canvass, to conduct recounts, to conduct a random check under RCW 29A.60.170, to conduct an audit under RCW 29A.60.185, or by order of the superior court in a contest or election dispute. If the canvassing board opens a ballot container, it shall make a full record of the additional tabulation or examination made of the ballots. This record must be added to any other record of the canvassing process in that county.
[ 2018 c 218 s 4; 2013 c 11 s 61; 2011 c 10 s 50; 2003 c 111 s 1511; 1999 c 158 s 14; 1990 c 59 s 59. Formerly RCW 29.54.075.]

Notes:

Intent—2018 c 218: See note following RCW 29A.60.185.
Notice to registered poll voters—Elections by mail—2011 c 10: See note following RCW 29A.04.008.
Intent—Effective date—1990 c 59: See notes following RCW 29A.04.013.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2004–2023 · leading case: Timothy White v. Clark Cnty., 199 Wash. App. 929 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Timothy White v. Clark Cnty., 199 Wash. App. 929 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 19× “But we hold White is not entitled to disclosure of the requested records because (1) both RCW 29A.60.110 and WAC 434-261-045 create an “other statute” exemption that applies to election ballots even after the minimum 60-day retention period after tabulation, (2) whether concerns…”
White v. Clark Cnty., 354 P.3d 38 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “*634 ¶23 The security of election ballots after they have been tabulated is addressed in RCW 29A.60.110, which provides: Immediately after their tabulation, all ballots counted at a ballot counting center must be sealed in containers that identify the primary or election and be…”
White v. Skagit Cnty., 355 P.3d 1178 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 29A.60.110. ¶9 The record contains declarations by county employees explaining how ballots are processed.”
McDonald v. Sec'y of State, 103 P.3d 722 (Wash. 2004). “" See RCW 29A.60.110. Thus, under Washington's statutory scheme, ballots are to be "retabulated" only if they have been previously counted or tallied, subject to the provisions of RCW 29A.”
McDonald v. Reed, 153 Wash. 2d 201 (Wash. 2004). “” See RCW 29A.60.110. Thus, under Washington’s statutory scheme, ballots are to be “retabulated” only if they have been previously counted or tallied, subject to the provisions of RCW 29A.”
Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Chandra Schumacher (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 10× “The complaint alleged that WEiCU had “issued a records request for ballots to confirm or deny the conduct,” and sought “a Court order compelling release of the public records, including a Court order unsealing ballots under RCW 29A.60.110” for purposes of its proposed forensic…”
Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Bradrick (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 5× “Courts have rejected this proposition, too: “RCW 29A.60.110 and WAC 434-261-045 17 provide categorical exemptions, not conditional ones,” and “no amount of redaction will transform 18 the ballots into some other type of record.”
Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Kimsey (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 5× “Courts have rejected this proposition, too: “RCW 29A.60.110 and WAC 434-261-045 17 provide categorical exemptions, not conditional ones,” and “no amount of redaction will transform 18 the ballots into some other type of record.”
Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Anderson (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 5× “Courts have 21 rejected this proposition, too: “RCW 29A.60.110 and WAC 434-261-045 provide categorical 22 exemptions, not conditional ones,” and “no amount of redaction will transform the ballots into 23 some other type of record.”
Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Hall (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 5× “Courts have rejected this proposition, too: “RCW 29A.60.110 and WAC 434-261-045 21 provide categorical exemptions, not conditional ones,” and “no amount of redaction will transform 22 the ballots into some other type of record.”
Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Fell (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 5× “Courts have rejected this proposition, too: “RCW 29A.60.110 20 and WAC 434-261-045 provide categorical exemptions, not conditional ones,” and “no amount of 21 redaction will transform the ballots into some other type of record.”
Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Wise (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 4× “” Washington courts have 12 squarely held that both Section 29A.60.110 of the Revised Code of Washington and Section 434- 13 261-045 of the Washington Administrative Code create a statutory exemption for ballots and ballot 14 images under the “other statute” exemption.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.60.110(2) — 6 cases
Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Bradrick (W.D. Wash. 2022). “Courts have rejected this proposition, too: “RCW 29A.60.110 and WAC 434-261-045 17 provide categorical exemptions, not conditional ones,” and “no amount of redaction will transform 18 the ballots into some other type of record.”
Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Kimsey (W.D. Wash. 2022). “Courts have rejected this proposition, too: “RCW 29A.60.110 and WAC 434-261-045 17 provide categorical exemptions, not conditional ones,” and “no amount of redaction will transform 18 the ballots into some other type of record.”
Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Anderson (W.D. Wash. 2022). “Courts have 21 rejected this proposition, too: “RCW 29A.60.110 and WAC 434-261-045 provide categorical 22 exemptions, not conditional ones,” and “no amount of redaction will transform the ballots into 23 some other type of record.”
Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Hall (W.D. Wash. 2022). “Courts have rejected this proposition, too: “RCW 29A.60.110 and WAC 434-261-045 21 provide categorical exemptions, not conditional ones,” and “no amount of redaction will transform 22 the ballots into some other type of record.”
Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Fell (W.D. Wash. 2022). “Courts have rejected this proposition, too: “RCW 29A.60.110 20 and WAC 434-261-045 provide categorical exemptions, not conditional ones,” and “no amount of 21 redaction will transform the ballots into some other type of record.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.