Wash. Rev. Code » Title 29A · Chapter 29A.60

Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.60.125

Damaged ballots

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If inspection of the ballot reveals a physically damaged ballot or ballot that may be otherwise unreadable or uncountable by the tabulating system, the county auditor may refer the ballot to the county canvassing board or duplicate the ballot if so authorized by the county canvassing board. The voter's original ballot may not be altered. A ballot may be duplicated only if the intent of the voter's marks on the ballot is clear and the electronic voting equipment might not otherwise properly tally the ballot to reflect the intent of the voter. Ballots must be duplicated by teams of two or more people working together. When duplicating ballots, the county auditor shall take the following steps to create and maintain an audit trail of the action taken:
(1) Each original ballot and duplicate ballot must be assigned the same unique control number, with the number being marked upon the face of each ballot, to ensure that each duplicate ballot may be tied back to the original ballot;
(2) A log must be kept of the ballots duplicated, which must at least include:
(a) The control number of each original ballot and the corresponding duplicate ballot;
(b) The initials of at least two people who participated in the duplication of each ballot; and
(c) The total number of ballots duplicated.
Original and duplicate ballots must be sealed in secure storage at all times, except during duplication, inspection by the canvassing board, tabulation, or to conduct an audit under RCW 29A.60.185.
[ 2018 c 218 s 8; 2005 c 243 s 10.]

Notes:

Intent—2018 c 218: See note following RCW 29A.60.185.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2015–2023 · leading case: White v. Skagit County
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
White v. Skagit County (2015) washctapp · cites it 5× “” RCW 29A.60.125. ¶10 Digital images of all ballots do exist for a short time when ballots are scanned into the first of two computers.”
White v. Clark County (2015) washctapp · cites it 2× “However, RCW 29A.60.125 is entitled “Damaged ballots” and clearly applies only to situations where a ballot is damaged and must be duplicated.”
Timothy White v. Clark County (2017) washctapp “And RCW 29A.60.125 provides procedures for handling damaged ballots, and expressly states that “ballots must be sealed in secure storage at all times, except during duplication, inspection by the canvassing board, or tabulation.”
Timothy White v. Skagit County Island County (2015) washctapp · cites it 5× “" RCW29A.60.125. Digital images of all ballots do exist for a short time when ballots are scanned into the first of two computers.”
Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Chandra Schumacher (2023) washctapp “” Division One relied on all of Title 29A RCW, pointing out the “great detail” with which it ensures that the process of collecting, counting, storing, and ultimately destroying ballots “achieves the constitutional mandate for a secret ballot”; the fact that only one,…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.60.125(2) — 1 case
White v. Clark County (2015) washctapp “However, RCW 29A.60.125 is entitled “Damaged ballots” and clearly applies only to situations where a ballot is damaged and must be duplicated.”
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.