Wash. Rev. Code » Title 29A · Chapter 29A.64
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.64.041 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) At the time and place established for a recount, the canvassing board or its duly authorized representatives, in the presence of all witnesses who may be in attendance, shall open the sealed containers containing the ballots to be recounted, and shall recount the votes for the offices or issues for which the recount has been ordered. Ballots shall be handled only by the members of the canvassing board or their duly authorized representatives.
The canvassing board shall not permit the tabulation of votes for any nomination, election, or issue other than the ones for which a recount was applied for or required.
(2) At any time before the ballots from all of the precincts listed in the application for the recount have been recounted, the applicant may file with the board a written request to stop the recount.
(3) The recount may be observed by persons representing the candidates affected by the recount or the persons representing both sides of an issue that is being recounted. Witnesses shall be permitted to observe the ballots and the process of tabulating the votes, but they shall not be permitted to handle the ballots. The observers may not make a record of the names, addresses, or other information on the ballots, declarations, or lists of voters unless authorized by the superior court. The secretary of state or county auditor may limit the number of observers to not less than two on each side if, in his or her opinion, a greater number would cause undue delay or disruption of the recount process.
[ 2011 c 10 s 63; 2004 c 271 s 179.]

Notes:

Notice to registered poll voters—Elections by mail—2011 c 10: See note following RCW 29A.04.008.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2004–2015 · leading case: McDonald v. Sec'y of State, 103 P.3d 722 (Wash. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McDonald v. Sec'y of State, 103 P.3d 722 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “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). · cites it 2× “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.”
White v. Skagit Cnty., 355 P.3d 1178 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 29A.64.041. When election officials question the validity of a challenged or provisional ballot, or when the intent of the voter cannot be resolved, the county canvassing board determines how the votes will be counted.”
Zapotocky v. Dalton, 271 P.3d 326 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “¶13 “Recount” is defined as “the process of retabulating ballots and producing amended election returns based on that retabulation, even if the vote totals have not changed.”
Timothy White v. Skagit Cnty. Island Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “RCW 29A.64.041. When election officials question the validity of a challenged or provisional ballot, or when the intent of the voter cannot be 8 No.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.64.041(1) — 1 case
Zapotocky v. Dalton, 271 P.3d 326 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “¶13 “Recount” is defined as “the process of retabulating ballots and producing amended election returns based on that retabulation, even if the vote totals have not changed.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.64.041(2) — 1 case
Zapotocky v. Dalton, 271 P.3d 326 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “¶13 “Recount” is defined as “the process of retabulating ballots and producing amended election returns based on that retabulation, even if the vote totals have not changed.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.64.041(3) — 1 case
Timothy White v. Skagit Cnty. Island Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 29A.64.041. When election officials question the validity of a challenged or provisional ballot, or when the intent of the voter cannot be 8 No.”
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.