What if nobody wins the final recount? What if the Gubernatorial race becomes a tie? What then?
Here is how elections law could resolve an actual tie:
The critical language comes from the WA Constitution, Article III, Section 4:
". . . if any two or more shall be highest and equal in votes for the same office, one of them shall be chosen by the joint vote of both houses. Contested elections for such officers shall be decided by the legislature in such manner as shall be determined by law."
A tie will send the Gubernatorial election to both houses in the state legislature where according to David Olson, professor of political science at the University of Washington, "Democrats now control both houses, and Gregoire would be selected as the winner, he said. "
If a vote by both houses does not jointly elect the same candidate, the constitution is silent on how to break the political impasse in the legislature. I suppose the legislature could vote repeatedly until there is a joint result or civil unrest breaks out. Maybe its time to amend that law about allowing the public to carry guns in the Legislature.
But what if the election is contested? Then the same constitutional provision requires the matter to be resolved by legal proceedings under RCW 29A.68.
Any registered voter can timely contest an election for illegal votes, etc. pursuant to RCW 29A.68.020. Unfortunately, RCW 29A.68 is silent on the remedy for a tie. A judge could incorporate RCW 29A.60.221(2) as a remedy for ties in contested elections, although it is not technically part of the subchapter on contested elections. That provision allows the Secretary of State to publicly "decide by lot" the results of the gubernatorial election.
Stranger things have happened.
Posted by Tim Ford at December 06, 2004 11:35 AM | Email ThisThat explains' Gregoire's comments in her letter begging for money where she said "We are only 42 votes away from victory." Tie = stolen victory.
Posted by: Skor Grimm on December 6, 2004 12:07 PM". . . if any two or more shall be highest and equal in votes for the same office, one of them shall be chosen by the joint vote of both houses. Contested elections for such officers shall be decided by the legislature in such manner as shall be determined by law."
How does this reconcile with Chapter 29A.68 RCW, which provides for election contests for statewide office to be decided by the courts?
Article III, Section 4 requires the legislature to adopt a law for how election contests are to be decided by the legislature. Instead, the legislature has passed a law to avoid doing what the constitution would require of the legislature, and instead providing for the courts to do this.
The legislature does officially pronounce the returns on the first day of the session (which will be January 10 this time) and there is an inauguration usually two days or so later (January 12 this time).
The Democrats keep talking in their letters from Perkins Coie that election contests would be decided by the legislature.
Have there ever been any contest proceedings in our legislature when the election returns are announced on the opening day?
If the legislature does decide an election contest, is there any appeal or judicial remedy to the party who loses it?
Other states must have similar provisions in their constitutions. Have they ever had to use them?
Posted by: Richard Pope on December 6, 2004 12:52 PMIt does NOT take concurrent agreement by the two chambers voting seperatley.
This is how United States Senators were chosen, before popular election.
Posted by: Jim King on December 6, 2004 09:07 PMKeep in mind that this is most likely nothing more than an intellectual discussion. Practically, the legislature has enacted laws to govern a contested election. To my knowledge, there has never been a tie that has gone to the Legislature. If the final recount produces a tie, you can be sure that there will be an election contest and the matter will not go to the Legislature but be decided by a judge.
Posted by: Tim Ford on December 7, 2004 10:36 AM