[UPDATE -- All hand recounts in, Gregoire up by 10 votes. This is before the canvassing of absentee votes permitted by the State Supreme Court today. They are scheduled to be counted Thursday morning.]
The TRO is
dissolved.
It thus follows that the superior court erred in granting a temporary restraining order, and that the King County Canvassing Board properly concluded that it had authority to recanvass the subject ballots pursuant to RCW 29A.60.210. Based on the law as declared in this opinion, respondents are not entitled to injunctive relief. Therefore, the superior court's "Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause" is reversed and vacated, and the cause is remanded to the superior court for entry of an order of dismissal forthwith.
The opinion is short, clear and unanimous. The TRO was dissolved because the lower court was wrong in its interpretation of the recount statute.
The statute in question, RCW 29A.60.210 provides in part:
Whenever the canvassing board finds that there is an apparent discrepancy or an inconsistency in the returns of a primary or election, the board may recanvass the ballots or voting devices in any precincts of the county.
Note "recanvassing." RCW 29A.04.013 defines "Canvassing":
"Canvassing" means the process of examining ballots or groups of ballots, subtotals, and cumulative totals in order to determine the official returns of a primary or general election and includes the tabulation of any votes that were not tabulated at the precinct or in a counting center on the day of the primary or election.
So, on a recount, "recanvassing" is permitted, and the outcome should have been self-evident from there.
And it was. However, it never fails to amaze me that some mouthpiece can come up with an imaginary parade of horribles that we must at all costs -- including widespread disenfranchisement -- avoid. The case never passed the smell test, ever. How can you make the argument with a straight face that the purity of an election requires disqualifying otherwise valid votes?
For the answer to that, see the USSC decision in the 2000 election.
Update for legibility.