Courts should keep the recount a recount

The following editorial appeared Sunday in the King County Journal.

Our election for governor is beginning to look like the movie “Groundhog Day.” Once again we will find Secretary of State Sam Reed has ordered a recount. This time we will wait until nearly Christmas to learn who will be our state’s chief executive.

The third time might be the charm, but only if everyone tries to avoid turning this into an ongoing court battle.

The Democratic Party has put up $730,000 to pay for hand recount. That’s allowed under state law. However, the party also is expected to ask the state Supreme Court to rule that all ballots be treated the same from county to county. Translation: they want the recount to consider some previously uncounted ballots, particularly in Democratic-leaning King County.

That’s not a recount; that’s a re-vote. The court should limit the recount to those votes already counted and not let new ones be added to the mix.

Reed’s office is clear that “a recount is the process where the counties simply re-tabulate all the ballots that were counted in the original count. In the original count, final determinations are made by the county canvassing boards on what votes will be counted. The recount does not allow a review of decisions by the county canvassing boards of what constitutes a vote.”

The election itself gave Republican Dino Rossi the win by 261 votes. A machine recount – required under state law because of the close margin – reduced Rossi’s winning margin to 42 votes.

To her credit, Gregoire told her party’s leaders that the hand recount would have to be statewide and not just of selected precincts where they thought they might pick up enough votes for her to win. State law allows either, but “cherry-picking” precincts would leave too many people questioning the outcome.