WA State Superior Court Pleading

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 7 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIERCE 8 WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN ) PARTY, an unincorporated association; ) 9 CHRISTOPHER VANCE, a citizen of ) No. Washington State; and JANE MILHANS, a ) 10 citizen of Pierce County. ) COMPLAINT FOR ) DECLARATORY AND 11 Plaintiffs, ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ) 12 v. ) ) 13 ) KING COUNTY DIVISION OF RECORDS, ) 14 ELECTIONS AND LICENSING SERVICES; ) and KING COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD. ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 I. PARTIES 17 1. Plaintiff Washington State Republican Party. The Washington State 18 Republican Party (“WSRP”) is an unincorporated association functioning as a political 19 party that endorses, promotes, and acts on behalf of candidates for offices in Washington. 20 The WSRP has an interest in ensuring that lawful election procedures are followed and that 21 ballots are verified, handled, and counted in accordance with the law and in ensuring that 22 its candidates are given equal protection of the laws and due process. 23 2. Plaintiff Christopher Vance. Christopher Vance is a citizen of Washington 24 State. He is also an elector and chairman of the Washington State Republican Party. 25 26 27 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE Davis Wright Tremaine LLP RELIEF - 1 LAW OFFICE S SEA 1587558v1 55441-3 2600 Century Square  1501 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101-1688 (206) 622-3150  Fax: (206) 628-7699 1 2 3. Plaintiff Jane Milhans. Jane Milhans is a citizen of Washington State and 3 resides in Pierce County. She is also an elector and chairman of the Pierce County 4 Republican Party. 5 4. Defendant King County Division of Records, Elections and Licensing 6 Services. Defendant King County Division of Records, Elections and Licensing Services 7 (“King County Elections Division”) is responsible for administering elections in King

8 County. 9 5. Defendant King County Canvassing Board. Defendant King County 10 Canvassing Board (“Canvassing Board”) is the appropriately designated entity responsible 11 for canvassing the returns for King County, Washington pursuant to RCW 29A.60.010 12 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 13 6. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to RCW 4.28.020 and 14 RCW 4.28.080. Pursuant to RCW 36.01.050, venue is proper in Pierce County because 15 Pierce County is adjacent to King County and the King County Elections Division is a 16 division of King County. 17 III. FACTS 18 7. On November 17, 2004 Secretary of State Sam Reed (“Secretary of State”) 19 announced the official results of the November 2, 2004 general election. Dino Rossi won

20 the Governor’s race by a margin of 261 votes. See 21 http:///www.secstate/wa/gov/office/news_releases.aspx. Because the margin of victory 22 was fewer than 2000 votes, the Secretary of State ordered a machine recount of the votes in 23 the race for governor. See RCW 29A.64.021. 24 8. The votes were reticulated, and Governor-Elect Rossi again prevailed. 25 Pursuant to RCW 29A.60.250, the Secretary of State certified the results and confirmed on 26 November 30, 2004 that Rossi was the Governor-Elect. See 27 http://vote.wa.gov/general/recount.aspx. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE Davis Wright Tremaine LLP RELIEF - 2 LAW OFFICE S SEA 1587558v1 55441-3 2600 Century Square  1501 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101-1688 (206) 622-3150  Fax: (206) 628-7699 1 2 9. Not satisfied with the results of the previous two tabulations of the votes, on 3 December 3, 2004, the Washington State Democratic Central Committee (“WSDCC”) a 4 requested a state-wide manual recount pursuant to RCW 29A.04.139. 5 10. On that same day, the WSDCC filed a Petition in the Washington State 6 Supreme Court seeking an emergency relief and an order directing the Secretary of State to 7 promulgate “uniform standards” for the manual recount. The WSDCC sought an order 8 from the Supreme Court requiring that the canvassing boards of all 39 counties in the 9 State of Washington recanvass all ballots previously canvassed and rejected. 10 11. On December 14, 2004, the Supreme Court denied the relief holding that 11 the word “recount” means the process of retabulating ballots and producing amended 12 election returns under RCW 29A.04.139. The Supreme Court further held that under 13 Washington law, ballots are to be “retabulated” only if they have been previously 14 counted or tallied. The Supreme Court rejected the position of the WSDCC that 15 recanvassing of rejected ballots was required under any applicable Washington state 16 statute. 17 12. On or about December 13, 2004, King County Elections Division disclosed 18 that there were at least an additional 520 ballots which had previously been canvassed and 19 rejected and which should now be counted.

20 13. On December 15, 2004, at the Canvassing Board meeting, Dean Logan, 21 Director of King County Elections Division, stated that instead of 520 ballots, there were 22 573 absentee ballots that had previously been canvassed and rejected prior to 23 November 17, 2004 because King County could not match the signatures on the absentee 24 ballots with any digital voter registration signatures. 25 14. Logan and Bill Huennekins, King County Elections Supervisor, both stated 26 that the King County Elections Division has already checked the signatures on the absentee 27 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE Davis Wright Tremaine LLP RELIEF - 3 LAW OFFICE S SEA 1587558v1 55441-3 2600 Century Square  1501 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101-1688 (206) 622-3150  Fax: (206) 628-7699 1 2 ballots twice against the database of digital signatures – first by an election worker and 3 then by a supervisor. 4 15. Prior to the November 17, 2004 certification, King County Elections 5 Division had also sent a letter to more than 1000 absentee voters giving them an 6 opportunity to update their registration signatures. The 573 voters who submitted the 7 rejected ballots at issue did not respond to that letter and as a result, their signatures were 8 never updated in the digital signature files for King County Elections Division. 9 16. The 573 absentee ballots have not been kept secured since they were 10 rejected in November 2004. While counted ballots were placed in sealed containers and 11 kept in a fenced, locked area as required by statute, rejected ballots were not placed in 12 sealed containers but were kept in open trays. On at least one occasion, the rejected ballots 13 were removed from the fenced, locked area and kept overnight in an open area in open 14 trays. 15 17. On or about December 13, 2004 the ballots were transferred from the Mail 16 Ballot Operations Satellite office (“MBOS”) or the King County Elections Division to the 17 King County Administration Building. The trays of ballots were not accompanied by any 18 observers or a Deputy Sheriff from the King County Sheriff’s Office as was the normal 19 procedure.

20 18. Although the Washington State Supreme Court on December 14, 2004 held 21 that no recanvassing should occur in the hand recount, the King County Canvassing Board 22 voted on December 15, 2004 to recanvass the previously rejected 573 absentee ballots. 23 IV. CAUSES OF ACTION 24 19. Violation of Washington Constitution. Defendants’ actions in recanvassing 25 ballots previously rejected violate Plaintiffs right to Due Process and Equal Protection and 26 allows the lawful votes of properly registered voters to be diluted or cancelled by the votes 27 of those unauthorized to vote or to be diluted or cancelled by those voting more than one COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE Davis Wright Tremaine LLP RELIEF - 4 LAW OFFICE S SEA 1587558v1 55441-3 2600 Century Square  1501 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101-1688 (206) 622-3150  Fax: (206) 628-7699 1 2 time. Such a failure damages Plaintiffs’ interests and violates the Washington 3 Constitution. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if Defendants’ actions continue. 4 20. Violation of Washington Constitution. Defendants, unlike other counties, 5 are conducting or intend to conduct a recanvass of previously rejected ballots not 6 authorized by statute. As a result of this unauthorized recanvass, voters in King County 7 are more likely have their votes counted than voters in other counties. Defendants’ actions 8 in recanvassing ballots previously rejected ballots violate Plaintiffs’ rights to Equal 9 Protection and damages Plaintiffs’ interests. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if 10 Defendants’ actions continue. 11 21. Violation of RCW 29A.60.100 and RCW 29A.60.050. Defendants’ 12 counting or proposed counting of ballots that have not been secured as required by RCW 13 29A.60.100 and RCW 29A.60.050 violates Plaintiffs’ rights. 14 22. Violation of RCW 29A.84.120. Defendants’ procedures change registration 15 records and allow the lawful votes of properly registered voters to be diluted or cancelled 16 by the votes of those unauthorized to vote or to be diluted or cancelled by those voting 17 more than one time, which damages Plaintiffs’ interests and violates Washington law by 18 disenfranchising eligible citizens. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if Defendants’ 19 actions continue.

20 V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully prays for the following relief: 22 A. For equitable relief in the form of a temporary restraining order; preliminary 23 injunction pending a trial on the merits; and a permanent injunction against Defendants: 24 1. Ordering Defendants to segregate the 573 previously rejected 25 absentee ballots; 26 2. Ordering Defendants to retain the absentee envelope with each 27 absentee ballot; and COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE Davis Wright Tremaine LLP RELIEF - 5 LAW OFFICE S SEA 1587558v1 55441-3 2600 Century Square  1501 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101-1688 (206) 622-3150  Fax: (206) 628-7699 1 2 3. Prohibiting Defendants from canvassing the 573 previously rejected 3 and canvassed ballots. 4 B. For equitable relief in the form of a declaratory judgment setting forth the 5 Defendants’ rights and obligations under the law; 6 C. For judgment for the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by 7 Plaintiffs in this lawsuit; and 8 D. For such other relief as the court may deem just or equitable. 9 DATED this _____ day of December, 2017.

10 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 11 Attorneys for Washington State Republican Party 12

13 By Harry Korrell, WSBA #23173 14 Robert J. Maguire, WSBA #29909 15 16 Attorney for Washington State Republican Party 17

18 By Diane E. Tebelius, WSBA #19727 19 Attorney at Law 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE Davis Wright Tremaine LLP RELIEF - 6 LAW OFFICE S SEA 1587558v1 55441-3 2600 Century Square  1501 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101-1688 (206) 622-3150  Fax: (206) 628-7699