The big story may not be the selection of Grant’s sucessor [Laura Grant-Herriot], but rather the coming election they will face, and more importantly when.  It’s no secret Republicans would like to gain a seat in the legislature and given the nature of the 16th LD, this may be the place to do it.  And the sooner that seat can be challenged the better.  While the State Constitution provides for vacancies in the Legislature, it gets a bit ambiguous in its application.  Here’s the text that I believe applies in the State Constitution:

[...]and from the list of nominees provided for herein, appoint a person who shall be from the same legislative district, county, or county commissioner or council district and of the same political party as the legislator or partisan county elective officer whose office has been vacated, and the person so appointed shall hold office until his or her successor is elected at the next general election, and has qualified: Provided, That in case of a vacancy occurring after the general election in a year that the office appears on the ballot and before the start of the next term, the term of the successor who is of the same party as the incumbent may commence once he or she has qualified and shall continue through the term for which he or she was elected[...]

The problem appears to be within the definition of “qualified” whereas the successor or appointee has not been “elected”. The “qualified” definition doesn’t address this by simply defining a successor as not “qualified” and the SOS office assumes that this requires a special election.  Is the SOS office just pulling this out of thin air?  What about a successor vs. appointee definition?  What decides which was which, and when?  Would an appointee would be just that until the oath is taken and then they could be defined as successor?  Or, to be a successor you must be elected and “qualified”?  It simply doesn’t say that and provides for an aweful lot of wiggle room for decision making.

And neither the RCW or the state constitution say what actually triggers a special election in that context.

As noted above, the current position of the Sec. of State office is that there will be a special election in November for this seat.  In an email reply they wrote:

The vacant legislative offices will be up for election in 2009 for the remainder of the terms, which end in 2010.  The appointees will serve until the 2009 General Election, at which time the winner of the 2009 General serves (or continues to serve).

 

Some people are misinterpreting RCW 42.12.040(2) to claim that the appointees serve until the end of the term, 2010.  This is incorrect.

 

This RCW contemplates that the incumbent did not run again at the end of his/her term, a successor was elected, and then the incumbent vacates office in December, between the General and the end of the term.  In that narrow scenario, the successor can just take office immediately.

 

It states, “the term of the successor … may commence once he or she has qualified [RCW 29A.04.133]…”  The RCW does not refer to an “appointee” but to the “successor” who has “qualified.”  An appointee cannot “qualify” because he/she has not been elected.

 

It also says, “…and shall continue through the term for which he or she was elected.”   It assumes that the “successor” was elected.

Head spinning yet?  Here is the definition of  “qualified”

“Qualified” when pertaining to a winner of an election means that for such election:

     (1) The results have been certified;

     (2) A certificate has been issued;

     (3) Any required bond has been posted; and

     (4) The winner has taken and subscribed an oath or affirmation in compliance with the appropriate statute, or if none is specified, that he or she will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office to the best of his or her ability. This oath or affirmation shall be administered and certified by any officer or notary public authorized to administer oaths, without charge therefor.

As I understand it, the state Democrats are looking at whether or not to challenge the decision for a special election.  And, as I understand it, the SOS has not released a final statement.  I also asked the SOS office if there were any similar situations in a vacated office.  They knew of none. 

I guess my biggest problem with this is that I can see it the arguement from both postitions.  But without a legal precedent, and/or clear language and even clearer definitions, the door is left wide open for partisan shenanigans.  Republicans would much rather have see an election this November for Grant-Herriot than allow her to establish herself for nearly two years in the legislature. Knowing that makes the Republican controlled SOS decision appear partisan - whether it is or not.