State law prohibits a person from voting more than once in any election in the state, or voting in any election in this state and another state
Jerry Cornfield
Washington State Standard
See Grok’s analysis of this story
It may seem obvious that a registered voter in Washington can only vote once in an election.
It’s not.
Last month, a state appeals court overturned the felony conviction of a Lewis County resident found guilty of voting twice in November 2022 — once in Washington and once in Oregon.
In a 2-1 decision, the court concluded that because there were no overlapping candidates or issues on the two ballots, these were separate elections. An election, they reasoned, refers to a choice among a specific slate of candidates or propositions, and not the process of voting on a particular day.
Lewis County prosecutors will ask the Washington Supreme Court to review the decision.
Meanwhile, lawmakers, at the behest of Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, have responded with a bill to provide a more precise definition of “election” and “same election.”
Sen. Adrian Cortes, D-Battle Ground, told the Senate State Government, Tribal Affairs and Elections Committee on Tuesday that he was “flabbergasted” when he learned of what occurred.
“If you live here, you vote here. You don’t get to vote anywhere else,” said Cortes, who is the prime sponsor of Senate Bill 6084.
State law prohibits a person from voting more than once in any election in the state, or voting in any election in this state and another state. The court case has stirred up questions over what exactly that means.
The Lewis County man previously lived in Oregon and received a ballot from his old address. He also received a Washington ballot. He argued that because each ballot contained a different set of issues, they should be considered two separate elections, regardless of the fact that they occurred on the same day.
In the state’s view, the ordinary meaning of an election refers to the process of voting for candidates. In other words, elections that take place on the same date constitute the same election, regardless of the slate of candidates or issues.
But in their ruling, Appeals Court Judges Bradley Maxa and Bernard Veljacic concluded that “the plain language of the statute is subject to two reasonable interpretations, making the statute ambiguous.”
Judge Linda Lee, writing in dissent, said she found no ambiguity.
Cortes’ bill would add language to existing law to spell out that “election” refers to any general, primary, or special election.
“An election is the ‘same election’ if the election date is the same, regardless of the candidates, offices, issues, or measures on the ballot and regardless of the date on which ballots are mailed or returned,” reads the bill.
The goal is to make clear that a person cannot cast more than one ballot in an election in Washington, nor vote in Washington and in another state if the election date is the same. A violation would be a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
If enacted, the bill would take effect immediately to avert issues heading into the November general election.
“We’re just trying to clarify that an election is an election,” said Brian Hatfield, legislative director for the secretary of state. “This clears up the ambiguity.”
This report was first published by the Washington State Standard.
This independent analysis was created with Grok, an AI model from xAI. It is not written or edited by ClarkCountyToday.com and is provided to help readers evaluate the article’s sourcing and context.
Quick summary
A Washington appeals court overturned a felony conviction for double voting in 2022—one ballot cast in Washington and another in Oregon—because the ballots involved different candidates and issues, and the court ruled they were therefore separate elections. Sen. Adrian Cortes’ Senate Bill 6084 would clarify state law by defining “election” and “same election” based on the election date, regardless of ballot content, with the goal of prohibiting this kind of double voting.
What Grok notices
- Explains the appeals court’s reasoning that differences in candidates/issues meant the Washington and Oregon ballots were treated as separate elections under the existing statutory language.
- Quotes (or closely paraphrases) SB 6084’s proposed definitions intended to remove ambiguity by tying “same election” to the calendar date rather than ballot content.
- Describes the underlying case as involving a Lewis County resident who received ballots connected to dual residency ties, providing context for how the situation arose.
- Notes the bill’s goal of taking effect immediately so the clarified rule would apply before November’s election, as described in the reporting.
- Includes perspectives from sponsor Sen. Cortes and the Secretary of State’s office (Brian Hatfield) on the intent to prevent double voting and reduce legal uncertainty going forward.
Questions worth asking
- If “same election” is defined strictly by date, how might that affect voters with legitimate ties in two states who receive ballots for different contests on the same day?
- Could clearer statutory language reduce future double-voting prosecutions and appeals by making charging decisions more straightforward, and how would intent be evaluated?
- What specific wording in the existing statute led the appeals court to treat ballot-content differences as legally significant?
- How do other states address double voting when election calendars overlap across state lines, and do they rely on date-based or contest-based definitions?
- What practical coordination challenges might election officials face in detecting and enforcing date-based restrictions across jurisdictions?
Research this topic more
- Washington State Legislature – SB 6084 text, bill history, and status
- Washington State Courts – appeals court opinion and case materials
- Washington Secretary of State – election law and voter registration guidance
- NCSL – overview resources on state double-voting laws
- U.S. Election Assistance Commission – interstate voter registration and election administration resources
Also read:
- Opinion: Democrats refuse to condemn anti ICE riots
Lars Larson argues that Democratic leaders in Oregon and Washington have enabled unrest by refusing to clearly condemn riots tied to anti-ICE protests. - City of Washougal seeks applicants for Planning Commission vacancies
The city of Washougal is accepting applications to fill two Planning Commission vacancies, with a deadline of 5 p.m. on Feb. 20, 2026. - Letter: ‘We are ALL being shafted’
Amboy resident Thomas Schenk criticizes Washington lawmakers over taxation, legislative rule changes, and what he describes as the consequences of one-party control. - Opinion: Inviting courts into health care policy discussion
Elizabeth New (Hovde) warns that Senate Joint Resolution 8206 could invite lawsuits by placing vague health care mandates into Washington’s Constitution. - Opinion: 24 States In. Washington Out? $732 Million Lost?
Vicki Murray argues Washington risks forfeiting $732 million in federal education funding if state leaders do not opt into the federal tax-credit scholarship program.
