Boevers v. Election Board of Canadian County 640 P.2d 1333 640 P.2d 1333, 1981 OK 138 (Cite as: 640 P.2d 1333) Page 2 dian County Election Bd. OPALA, Justice. Henry Boevers, petitioner (contestant) seeks prerogative writ for corrective relief from the announced election results in a primary election in which he was a candidate for the Republican Party's nomination to the office of county commissioner from District 1, Canadian County. After a recount he had requested, the certified results gave contestant 227 votes, while Wayne Kremeier, the nominee (contestee) received 228 votes. Contestant challenged the correctness of the results by petition alleging irregularities sufficient in number to entitle him to a certificate of nomination. The issues presented to us are: (1) May a party to an election contest disqualify a resident judge or judges without cause? (2) Are the announced results of an election recount impervious to any challenge on a pure and unmixed question of law? and (3) Did the county election board err as a matter of law in declaring void two ballots cast for contestant? We answer the first and last questions in the affirmative and the second in the negative. After an unsuccessful recount, contestant sought to disqualify both of the judges regularly serving the district court in the county where the election was held from hearing his contest petition. The district judge immediately stepped down. He then "assigned" to the case the local associate district judge who refused to recuse himself. Following an adverse decision before that judge, contestant sought, in the instant proceeding, to have this court assign a nonresident judge to rehear the contest. We acceded to the request. An out-of-county judge took charge of the case and presided over the contest proceedings. There was manifest error in the assignment of the contest by the local district judge to his resident associate. Rule 9, Rules on Administration of Courts, 20 O.S.Supp.1980, Ch. 1, App. 2, provides in subdivision (d) that no disqualified judge "... shall participate in the selection of another judicial officer for assignment to that case." There was also clear error in the associate district judge's view that he was not subject to recusal without cause. The provisions of 26 O.S.Supp.1980 s 8-121 [FN1] clearly mandate that the res- ident judge in the county in which the contest petition is filed disqualify himself when he is challenged "by either party". The terms of 26 O.S.Supp.1980 ss 8-119 and 8-120 [FN2] unmistakably anticipate that, should another judge be sought upon a local district judge's recusal, the Supreme Court shall provide the needed replacement. FN1. The terms of s 8-121 are: "It shall be mandatory, whenever a petition to disqualify is filed by either party, for the district judge to disqualify himself." FN2. The pertinent provisions of s 8-119 are: "If such petition is filed in the manner herein provided, the district judge of the county in which the alleged fraud occurred, or such other judge as may be assigned by the Supreme Court, shall hear and determine said issue ..." (Emphasis added). The pertinent provisions of s 8-120 are: "If said petition is filed in the manner herein provided, the district judge of the county or such other judge as may be assigned by the Supreme Court shall hear and determine said issue ..." (Emphasis added). (1) We therefore hold that when the judge regularly assigned to judicial service in the county where a contest petition is filed is asked by either party to disqualify himself without cause, he must do so. It shall then be incumbent upon counsel in the case to request the chief judge in the county that the Chief Justice assign a nonresident judge to hear the contest. (2) The nonresident judge assigned by the Chief Justice to preside at the contest expressed the opinion that he was powerless to effect a change in the announced results because by the provisions of s 8-114 [FN3] the *1335 county election board's recount decision must be treated as "final in all cases". In this view the judge was incorrect. The quoted phrase merely indicates that there is no remedy by appeal from the board's decision. The law does not preclude a later review if the remedy invoked by the contestant is one that is authorized by the provisions of the applicable statutes, ss 8-119 and 8-120. Nor can the reference in s 8-114 to the finality of the board's decision be regarded as a bar to our own re-examination of any question of law which arises © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 167