Island County, WA — The defense team for Timothy Hazelo has filed a motion for a new trial and is demanding an outright dismissal of his felony conviction, originally charged in the midst of the 2024 general election, characterizing the verdict as the product of an unconstitutional statute applied arbitrarily.
July 10, Mr. Hazelo, a former chair of the Island County Republican Party, was convicted of unauthorized access to a voting center (a Class C Felony/up to $10K fine) and criminal trespass in the first degree (a Gross Misdemeanor/up to $1K fine) after refusing to wear a mask at the Island County Elections Office on November 4, 2024, during ballot counting observation.
Plaintiffs argued that the mask mandate rule, issued by the Defendant, Island County Auditor Sheilah Crider, and supported by the Island County Canvassing Board, exceeded the authority granted under state law and election regulations.
The defense insists that the Superior Court grant a new trial or dismiss the charges. If those requests are denied, relief will be sought in the Washington Court of Appeals and, if necessary, the Washington Supreme Court. Mr. Hazelo is represented by Austin Hatcher, D. Angus Lee, and Joel Ard.
“This case demonstrates clear overreach,” the defense asserts. “Posting a sheet of paper on a wall and treating it as an enforceable rule, without public notice, proper adoption, or APA compliance, is illegal.”
[Notice Face Masks Required Sign]
As a Republican Party election observer, Hazelo was present in the Island County ballot-counting area when the County Auditor imposed an unlawful mask requirement, despite no local, state, or county health authority having declared an emergency at that time.
WA law requires county auditors to keep counting centers open to designated observers, and no statute or public-health order empowered the Auditor to criminalize mask usage or elevate refusal to wear a mask to a Class C felony.
The motion highlights multiple issues: Unconstitutional Delegation: RCW 29A.84.555 unlawfully grants a single elected official the power to define felony elements, in direct conflict with separation-of-powers principles and Washington Supreme Court precedent.
Due-Process Violations: The Auditor’s mask directive was issued without any Administrative Procedure Act notice, comment, or public-inspection process.
Jury Instruction Errors: Jurors were misinstructed on the law and denied copies of the statutes they expressly requested during deliberations.
The motion emphasizes that Mr. Hazelo did nothing wrong. “Timothy Hazelo was convicted under a statute that simply does not apply to his actions,” his lawyers state. “He acted lawfully, reasonably, and in good faith. The State provided no evidence that his actions were unauthorized or criminal.”
As Chair of the Island County Republican Party, Mr. Hazelo was observing ballot counting at a local voting center, an activity explicitly protected and encouraged under Washington law. RCW 29A.04.205 declares that “It is the policy of the state of Washington to encourage every eligible person to register to vote and to participate fully in all elections.”
His attorneys stress that his role was fully consistent with this policy. “The prosecution’s case was fundamentally flawed from the start,” the defense notes. “RCW 29A.84.555 was designed to address cybersecurity threats and physical tampering with ballots, neither of which occurred here. Applying this statute to peaceful observation is both absurd and dangerous.”
The motion also details failures by the Auditor’s office and the prosecutor. No valid order or administrative rule prohibiting Mr. Hazelo’s presence was lawfully created or issued. Required administrative procedures under Washington law were ignored. Without a legally enforceable rule, there was no basis to prosecute or convict Mr. Hazelo.
“This was clearly politically motivated,” attorney Lee says. “The prosecutor’s actions reflect a willingness to criminalize routine political engagement. Our democracy depends on open observation and citizen involvement, not prosecuting those who lawfully participate. This is not just about one man’s unjust prosecution, but about preserving the right of every Washingtonian to participate in elections without fear of arbitrary, politically driven prosecution. We trust the Court will recognize this substantial injustice and dismiss the case.”
Share This Post...
