The State Court of Appeals has issued its ruling in the case of Nguyen v. Nguyen" "Affirmed in full."

Translation: Janet stays as Supervisor.

It's been a good week for Supervisor Nguyen. Last Friday, former Sen. Joe Dunn pulled back from the precipice and decided not to run against her.

Today, Justices Sills, Aronson and Fybel rejected the Trung Nguyen appeal of Superior Court Judge Michale Brenner's ruling.

Janet Nguyen consultant Dave Gilliard quipped, "That makes two wins for Janet for 3 votes!"

Presumably, that means an end to the bleeding of campaign dollars into her legal defense.

UPDATE (3:21 p.m.): I just called OC GOP Chairman Scott Baugh with the news. His reaction:

"At this point there should be no doubt that all Orange County Republicans should unite together to ensure Janet Nguyen is elected and we maintain an all-Republican Board of Supervisors."

UPDATE 2 (3:23 p.m.): Dave Gilliard sent over this reaction statement from Supervisor Janet Nguyen:

"I am very grateful to the courts and to friends and supporters who have stood by me since my election," said Supervisor Nguyen. "Hopefully now we can all put this hard-fought election behind us and come together and dedicate ourselves to helping solve the problems facing our county and specifically the people of the First District."

Tonight would be a good day to run into any member of Team Janet in a drinking establishment, because they'll probably be in the mood to buy a round or three.

Here's a key passage from the ruling:

Trung Nguyen seeks, in this appeal from a judgment after an election contest, to be declared the winner of an election for an Orange County supervisorial seat. The winner of the election, as certified by the county Registrar of Voters after a recount, was Janet Nguyen. That is, after the recount, Janet Nguyen had the highest number of
legal votes among all those running for the office. Trung Nguyen's theory is that Janet Nguyen requested a statutorily incorrect methodology for the recount, and therefore the recount itself was invalid, and he is thus entitled to take office as the certified winner of the election based on the results prior to the recount.

In specific terms, Trung Nguyen asserts this: Janet Nguyen's request that paper absentee ballots be recounted by hand but ballots cast by "direct recording electronic" (DRE) machines be recounted electronically ipso facto invalidated the recount. He contends that sections 15627 and 19253 of the Elections Code1 do not permit
a recount in which paper absentee ballots or valid paper provisional ballots are recounted one way (manually), but electronic ballots are recounted another (electronically).

As we explain in detail below, this argument is not persuasive. There can be no doubt that, in a recount, paper ballots may be recounted manually while electronic ballots may be recounted electronically. (A recount requester does, of course, have the right to have electronic votes recounted manually, and if they are, the manual count
governs over any electronic count.)

Moreover, even if Trung Nguyen's statutory analysis is correct, two undisputed facts require us to affirm the judgment in Janet Nguyen's favor:

(1) Trung Nguyen presented absolutely no evidence to the trial court that a manual recount of the electronic ballots in this case would have made any difference. (A manual recount would have been performed by examining an internal printout of each voter's choices recorded by the machine and then kept within the machine.) There are in
this case, conspicuously, no allegations, much less evidence, that the electronic voting machines in this particular election were tampered with, manipulated, or in any way electronically recorded anything other than a totally accurate vote count. (To be sure, Trung Nguyen did present evidence that the particular kind of machine used in the election could be tampered with. But he did not present any evidence that any machines in this Orange County, California election were tampered with, or were in any way inaccurate.)

(2) Trung Nguyen deliberately decided to waive the right that he had to ask the trial court in his election contest to order the electronic ballots to be recounted manually. There is no question that if such a recount was "necessary for a proper determination" of his election contest, the trial court would have been obligated to order such a recount. (See § 16601; Enterprise Residents Legal Action Against Annexation Com. v. Brennan (1978) 22 Cal.3d 767, 773, fn. 6.) Rather, in open court, Trung Nguyen disavowed his right to have a manual recount of the electronic ballots. Rather, he chose to stake his entire case on the idea that he is entitled, as a matter of law, to be placed in office by the courts as a result of an election contest based on what he claims is a statutorily invalid recount.

As we show below, our Supreme Court has made it clear in numerous cases that election results are not to be invalidated based on the technical non-compliance with election statutes where there is no showing that the non-compliance would have made any actual difference to the election. Under that line of jurisprudence, we cannot reverse the judgment even if Trung Nguyen's statutory arguments regarding the kinds of recount permitted by sections 15627 and 19253 were well-taken.

Finally, there is no way that this court, on this particular record, could legally declare Trung Nguyen the winner in this case. Simply put, there is no substantial evidence that he received the highest number of legal votes in the election. A court cannot declare a candidate the winner who has not received the highest number of legal votes. (Bradley v. Perrodin (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1170.) The most that Trung Nguyen might achieve in this appeal is a judgment annulling the February 2006 election and holding a new one, but that is relief he manifestly does not seek.

UPDATE 3 (4:35 p.m.): Peggy Lowe has a response from Trung Nguyen over at Total Buzz. Ouch -- Trung is stuck paying Janet's and the Registrar of Voters' legal fees.