Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 989681.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source: Official source
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/989681.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,738 chars

analysis section of this opinion.

ANALYSIS

In Washington, an elected official may be subject to a recall if he or she “has

committed some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or . . . has

violated his oath of office.” WASH. CONST. art. I, § 33; see also RCW 29A.56.110.

For the purposes of a recall,

(1) “Misfeasance” or “malfeasance” in office means any
wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the
performance of official duty;
(a) Additionally, “misfeasance” in office means the performance
of a duty in an improper manner; and
(b) Additionally, “malfeasance” in office means the commission
of an unlawful act;
(2) “Violation of the oath of office” means the neglect or
knowing failure by an elective public officer to perform faithfully a duty
imposed by law.

RCW 29A.56.110.

6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
In re Recall Charges Against Benton County Sheriff Gerald D. Hatcher,
No. 98968-1

The legislature has chosen to limit the recall process “so that public officials

will be protected from petitions based on frivolous or unsubstantiated charges.” In re

Recall of Kast, 144 Wn.2d 807, 813, 31 P.3d 677 (2001).

This court reviews the sufficiency of a recall petition de novo. In re Recall of

Wasson, 149 Wn.2d 787, 791, 72 P.3d 170 (2003). We read the recall petition

broadly, as a whole, and in favor of the voter. In re Recall of West, 155 Wn.2d 659,

666, 121 P.3d 1190 (2005). Although the court must not assess the truthfulness of the

allegations contained within a recall petition, its function is to evaluate whether the

allegations are both factually and legally sufficient. Kast, 144 Wn.2d at 813; RCW

29A.56.140.