Politics watchers will want to keep a lookout for the just-out Washington Supreme Court case in re Recall of Davis, in which the court does a careful parsing of the standard of "sufficiency" for recalling Seattle Port Commissioner Pat Davis.
Washington's approach to recall strikes us as far superior to most states, and to those in Oregon and Idaho. Beyond the usual petition gathering, Washington law requires specific charges be brought and that a court review them for sufficiency; as the Supreme Court said, "The recall process is governed by statute, RCW 29A.56.110, which provides the charges must: (1) set forth the name of the officer subject to recall and the title of his or her office; (2) recite that the officer subject to recall has committed an act or acts of malfeasance while in office or that such person has violated on oath of office; (3) state the act or acts complained of in concise language; and (4) give a detailed description of each act. Recall petitions must be both legally and factually sufficient, and courts must ensure that persons submitting the charges "have some knowledge of the facts underlying the charges." Some serious legal offense needs to have occurred, and the bringer of the charges actually has to know what they're talking about - two conditions that alone would wipe out most recall elections in Oregon and Idaho.
The Davis case grew (most directly) out of a memo: "On October 10, 2006, Comm. Davis signed a memorandum discussing the 'transition away from the organization' of M.R. Dinsmore, Chief Executive Officer of the Port of Seattle. The memorandum appears to assure Dinsmore up to a full year's pay upon his resignation from the Port. No dispute exists as to the existence of this memorandum and that Comm. Davis signed it." From there, it's a matter of interpretation. According to the petition: (more…)