Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 25-4302 (2026)

Grounds for recall

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

25-4302. Grounds for recall. (a) Grounds for recall are conviction of a felony, misconduct in office or failure to perform duties prescribed by law. No recall submitted to the voters shall be held void because of the insufficiency of the grounds, application, or petition by which the submission was procured.

(b) As used in this section, the term "misconduct in office" means a violation of law by the officer that impacts the officer's ability to perform the official duties of the office.

History: L. 1976, ch. 178, § 16; L. 1987, ch. 130, § 1; L. 1999, ch. 105, § 8; L. 2003, ch. 127, § 1; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1980–2001 · leading case: Cline v. Tittel, 891 P.2d 1137 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cline v. Tittel, 891 P.2d 1137 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 14× “The court found particularly persuasive the concluding sentence of K.S.A. 25-4302, which states: “No recall submitted to the voters shall be held void because of the insufficiency of the grounds, application, or petition by which the submission was procured.”

Unger v. Horn, 732 P.2d 1275 (Kan. 1987). · cites it 12× “The judge concluded that, even though the plaintiffs had never been charged or convicted of a violation of the Kansas Open Meetings Act, the allegation that Unger and Temple had violated the Act was legally sufficient under K.S.A. 25-4302. Unger and Temple appeal that decision.”

Randall v. Seemann, 613 P.2d 1376 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 5× “Whether in compliance with K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 25-4302. 2. Whether stated in sufficient particularity to comply with K.”

Eveleigh v. Conness, 933 P.2d 675 (Kan. 1997). · cites it 3× “” K.S.A. 25-4302. Procedures for the re *972 call of local officers is set forth in K.”

Baker v. Gibson, 913 P.2d 1218 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 23× “(INCOMPETENCE JUDGED BY HIS PEERS)” The district court found the recall petition failed to meet the requirements of K.S.A. 25-4302. Specifically, the court found the first two allegations in the recall petition lacked the required nexus between the alleged misconduct and Baker’s…”

Reynolds v. Figge, 19 P.3d 193 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “WERE THE GROUNDS FOR RECALL STATED WITH SUFFICIENT PARTICULARITY? Appellants initially claim that the allegations in the recall petition do not state the grounds for recall with sufficient particularity as required by K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 25-4302. The statute provides that grounds…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.