Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 25-4323 (2026)

Same; petition; filing, when; limitations

✓ current as of May 2026

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

25-4323. Same; petition; filing, when; limitations. (a) No petition for recall of a local officer may be filed during the first one hundred and twenty (120) days of the term of office of the local officer sought to be recalled or within less than one hundred and eighty (180) days of the termination of the term of office of the local officer sought to be recalled.

(b) Only one recall election may be held to recall a particular local officer in a single term of office, and no petition for a second recall election within a single term shall be approved or circulated.

(c) The number of local officers serving on the same governing body which may be subject to recall at the same time shall not exceed a majority of the members of the governing body minus one, and no petition for recall of a local officer serving on a governing body shall be approved if petitions for the recall of other local officers serving on the same governing body have been properly filed and elections thereon have not been held and the number of such other local officers equals a majority of the members of the governing body minus one.

History: L. 1976, ch. 178, § 23; L. 1978, ch. 147, § 6; April 25.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1987–2002 · leading case: Unger v. Horn, 732 P.2d 1275 (Kan. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Unger v. Horn, 732 P.2d 1275 (Kan. 1987). · cites it 2× “" Note: Requirements (b), (c), and (d) are contained in K.S.A. 25-4323. If the petitions are determined to be sufficient, the county election officer then prepares the ballots and sets the election date.”

Richards v. Schmidt, 56 P.3d 274 (Kan. 2002). · cites it 3× “The petition with 181 signatures was deemed clearly insufficient. Richards appealed.”

Baker v. Gibson, 913 P.2d 1218 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “See K.S.A. 25-4323. The Cline decision suggests, as does Chief Justice McFarland’s dissent in Unger , that the electorate is capable of deciding whether the grounds for recall in the petition meet the requirements of K.”

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.