Wash. Rev. Code » Title 29A · Chapter 29A.56
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.56.110 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever any legal voter of the state or of any political subdivision thereof, either individually or on behalf of an organization, desires to demand the recall and discharge of any elective public officer of the state or of such political subdivision, as the case may be, under the provisions of sections 33 and 34 of Article 1 of the Constitution, the voter shall prepare a typewritten charge, reciting that such officer, naming him or her and giving the title of the office, has committed an act or acts of malfeasance, or an act or acts of misfeasance while in office, or has violated the oath of office, or has been guilty of any two or more of the acts specified in the Constitution as grounds for recall. The charge shall state the act or acts complained of in concise language, give a detailed description including the approximate date, location, and nature of each act complained of, be signed by the person or persons making the charge, give their respective post office addresses, and be verified under oath that the person or persons believe the charge or charges to be true and have knowledge of the alleged facts upon which the stated grounds for recall are based.
For the purposes of this chapter:
(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.
[ 2003 c 111 s 1407; 1984 c 170 s 1; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 47 s 1; 1965 c 9 s 29.82.010. Prior: 1913 c 146 s 1; RRS s 5350. Former part of section: 1913 c 146 s 2; RRS s 5351, now codified in RCW 29.82.015. Formerly RCW 29.82.010.]

Notes:

Severability—1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 47: "If any provision of this amendatory act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 47 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: In re the Recall of West, 155 Wash. 2d 659 (Wash. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Recall of West, 155 Wash. 2d 659 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 14× “Additionally, the judge considered supplemental materials and used them to enrich the ballot synopsis with factually specific detail.”
In Re Recall of West, 121 P.3d 1190 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 14× “Additionally, the judge considered supplemental materials and used them to enrich the ballot synopsis with factually specific detail.”
In re the Recall of Washam, 171 Wash. 2d 503 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 6× “RCW 29A.56.110. The auditor arranged for Washam to be served with the recall charges and referred the matter to the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office.”
In re Recall of White, 474 P.3d 1032 (Wash. 2020). · cites it 7× “Most relevantly, a recall petition must allege a violation of the oath of office or an act of misfeasance or malfeasance.”
In Re Recall of Washam, 257 P.3d 513 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 6× “RCW 29A.56.110. The auditor arranged for Washam to be served with the recall charges and referred the matter to the Pierce County Prosecutor's Office.”
In re the Recall of Boldt, 386 P.3d 1104 (Wash. 2017). · cites it 2× “The court concluded the recall charges were factually and legally insufficient, and ruled that Mielke lacked standing to seek recall of Olson because he did not reside in her district. Mielke now appeals the superior court’s order dismissing the recall petition.”
In re the Recall of Bolt, 298 P.3d 710 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 5× “RCW 29A.56.110. After a recall petition is filed, a superior court determines whether the acts stated in the charge satisfy the recall criteria — essentially serving a gatekeeping function.”
In re Recall of Burnham, 448 P.3d 747 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 5× “Factual sufficiency requires that a recall petition "give a detailed description including the approximate date, location, and nature of each act complained of," RCW 29A.56.110, which, if accepted as true,"would constitute a prima facie showing of misfeasance, malfeasance, or a…”
In re the Recall Charges Against City of Pac. Mayor Cy Sun, 299 P.3d 651 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 7× “I, §§ 33-34; RCW 29A.56.110. “Misfeasance” and “malfeasance” are “any wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duty.”
In Re the Recall of Lindquist, 258 P.3d 9 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× “I, §§ 33-34; RCW 29A.56.110. Courts ensure that charges are factually and legally sufficient before the charges are placed before the voters, but courts do not evaluate the truthfulness of the charges.”
In re the Recall of Kelley, 369 P.3d 494 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 5× “2d at 255 (quoting RCW 29A.56.110). Each charge in the recall petition must demonstrate that the petitioner “knows of identifiable facts that support the charge.”
In re Recall of Inslee, 451 P.3d 305 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “RCW 29A.56.110 defines malfeasance and misfeasance: (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…”
Show all 58 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.56.110(1) — 16 cases
In re the Recall of West, 155 Wash. 2d 659 (Wash. 2005). “Additionally, the judge considered supplemental materials and used them to enrich the ballot synopsis with factually specific detail.”
In Re Recall of West, 121 P.3d 1190 (Wash. 2005). “Additionally, the judge considered supplemental materials and used them to enrich the ballot synopsis with factually specific detail.”
In re Recall of Inslee, 451 P.3d 305 (Wash. 2019). “RCW 29A.56.110 defines malfeasance and misfeasance: (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…”
In re the Recall of Bolt, 298 P.3d 710 (Wash. 2013). “RCW 29A.56.110. After a recall petition is filed, a superior court determines whether the acts stated in the charge satisfy the recall criteria — essentially serving a gatekeeping function.”
In re Recall of Burnham, 448 P.3d 747 (Wash. 2019). “Factual sufficiency requires that a recall petition "give a detailed description including the approximate date, location, and nature of each act complained of," RCW 29A.56.110, which, if accepted as true,"would constitute a prima facie showing of misfeasance, malfeasance, or a…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.56.110(1)(a) — 5 cases
In Re Recall of West, 121 P.3d 1190 (Wash. 2005). “Additionally, the judge considered supplemental materials and used them to enrich the ballot synopsis with factually specific detail.”
In re the Recall of Kelley, 369 P.3d 494 (Wash. 2016). “2d at 255 (quoting RCW 29A.56.110). Each charge in the recall petition must demonstrate that the petitioner “knows of identifiable facts that support the charge.”
In Re Recall of Reed, 124 P.3d 279 (Wash. 2005).
In re Recall of Hobbs (Wash. 2026).
In Re Recall of Davis, 193 P.3d 98 (Wash. 2008).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.56.110(1)(b) — 5 cases
In re Recall of White, 474 P.3d 1032 (Wash. 2020). “Most relevantly, a recall petition must allege a violation of the oath of office or an act of misfeasance or malfeasance.”
In re the Recall of Kelley, 369 P.3d 494 (Wash. 2016). “2d at 255 (quoting RCW 29A.56.110). Each charge in the recall petition must demonstrate that the petitioner “knows of identifiable facts that support the charge.”
In Re Recall of Reed, 124 P.3d 279 (Wash. 2005).
In Re Heiberg, 257 P.3d 565 (Wash. 2011).
In re Recall of Lauser (Wash. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.56.110(2) — 18 cases
In re Recall of White, 474 P.3d 1032 (Wash. 2020). “Most relevantly, a recall petition must allege a violation of the oath of office or an act of misfeasance or malfeasance.”
In re the Recall of Bolt, 298 P.3d 710 (Wash. 2013). “RCW 29A.56.110. After a recall petition is filed, a superior court determines whether the acts stated in the charge satisfy the recall criteria — essentially serving a gatekeeping function.”
In re Recall of Burnham, 448 P.3d 747 (Wash. 2019). “Factual sufficiency requires that a recall petition "give a detailed description including the approximate date, location, and nature of each act complained of," RCW 29A.56.110, which, if accepted as true,"would constitute a prima facie showing of misfeasance, malfeasance, or a…”
In re the Recall of Kelley, 369 P.3d 494 (Wash. 2016). “2d at 255 (quoting RCW 29A.56.110). Each charge in the recall petition must demonstrate that the petitioner “knows of identifiable facts that support the charge.”
In re the Recall Charges Against City of Pac. Mayor Cy Sun, 299 P.3d 651 (Wash. 2013). “I, §§ 33-34; RCW 29A.56.110. “Misfeasance” and “malfeasance” are “any wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duty.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.56.110(l)(a) — 8 cases
In re the Recall of West, 155 Wash. 2d 659 (Wash. 2005). “Additionally, the judge considered supplemental materials and used them to enrich the ballot synopsis with factually specific detail.”
In re the Recall of Bolt, 298 P.3d 710 (Wash. 2013). “RCW 29A.56.110. After a recall petition is filed, a superior court determines whether the acts stated in the charge satisfy the recall criteria — essentially serving a gatekeeping function.”
In re Recall of Burnham, 448 P.3d 747 (Wash. 2019). “Factual sufficiency requires that a recall petition "give a detailed description including the approximate date, location, and nature of each act complained of," RCW 29A.56.110, which, if accepted as true,"would constitute a prima facie showing of misfeasance, malfeasance, or a…”
In re the Recall of Reed, 156 Wash. 2d 53 (Wash. 2005).
In re the Recall of Robinson, 132 P.3d 124 (Wash. 2006).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.56.110(l)(b) — 3 cases
In re the Recall of Reed, 156 Wash. 2d 53 (Wash. 2005).
In re the Petition for the Recall of Heiberg, 171 Wash. 2d 771 (Wash. 2011).
In re the Recall of Robinson, 132 P.3d 124 (Wash. 2006).
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.