Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.56.130 (2026)

Ballot synopsis

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Within fifteen days after receiving a charge, the officer specified below shall formulate a ballot synopsis of the charge of not more than two hundred words.

(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, if the recall is demanded of an elected public officer whose political jurisdiction encompasses an area in more than one county, the attorney general shall be the preparer, except if the recall is demanded of the attorney general, the chief justice of the supreme court shall be the preparer.

(b) If the recall is demanded of an elected public officer whose political jurisdiction lies wholly in one county, or if the recall is demanded of an elected public officer of a district whose jurisdiction encompasses more than one county but whose declaration of candidacy is filed with a county auditor in one of the counties, the prosecuting attorney of that county shall be the preparer, except that if the prosecuting attorney is the officer whose recall is demanded, the attorney general shall be the preparer.

(2) The synopsis shall set forth the name of the person charged, the title of the office, and a concise statement of the elements of the charge. Upon completion of the ballot synopsis, the preparer shall certify and transmit the exact language of the ballot synopsis to the persons filing the charge and the officer subject to recall. The preparer shall additionally certify and transmit the charges and the ballot synopsis to the superior court of the county in which the officer subject to recall resides and shall petition the superior court to approve the synopsis and to determine the sufficiency of the charges.

[ 2003 c 111 s 1409; 1984 c 170 s 3. Formerly RCW 29.82.021.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: In Re the Recall of Lindquist, 258 P.3d 9 (Wash. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re the Recall of Lindquist, 258 P.3d 9 (Wash. 2011). “NOTES [1] Petitioners also challenge the attorney general's ballot synopsis of the recall charges as inadequate under RCW 29A.56.130. The trial judge has the power to "correct any ballot synopsis it deems inadequate.”

In re Recall of Fortney, 503 P.3d 556 (Wash. 2022). · cites it 2× “” RCW 29A.56.130(1). After formulating the ballot synopsis, the prosecuting attorney must “certify and transmit the charges and the ballot synopsis” to superior court and “petition the superior court to approve the synopsis and to determine the sufficiency of the charges.”

In re the Recall of Telford, 166 Wash. 2d 148 (Wash. 2009). “170, § 3, recodified as RCW 29A.56.130); In re Recall of Morrisette, 110 Wn.”

In Re Recall of Reed, 124 P.3d 279 (Wash. 2005). “The attorney general reviewed the charges in the statement and supporting documents, promptly prepared a ballot synopsis, and filed a petition with Thurston County Superior Court to determine the sufficiency of the charges pursuant to RCW 29A.56.130. The statement of charges and…”

In re the Recall of Reed, 156 Wash. 2d 53 (Wash. 2005). “The attorney general reviewed the charges in the statement and supporting documents, promptly prepared a ballot synopsis, and filed a petition with Thurston County Superior Court to determine the sufficiency of the charges pursuant to RCW 29A.56.130. The statement of charges and…”

In Re Recall of Telford, 206 P.3d 1248 (Wash. 2009). “170, § 3, recodified as RCW 29A.56.130); In re Recall of Morrisette, 110 Wash.”

In re Recall of Weyrich, 554 P.3d 1202 (Wash. 2024). · cites it 3× “2 Smith then petitioned the Skagit County Superior Court pursuant to RCW 29A.56.130 for a determination of the sufficiency of the recall charges.”

In re Recall of Pepper (Wash. 2017). “On April 25, 2017, the King County prosecutor's office initiated this case pursuant to RCW 29A.56.130 and prepared the following ballot synopsis: 1.”

In re Recall of Ritter, 448 P.3d 755 (Wash. 2019). “RCW 29A.56.130(2), .140, .150(2); In re Recall ofPepper, 189 Wn.”

In re Recall of Levine, 448 P.3d 764 (Wash. 2019). “Before the sponsors of a recall may seek supporting signatures, the superior court of the county in which the officer subject to recall resides must determine that the petition is both factually and legally sufficient.”

In re Recall of Ruelas, 565 P.3d 921 (Wash. 2025). “The Yakima County prosecutor filed the petition in Yakima County Superior Court and attached a proposed ballot synopsis for each of the charges (as required by RCW 29A.56.130). Id. at 3-6.2 The superior court held a hearing on the sufficiency of the petition and dismissed…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.56.130(1) — 1 case

In re Recall of Fortney, 503 P.3d 556 (Wash. 2022). “” RCW 29A.56.130(1). After formulating the ballot synopsis, the prosecuting attorney must “certify and transmit the charges and the ballot synopsis” to superior court and “petition the superior court to approve the synopsis and to determine the sufficiency of the charges.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.56.130(1)(b) — 1 case

In re Recall of Weyrich, 554 P.3d 1202 (Wash. 2024). “2 Smith then petitioned the Skagit County Superior Court pursuant to RCW 29A.56.130 for a determination of the sufficiency of the recall charges.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.56.130(2) — 4 cases

In re Recall of Ritter, 448 P.3d 755 (Wash. 2019). “RCW 29A.56.130(2), .140, .150(2); In re Recall ofPepper, 189 Wn.”

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.