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

Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.56.140 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Within 15 days after receiving the petition, the superior court shall have conducted a hearing on and shall have determined, without cost to any party, (1) whether or not the acts stated in the charge satisfy the criteria for which a recall petition may be filed, and (2) the adequacy of the ballot synopsis. The court shall notify the person subject to recall and the person demanding recall of the hearing date. Both persons may appear with counsel. The court may hear arguments as to the sufficiency of the charges and the adequacy of the ballot synopsis. The court shall not consider the truth of the charges, but only their sufficiency. An appeal of a sufficiency decision shall be filed in the supreme court as specified by RCW 29A.56.270. The superior court shall correct any ballot synopsis it deems inadequate. Any decision regarding the ballot synopsis by the superior court is final. The clerk shall certify and transmit the ballot synopsis to the officer subject to recall, the person demanding the recall, and either the secretary of state or the county auditor, as appropriate.
[ 2021 c 92 s 1; 2003 c 111 s 1410. Prior: 1984 c 170 s 4. Formerly RCW 29.82.023.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · 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). · cites it 8× “, arguing that Judge Cayce used no discretion in denying the continuance because the hearing date was mandated by RCW 29A.56.140. [2] 51 Wash.App. 561, 578 , 754 P.”
In Re Recall of West, 121 P.3d 1190 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 5× “¶ 3 We hold that the trial judge acted within his authority when he corrected the ballot synopsis and that the allegations are factually and legally sufficient. Therefore, we affirm.”
In re the Recall of Boldt, 386 P.3d 1104 (Wash. 2017). · cites it 2× “Mielke now appeals the superior court’s order dismissing the recall petition. Analysis ¶11 Elected officials in Washington may be recalled for malfeasance, misfeasance, or violation of oath of office.”
In re the Recall of West, 155 Wash. 2d 659 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 3× “¶3 We hold that the trial judge acted within his authority when he corrected the ballot synopsis and that the allegations are factually and legally sufficient. Therefore, we affirm.”
In re the Recall of Washam, 171 Wash. 2d 503 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 3× “*510 ANALYSIS ¶6 Elected officials in Washington may be recalled for malfeasance, misfeasance, and violation of oath of office.”
In re Recall of Inslee, 451 P.3d 305 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “RCW 29A.56.140;In re Recall ofLindquist, 172 Wn.”
In Re Recall of Washam, 257 P.3d 513 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 3× “By order, we affirmed the trial court's ruling with this opinion to follow. ANALYSIS ¶ 7 Elected officials in Washington may be recalled for malfeasance, misfeasance, and violation of oath of office.”
In re the Recall of Bolt, 298 P.3d 710 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 2× “See RCW 29A.56.140; Kast, 144 Wn.2d at 813 . The courts do not evaluate the truthfulness of a petitioner’s charges, instead considering only whether the charges are both factually and legally sufficient.”
In re the Recall of Piper, 364 P.3d 113 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 2× “ANALYSIS ¶7 An elected official may be recalled for misfeasance, malfeasance, or violation of the oath of office. Const, art. I, §§ 33-34; RCW 29A.”
In Re Recall of Carkeek, 128 P.3d 1231 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “Thus, the superior court judge revised the charge to specifically allege an intentional attempt to violate the constitutional rights of the Ripleys and the statutory law of the State of Washington.”
In re Recall of Fortney, 478 P.3d 1061 (Wash. 2021). · cites it 2× “RCW 29A.56.140. But that timeline is fundamental to the “interest of the people in an expeditious recall procedure.”
In re Recall of Fortney, 503 P.3d 556 (Wash. 2022). · cites it 2× “In response, Shavlik appealed directly to this court under RCW 29A.56.140. 4 In re Recall of Fortney, No.”
Show all 40 citing cases →
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.