Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.56.150 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(1) The sponsors of a recall demanded of any public officer shall stop circulation of and file all petitions with the appropriate elections officer not less than six months before the next general election in which the officer whose recall is demanded is subject to reelection.

(2) The sponsors of a recall demanded of an officer elected to a statewide position shall have a maximum of two hundred seventy days, and the sponsors of a recall demanded of any other officer shall have a maximum of one hundred eighty days, in which to obtain and file supporting signatures after the issuance of a ballot synopsis by the superior court. If the decision of the superior court regarding the sufficiency of the charges is not appealed, the one hundred eighty or two hundred seventy day period for the circulation of signatures begins on the sixteenth day following the decision of the superior court. If the decision of the superior court regarding the sufficiency of the charges is appealed, the one hundred eighty or two hundred seventy day period for the circulation of signatures begins on the day following the issuance of the decision by the supreme court.

[ 2003 c 111 s 1411; 1984 c 170 s 5; 1971 ex.s. c 205 s 2. Formerly RCW 29.82.025.]

Notes:

Severability—1971 ex.s. c 205: "If any provision of this 1971 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." [ 1971 ex.s. c 205 s 6.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: In Re Recall of West, 126 P.3d 798 (Wash. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Recall of West, 126 P.3d 798 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 13× “Small) concluded that Eugster and the Coalition had standing to bring the action, but that this court's August 24 order was a "`decision' by the court as that term is used in RCW 29A.56.150." CP at 66-67. Thus, the timing of the release of opinions did not govern the timing of…”

Coalition for a New Spokane v. Dalton, 156 Wash. 2d 244 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 12× “Small) concluded that Eugster and the Coalition had standing to bring the action, but that this court’s August 24 order was a “ ‘decision’ by the court as that term is used in RCW 29A.56.150.” CP at 66-67. Thus, the timing of the release of opinions did not govern the timing of…”

In re Recall of Fortney, 503 P.3d 556 (Wash. 2022). “But Shavlik failed to file any signatures as required by RCW 29A.56.150(2). 4 CP at 642. Accordingly, recall I ended, and Sheriff Fortney remained in office.”

In re the Recall Charges Against Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 Dir. Butler-Wall, 162 Wash. 2d 501 (Wash. 2007). “Pursuant to RCW 29A.56.150: “(1) The sponsors of a recall demanded of any public officer shall stop circulation of and file all petitions with the appropriate elections officer not less than six months before the next general election in which the officer whose recall is…”

Matter of Recall Charges Against Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 173 P.3d 265 (Wash. 2007). “[2] Pursuant to RCW 29A.56.150: "(1) The sponsors of a recall demanded of any public officer shall stop circulation of and file all petitions with the appropriate elections officer not less than six months before the next general election in which the officer whose recall is…”

In re Recall of Ruelas (Wash. 2025). · cites it 3× “The recall petition proceeded to the signature-gathering stage, but the Yakima County elections division manager dismissed the petition as insufficient because the recall proponents submitted signatures past the six-month deadline stated in RCW 29A.56.150(1). See Letter from…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.56.150(1) — 1 case

In re Recall of Ruelas (Wash. 2025). “The recall petition proceeded to the signature-gathering stage, but the Yakima County elections division manager dismissed the petition as insufficient because the recall proponents submitted signatures past the six-month deadline stated in RCW 29A.56.150(1). See Letter from…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.56.150(2) — 3 cases

In Re Recall of West, 126 P.3d 798 (Wash. 2006). “Small) concluded that Eugster and the Coalition had standing to bring the action, but that this court's August 24 order was a "`decision' by the court as that term is used in RCW 29A.56.150." CP at 66-67. Thus, the timing of the release of opinions did not govern the timing of…”

Coalition for a New Spokane v. Dalton, 156 Wash. 2d 244 (Wash. 2006). “Small) concluded that Eugster and the Coalition had standing to bring the action, but that this court’s August 24 order was a “ ‘decision’ by the court as that term is used in RCW 29A.56.150.” CP at 66-67. Thus, the timing of the release of opinions did not govern the timing of…”

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.