In re Recall of Riddle
94788-1
| Wash. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- Janelle Riddle was elected Yakima County Clerk (term started Jan 1, 2015). Implementation of new court case-management software (Odyssey) in Nov 2015 coincided with substantial operational problems in the clerk’s office.
- Petitioners filed a recall statement alleging six charges; the Yakima Superior Court found five of six charges factually and legally sufficient and approved an amended ballot synopsis. Riddle appealed to the Washington Supreme Court under RCW 29A.56.270.
- The five challenged allegations: (1) failure to timely transmit child-support orders to DCS (Oct 2015–Nov 2016), causing withheld funding; (2) failure to timely transmit restraining/no-contact orders to law enforcement (Feb–Oct 2016); (3) refusal/failure in July 2016 to perform in-court duties and a written statement threatening to shut down court operations; (4) failure to properly account for monies received (2015 audit identified internal-control weaknesses); (5) failure to enact procedures to bill/collect jury-service fees to other courts (May–Oct 2016), causing delayed revenue.
- Evidence included DCS and internal court reports showing large percentages of untransmitted orders, an auditor’s report documenting accounting/control failures, withheld DCS reimbursements, and Riddle’s public letter describing potential deputization revocations and court shutdown consequences.
- The Supreme Court affirmed that each of the five charges is both factually and legally sufficient to proceed to signature gathering; it declined to review the ballot-synopsis adequacy ruling by the superior court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of transmission-related charges (child support & restraining orders) | Petitioners: facts show prolonged failures to transmit statutorily required orders causing revenue loss and harm; constitute misfeasance/malfeasance or oath violation | Riddle: problems caused by Odyssey early-adoption; no unlawful intent; issues later fixed; some failures were mistakes or beyond her control | Court: factual allegations (duration, percentages, refusal of assistance) permit inference of knowing failure/neglect; charges are factually and legally sufficient |
| Sufficiency of refusal/threat to perform in-court duties (Charge Three) | Petitioners: Riddle refused duties, issued communications threatening to revoke deputizations and effectively close court — wrongful abuse of authority | Riddle: LAR 3 void; she had discretion; statements were protected opinion under First Amendment and not an actual shutdown | Court: clerk is ministerial officer subject to court direction; threats in official capacity can be wrongful regardless of actual shutdown; charge is factually and legally sufficient |
| Sufficiency of accounting and jury-fee charges (Charges Four & Five) | Petitioners: state auditor report and documentation show inadequate internal controls, delayed reconciliations, and unbilled jury services causing revenue delay | Riddle: same defenses as above — software adoption, no malicious intent, actions not wrongful or unavoidable | Court: auditor findings and alleged failures support prima facie showing of failure to perform duties; charges are factually and legally sufficient |
| Adequacy of ballot synopsis | Petitioners: superior court-approved synopsis summarizes charges for voters | Riddle: synopsis should identify which counts are malfeasance, misfeasance, or oath violations | Court: declines to review — superior court’s decision on synopsis is final under precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Recall of Boldt, 187 Wn.2d 542 (2017) (standard for factual and legal sufficiency in recall proceedings; intent requirement when unlawful act alleged)
- Chandler v. Otto, 103 Wn.2d 268 (1984) (definition of sufficiency: allegations must identify acts constituting prima facie misfeasance/malfeasance/oath violation)
- Greco v. Parsons, 105 Wn.2d 669 (1986) (impossibility as a legal justification defeating recall sufficiency)
- In re Recall of Sandhaus, 134 Wn.2d 662 (1998) (willfulness may be inferred from continued misconduct after warnings)
- In re Recall of Lee, 122 Wn.2d 613 (1993) (threats by an official in official capacity can constitute wrongful abuse of authority and be sufficient for recall)