In re the Recall of Bolt, 177 Wash. 2d 168

Recall petition against Mayor Bolt and Councilman Jenson in Marcus (tiny town, 183 residents).
Petition originally listed 10 charges against Bolt and 6 against Jenson; superior court found only the preauthorization purchase charge sufficient.
Counsel representation varied: petitioners unrepresented at trial, later counsel on appeal; Bolt and Jenson appeared pro se and sought reconsideration.
Recalls are governed by RCW 29A.56, with a gatekeeping function to assess factual and legal sufficiency, not truth of charges.
Court ultimately reverses as to all charges, including the preauthorization charge, and remands for new consideration on merits.
The decision discusses admissibility of late-filed materials and cross-appeals under RAP rules relevant to review of the preauthorization charge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the preauthorization purchase charge is legally or factually sufficient.	Petitioners argued the preauthorization charge was sufficient.	Bolt/Jenson argued the preauthorization issue was waived or improperly reviewed.	Legally and factually insufficient.
Whether the remaining charges are legally and factually sufficient.	Petitioners contend several other charges show misfeasance/malfeasance or oath violations.	Bolt/Jenson contend charges lack specificity or applicable standard; some are procedurally/did not occur in office.	All remaining charges deemed insufficient.
Whether the cross-appeal requirement bars review of the preauthorization charge.	Petitioners waived issues; reviewing court should consider.	Cross-appeal not properly filed; waivers apply.	RAP 1.2(a) liberally interpreted; preauthorization charge reviewed and found insufficient.
Whether acts before taking office may support recall.	Prior actions could support recall if within office term.	Acts prior to taking office cannot be recalled.	Charge based on pre-office act rejected; recall acts must occur while in office.
Whether alleged personal relationship created misconduct or oath violation.	Close relationship creates appearance of conflict.	No standard identified; no misfeasance/malfeasance shown.	Legally insufficient.

In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wn.2d 756 (2000) (established gatekeeping standard for recall—fact-based sufficiency review)
Kast v. State, 144 Wn.2d 807 (2001) (defines specificity and sufficiency requirements in recall petitions)
Wade v. State, 115 Wn.2d 544 (1990) (requires knowledge of unlawful conduct for legal sufficiency)
Ackerson v. Ackerson, 143 Wn.2d 366 (2001) (requires identifying the standard that makes conduct wrongful)
Heiberg v. City of Mukilteo, 171 Wn.2d 771 (2011) (recall of mayor for pre-authorization purchases; discusses policy and law violation standard)
Ward v. Ward, 175 Wn.2d 429 (2012) (commingling and compensation context; substantial conduct required)