Two recall petitions — for Mayor Durkan and Council member Sawant — are moving through the court systems. Let’s check in.
First The Durkan recall, which currently sits with the state Supreme Court. It will hear cross-appeals of King County Superior Court Mary Roberts’ certification of one charge against the Mayor. As of Tuesday, all the written briefs are now filed:
- Durkan’s opening brief
- The petitioners’ response, and opening brief to their cross-appeal
- Durkan’s reply
- The petitioners’ reply
Durkan’s arguments are essentially the same ones made at the trial court level, and repeated in her motion for reconsideration: that the one surviving charge relates to discretionary actions by the Mayor, which are beyond the scope of a recall petition. The petitioners’ cross-appeal attempts to revive two of the charges that the trial court rejected: Charge C, that Durkan failed to stop SPD officers from attacking members of the press and street medics; and Charge E, that she wrongfully subjected bystanders to chemical weapons and crowd control measures.
The state Supreme Court has indicated that it intends to skip oral arguments and take up the matter at its conference on October 8th. Depending upon how complex its decision is, the Court could rule at any time after that.
On to the Sawant recall. After last Wednesday’s ruling by King County Superior Court Judge Jim Rogers certifying four charges against Sawant, the judge gave both parties until Friday to propose edits to the ballot synopsis that the King County Prosecutor submitted to the court for certification. Under state law, the court may choose to rewrite the ballot synopsis as it sees fit before approving it. The petitioners asked the court to leave it alone, but Sawant (through her attorney) asked for several changes. In particular, she pointed out that there were some structural differences between the ballot synopsis approved by a different judge for Durkan’s recall, and the one proposed for her recall. Of special note was that the synopsis for Durkan called the charges “alleged,” while the synopsis for Sawant did not. That, she argued, would prejudice voters against her given how close in time the two recall petitions may end up in front of voters.
Here’s the ballot synopsis for Durkan:
As alleged by King County voters Elliott Grace Harvey, Alan L. Meekins, Jr., Courtney Scott, Leah Solomon and Charlie Stone, shall Jenny Durkan be recalled from office for misfeasance, malfeasance, and violation of the oath of office, based on the following charge:
Mayor Durkan endangered the peace and safety of the community and violated her duties under state and local laws and her oath to uphold the federal and state constitutions when she failed to institute new policies and safety measures for the Seattle Police Department after learning of the use of chemical agents on peaceful protesters as a means of crowd control during a public health emergency.
Here is the synopsis originally proposed for Sawant (less the two dropped charges):
Shall City of Seattle Councilmember Kshama Sawant be recalled from office for misfeasance, malfeasance, and violation of the oath of office based on charges that she violated the city charter, city code and state law when she:
(1) Delegated city employment decisions to a political organization outside city government;
(2) Used city resources to support a ballot initiative and failed to comply with public disclosure requirements related such support;
(3) Disregarded state orders related to COVID-19 and endangered the safety of city workers and other individuals by admitting hundreds of people into city hall on June 9, 2020, when it was closed to the public;
(4) Led a protest march to Mayor Jenny Durkan’s private residence, the location of which Sawant knows is protected under state confidentiality laws.
Sawant proposed modifications to match the Durkan ballot synopsis and to excise portions that she argued were outside the judge’s findings:
As alleged by King County Voter Ernie Lou, shall City of Seattle Councilmember Kshama Sawant be recalled from office for misfeasance, malfeasance, and violation of the oath of office based on the following charges:
(1) That she effectively delegated city employment decisions for her Council office to a political organization outside city government.
(2) That she used city resources to support a ballot initiative.
(3) That she disregarded state orders related to COVID-19 by admitting hundreds of people into city hall on June 9, 2020, when it was allegedly closed to the public.
(4) That she led a protest march to Mayor Jenny Durkan’s private residence, the location of which Sawant allegedly knows is protected under state confidentiality laws.
Judge Rogers went for a middle ground; he bought the argument about being consistent with regard to the “alleged” language, but rejected most of her other proposed changes. He also cleaned up some of the language — though he introduced his own typo in the first sentence that will need to get fixed before it gets printed up on petitions. The final ballot synopsis Rogers certified looks like this:
Shall City of Seattle Councilmember Kshama Sawant be recalled from office for misfeasance, malfeasance, and violation of the oath of office based upon charges that are upon based upon allegations that she violated the city charter, city code and state law when she:
(1) Delegated city employment decisions to a political organization outside city government;
(2) Used city resources to support a ballot initiative and failed to comply with the public disclosure requirements related to such support;
(3) Disregarded state orders related to COVID-19 by admitting hundreds of people into city hall on June 9, 2020, when it was closed to the public;
(4) Led a protest march to Mayor Jenny Durkan’s private residence, the location of which Sawant knows is protected under state confidentiality laws.
As of this writing, Sawant has not yet appealed the certification to the state Supreme Court, though she has vowed to do so. According to the City Attorney’s Office, Sawant’s personal attorney, Dmitri Iglitzin, will continue to represent her for the appeal — though the city will be picking up the tab.
I hope you found this article valuable. If you did, please take a moment to make a contribution to support my ongoing work. Thanks!