David Chandler, et al v. Lottie Otto
103 Wn.2d 268, 693 P.2d 71 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A recall petition is legally insufficient if it is based solely on an elected official's appropriate exercise of discretion granted to them by law. To be sufficient, a petition must allege specific facts constituting misfeasance, malfeasance, or a violation of the oath of office, rather than simply challenging a discretionary policy judgment.
Facts:
- In early 1984, the City of Moses Lake invited bids for a solid waste handling contract.
- Upon opening the bids, it was found that the lowest bidder, Superior Refuse Removal, had failed to sign all required pages.
- The second-lowest bidder, Western Refuse, had also failed to sign all required pages of its bid.
- The third-lowest bidder, Lakeside Disposal, had fully complied with all bidding requirements.
- On May 22, 1984, the Moses Lake City Council considered the bids and discussed whether to waive the irregularities in the two lowest bids.
- By a 4-to-3 vote, the City Council chose not to waive the irregularities and awarded the contract to Lakeside Disposal as the lowest responsible bidder.
- Citizens subsequently filed a recall petition against the four council members who voted to award the contract to Lakeside Disposal, alleging their action was an abuse of discretion.
Procedural Posture:
- Citizens filed a recall petition against four members of the Moses Lake City Council.
- The Grant County Prosecuting Attorney prepared a ballot synopsis.
- A hearing was held in the Superior Court for Grant County, a trial court of first instance, to determine the sufficiency of the charges.
- The Superior Court ruled that the allegations in the recall petitions were sufficient to warrant a recall election.
- The four council members (appellants) filed an appeal of the trial court's decision directly with the Supreme Court of Washington, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a recall petition allege legally sufficient grounds for recall when it charges city council members with abuse of discretion for awarding a public contract to the third-lowest bidder due to waivable, technical irregularities in the two lower bids?
Opinions:
Majority - Pearson, J.
No. A recall petition is legally insufficient when it challenges an official's appropriate exercise of discretion. The City Council members were statutorily authorized to award contracts to the 'lowest responsible bidder,' a determination that inherently requires the exercise of judgment. The decision not to waive technical irregularities in the lower bids falls within this discretionary authority. The recall petition fails to allege fraud, arbitrary action, or any conduct that rises to the level of misfeasance, malfeasance, or violation of the oath of office; it merely attacks the council members' judgment, which is not a legally sufficient ground for recall.
Dissenting - Dore, J.
Yes. The recall petition alleges sufficient grounds because the council's action was a manifest abuse of discretion. For over 70 years, Washington's constitutional right of recall has been interpreted broadly to preserve the people's right of self-governance. The council's decision to reject the lowest competent bidders over minor, waivable technicalities cost taxpayers an additional $180,000. The voters of Moses Lake, not the court, should be allowed to determine whether this action constitutes an abuse of discretion sufficient to warrant recall.
Concurring - Utter, J.
No. The justice concurred with the majority's conclusion, while adhering to the views he expressed in a prior case, Bocek v. Bayley.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in Washington's recall jurisprudence, moving from a historically broad interpretation of the recall right to a more stringent standard requiring judicial gatekeeping. By establishing a two-part test for factual and legal sufficiency, the court raised the bar for recall petitions, effectively insulating elected officials from recall efforts based merely on unpopular discretionary decisions. This holding curtails the use of recall as a tool for political disagreement and requires petitioners to allege specific, wrongful conduct that goes beyond a legitimate exercise of an official's lawful authority.
Unlock the full brief for David Chandler, et al v. Lottie Otto