1
2
3

FILED

THE HONORABLE JIM ROGERS

2020 SEP 11 02:15 PM
KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
E-FILED
CASE #: 20-2-13314-1 SEA

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
IN RE THE MATTER OF RECALL
CHARGES AGAINST CITY OF SEATTLE
COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT
(SAWANT)

No. 20-2-13314-1 SEA
OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO
DETERMINE SUFFICIENCY OF
RECALL CHARGES AND
ADEQUACY OF BALLOT SY NOPSIS
(SAW ANT)

11
12
13

INTRODUCTION AND RELIEF REQUESTED

14

Kshama Sawant (Sawant) was first elected to the Seattle City Council in 2013, backed by

15

a left-leaning political organization, Socialist Alternative, of which she is a member. When

16

Sawant was sworn into office on January 6, 2014, she became the first self-described socialist to

17

win a seat on the City Council since 1877 and the first to win a citywide election in Seattle since

18

1916. From the date that Sawant took office until the present, her tenure has been defined by an

19

aggressive defense of her pro-worker and pro-renter agenda, and by her vigorous, unyielding,

20

and unapologetic rebuke of what she and her supporters see as the outsized influence of Seattle’s

21

largest corporations, its most indiscriminate developers, and its unaccountable police force.

22

Several signature issues and causes have made Sawant a lightning-rod in Seattle politics.

23

Immediately after assuming office, Sawant championed a successful effort to increase Seattle’s

24
OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DETERMINE
SUFFICIENCY OF RECALL CHARGES – Page 1
Case No. 20-2-13314-1 SEA

 1

minimum wage to $15 an hour. Sawant has also advocated for an income tax on wealthy

2

residents of Seattle, rent control, and police reform. In 2017 and 2018, Sawant led the push to

3

institute a big business tax which would have taxed Seattle’s largest corporations on a per-

4

employee basis in order to fund public affordable housing and homelessness services. Amazon,

5

the largest private employer in Seattle, responded to the initial passage of the tax by the Council

6

in 2018 by funding what became a successful campaign to obtain repeal of the tax ordinance

7

shortly thereafter. This year, Sawant spearheaded the “Tax Amazon” campaign that led to

8

passage of a big business tax four times larger than the one previously passed and repealed.

9

Subsequently, Amazon and Seattle’s other major business interests have become increasingly

10

active in their attempts to remove Sawant from her position on the Council. Having failed to

11

unseat her in two regularly-scheduled elections, most recently in 2019, her opponents have now

12

turned to the recall process.

13

Sawant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the recall petition filed by Petitioner

14

Ernest Lou, on the grounds that it fails to meet the Petitioner’s burden to establish factual and

15

legal sufficiency.

16
17

STATEMENT OF FACTS
A.

Re ce nt Eve nts

18

On May 25, 2020, Minneapolis police officers murdered George Floyd, an unarmed

19

Black man accused of attempting to use a counterfeit $20 bill, sparking a proliferation of protests

20

across the country, and indeed the world, that has not yet abated. In many locations, already

21

outraged communities of protestors were met with a heavy-handed crackdown by police when

22

they participated in marches, rallies, and vigils.

23

Washington’s law enforcement killings of John T. Williams (2010), Che Taylor (2016),

24

Charleena Lyles and Tommy Le (2017), and Shaun Fuhr (2020), among others, helped set the
OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DETERMINE
SUFFICIENCY OF RECALL CHARGES – Page 2
Case No. 20-2-13314-1 SEA

 1

stage for Seattleites to join the national protest movement by the tens of thousands. These

2

protests, at times, would be intensified by what demonstrators and others saw as excessively-

3

violent police responses.1 It is within this context that the majority of the alleged conduct

4

described in the Petition took place.

5

B.

Se attle Prote s
ts

6

Between late May and early July, 2020, dozens of protests were organized as a part of the

7

Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. Declaration of Kshama Sawant (Sawant Dec.), ¶ 5. The

8

wide-spread demonstrations were diverse in their tactics and in the demographics of their

9

participants. Id. The majority of Seattle City Councilmembers attended one or more such

10

protests. Declaration of Dmitri Iglitzin (Iglitzin Dec.), Ex. E; see also Sawant Dec., ¶ 4. Even

11

Seattle’s Mayor Jenny Durkan appeared at one such demonstration on June 2 to address a crowd

12

of hundreds as they pressed her on the city’s disputed record of police accountability. Iglitzin

13

Dec., at Exs. C, D.

14

On many occasions, Sawant attended BLM protests in Seattle. Sawant Dec., ¶¶ 4-6, 8.

15

She attended some such events which took place on public property, others which took place in

16

her district, Seattle City Council District 3, and one of several in Windermere—a neighborhood

17

chosen both for being one of the wealthiest and least racially diverse parts of the city, and as well

18

as for being the location where the Mayor is believed to reside. Id. Sawant, among many others,

19

also addressed large crowds at the Seattle Police Department’s East Precinct, in the Windermere

20

neighborhood, and at Seattle City Hall. Id.

21

On June 9, 2020, Sawant and a group of other BLM marchers gathered at City Hall.

22

Sawant Dec., ¶ 8. The vast majority of those gathered wore masks and participated in an

23

1

24

A particularly powerful critique of this police overreaction was recently issued by Merrick Bobb, who just resigned
after seven years as court-appointed monitor of Justice Department-mandated reform of the Seattle Police
Department because of these concerns, see Declaration of Dmitri Iglitzin (Iglitzin Dec.), at Ex. H.

OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DETERMINE
SUFFICIENCY OF RECALL CHARGES – Page 3
Case No. 20-2-13314-1 SEA

 1

approximately hour-long rally, peacefully held inside of the City Hall building. Id. The many

2

speeches offered at the rally, including one given by Sawant, were critical of city leaders’

3

response to incidents of police use of force. City Hall was not closed to the public on the day of

4

the rally and no rules prohibit members of the public from being admitted, as a Councilmember’s

5

guests, into the building even outside of City Hall’s regular hours of operation. Id. ¶ 9.

6

C.

Th e Pe ti
ti
on

7

On August 18th, 2020, Petitioner filed a Petition for Recall of Elected Officers with the

8

King County Department of Elections. Petition at 1 (found at Dkt 4, Ex A). On September 1,

9

2020, the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office filed a Petition to Determine Sufficiency

10

of Recall Charges and Adequacy of Ballot Synopsis with this Court. Dkt. 1.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY

11
12

I.

It i
sPe ti
ti
one r’sb urde n to e s
tab li
s
h b oth factualand le gals
uffi
ci
e ncy .

13

Under Washington law, public officials may only be recalled for cause. In re Recall of

14

Wasson, 149 Wn.2d 787, 791, 72 P.3d 170 (2003). A recall petition must be factually and legally

15

sufficient in order to satisfy this requirement. Id.; see In re Recall of Sandhaus, 134 Wn.2d 662,

16

668, 953 P.2d 82 (1998). Sufficiency must be determined from the face of a petition. See Matter

17

of Recall of Inslee, 194 Wn.2d 563, 567, 451 P.3d 305 (2019); Wasson, 149 Wn.2d at 791.

18

A petition must define “substantial conduct clearly amounting to misfeasance,

19

malfeasance, or a violation of the oath of office,” for which the challenged official cannot

20

provide legal justification. Id. at 791-92. To show misfeasance or malfeasance in office, the

21

petitioner must describe “wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the

22

performance of an official duty.” RCW 29A.56.110(1). “Misfeasance” is also defined as “the

23

performance of a duty in an improper manner.” RCW 29A.56.110(1)(a). Malfeasance is also

24

defined as the “commission of an unlawful act.” RCW 29A.56.110(1)(b). Moreover, where the
OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DETERMINE
SUFFICIENCY OF RECALL CHARGES – Page 4
Case No. 20-2-13314-1 SEA

 1

commission of an unlawful act is alleged, “the petitioner must show facts indicating the official

2

had knowledge of and intent to commit an unlawful act.” In re Recall of Lindquist, 172 Wn.2d

3

120, 132, 258 P.3d 9 (2011); Inslee, 194 Wn.2d at 568 (“Where the charge alleges the official

4

violated the law, the facts must show the official intended to do so.”).

5

The burden is on the petitioner to establish the legal sufficiency of recall charges and to

6

identify the “standard, law, or rule that would make the officer’s conduct wrongful, improper, or

7

unlawful.” In re Recall of Bolt, 177 Wn.2d 168, 174, 298 P.3d 710 (2013) (internal quotes

8

omitted). “When an official is charged with violating the law, the petitioners must have

9

knowledge of facts indicating the official intended to commit an unlawful act.” Sandhaus, 134

10

Wn.2d at 668. “Legal sufficiency” means “the charges must state with specificity substantial

11

conduct clearly amounting to misfeasance, malfeasance or violation of the oath of office.” Id.

12

(internal quotes omitted).

13

In order to be factually sufficient, facts provided in a recall petition “must establish a

14

prima facie case of misfeasance, malfeasance, or violation of the oath of office.” Wasson, 149

15

Wn.2d at 791. Additionally, the facts must “be stated in concise language and provide a detailed

16

description that includes the date, location and nature of each allegation….” Id. (citing Chandler

17

v. Otto, 103 Wn.2d 268, 693 P.2d 71 (1984)); RCW 29A.56.010. The specificity requirements

18

set forth in RCW 29A.56.110 ensure “that both the public electorate and the challenged elective

19

official will make informed decisions in the recall process,” and also that the official who is the

20

subject of the petition can craft a “meaningful public response to the merits” of every charge

21

brought against them. Herron v. McClanahan, 28 Wn. App. 552, 559, 625 P.2d 707 (1981).

22

Courts serve a gatekeeping function in evaluating recall petitions to prevent

23

unsubstantiated, politically motivated and frivolous petitions from reaching voters. In re Recall

24
OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DETERMINE
SUFFICIENCY OF RECALL CHARGES – Page 5
Case No. 20-2-13314-1 SEA

 1

of Kast, 144 Wn.2d 807, 813, 31 P.3d 677 (2001). As such, courts review charges listed in a

2

recall petition to determine whether they satisfy the criteria for which a petition may be filed.

3

RCW 29A.56.140.

4

II.

Each of th e ch arge sfai
lsto faci
ally e s
tab li
s
h factualand le gals
uffi
ci
e ncy .

6

A. Ch arge A i
si
ns
uffi
ci
e nt b e caus
e i
t fai
lsto de s
cri
b e any s
p e ci
fi
chi
ri
ng de ci
s
i
on
alle ge d to h ave b e e n i
m p rop e r, and b e caus
e s
uch de ci
s
i
onsare i
nh e re ntly
di
s
cre ti
onary actsth at cannot s
e rve asth e b as
i
sfor re call.

7

Charge A alleges that Sawant relinquished control of hiring and firing to a political

8

organization. Pet. at 3. This charge fails, first, for its utter failure to articulate supporting facts.

9

The Charge makes reference to unspecified “documents,” but fails to attach or even identify said

10

documents. “A general reference to sources containing relevant and irrelevant information is

11

insufficient.” Wasson, 149 Wn.2d at 792. See also In re Kelley, 185 Wn.2d 158, 170, 369 P.3d

12

494 (2016) (reference to unidentified news reports and a complete lack of reference to any

13

specific actions by the auditor not sufficient). Moreover, the Petition does not reference any

14

allegedly problematic termination or hiring decision, relying instead on a generalized assertion

15

that Sawant has relinquished authority over staffing decisions. Pet. at 3. This is insufficient. See

16

Sandhaus, 134 Wn.2d at 668 (petition deemed factually insufficient where it failed to identify

17

any specific instances of conduct alleged to have occurred). In a recent decision rejecting a recall

18

petition on the basis of a councilmember’s alleged attempts to abscond with a mayor’s

19

hiring/firing decisions, the Washington Supreme Court held the petition to be factually deficient

20

because “[n]one of the facts alleged constitute any actual attempt to fire anyone.” Matter of

21

Levine, 194 Wn.2d 99, 106, 448 P.3d 764 (2019).

5

22

Even if the Charge did identify specific staffing decisions, it would also be factually

23

deficient for its failure to identify facts showing an intent to violate the law. Bolt, 177 Wn.2d at

24
OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DETERMINE
SUFFICIENCY OF RECALL CHARGES – Page 6
Case No. 20-2-13314-1 SEA

 1

176 (petition involving allegedly improper termination of employee insufficient for failure to

2

“identify facts that indicate an intent by [the Mayor] to violate the law.”).

3

Moreover, the Charge fails because staffing is an inherently discretionary function, which

4

can only meet the legal sufficiency prong where the charge indicates a clear abuse of discretion.

5

Inslee, 194 Wn.2d at 572 (citing Bolt, 177 Wn.2d at 174 and Cole, 103 Wn.2d at 283). Decisions

6

to terminate staff are legally insufficient as the basis for a recall because “[s]upervising an

7

employee inherently involves a substantial amount of discretion….” Bolt, 177 Wn.2d at 175; see

8

also Matter of Recall of Estey, 104 Wn.2d 597, 707 P.2d 1338 (1985) (recall charge legally

9

insufficient on grounds that decision to renew an employment contract rested with discretion of

10

officials charged).

11

In fact, based on exactly this reasoning, the City of Seattle Ethics and Elections

12

Commission (SEEC) has previously concluded that a claim that Sawant misused her position by

13

allegedly allowing Socialist Alternative to influence hiring and firing decisions in her office was

14

meritless. Iglitzin Dec., at Ex. F. Legal sufficiency requires alleged substantial conduct which

15

clearly amounts to misfeasance, malfeasance, or violation of the oath of office. Wasson, 149

16

Wn.2d at 791-92. But here, the exact conduct complained of in the petition has been adjudicated

17

to be lawful and within Sawant’s discretion as an elected official.

18
19

B. Ch arge B i
sfactually de fi
ci
e nt for fai
li
ng to i
de nti
fy th e b allot i
ni
ti
ati
ve or
s
p e ci
fi
c acti
onsalle ge d to b e unlawful and doe snot alle ge conduct th at i
s
“cle arly ”i
m p rop e r.

20

Charge B neither cites the particular ballot initiative Sawant is alleged to have improperly

21

promoted, nor which of her actions in promoting the initiative Petitioner believes constituted

22

malfeasance or misfeasance. Pet. at 3-4. Petitioner’s failure to identify a particular ballot

23

initiative in existence at the time Sawant is alleged to have improperly supported an initiative

24

renders that charge factually insufficient. Wasson, 149 Wn.2d at 791.
OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DETERMINE
SUFFICIENCY OF RECALL CHARGES – Page 7
Case No. 20-2-13314-1 SEA

 1

Charge B is also legally insufficient for failure to identify any basis why Sawant’s actions

2

in supporting a yet-to-be created ballot proposition would “clearly” constitute misfeasance,

3

malfeasance, or violation of the oath of office. Id., at 791-92. Sawant assumes that the

4

proposition she stands accused of supporting is the so-called Tax Amazon Initiative No. 130,

5

filed March 19, 2020. Iglitzin Dec., at Ex. I. Yet the Petition alleges that the unspecified acts of

6

support took place in January and February 2020, prior to the date this potentially relevant ballot

7

initiative existed. Pet. at 3-4. While RCW 42.17A.555 prohibits elected officials from using

8

public office facilities “for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition,” the term

9

“ballot proposition” is, in turn, defined as a measure, initiative, recall, or referendum “from and

10

after the time when the proposition has been initially filed with the appropriate election officer of

11

that constituency before its circulation for signatures.” RCW 42.17A.005(4). Because the Tax

12

Amazon ballot proposition had not yet been filed with the election officer or circulated for

13

signatures as of February, 2020, it would have been impossible for Sawant to have improperly

14

used city resources to support the initiative during the timeframe alleged in the Petition. Any

15

conduct by Sawant in relation to that particular eventual proposition therefore was not conduct

16

that “clearly” amounted to misfeasance, malfeasance, or violation of the oath of office.

17

Chandler, 103 Wn.2d at 275.

18

Additionally, Petitioner asserts, without explanation, that Sawant should be recalled for

19

violating SMC 4.16.070.B.2 because she used City resources “for other than City purpose.” A

20

recall petition must describe substantial conduct constituting misfeasance, malfeasance, or a

21

violation of the oath of office. In re Recall of Burnham, 194 Wn.2d 68, 81, 448 P.2d 747 (2019);

22

Bolt, 177 Wn.2d at 174 (“conduct that is insubstantial is legally insufficient.”). Minimal or “de

23

minimus” use of government resources by public officials is legally insufficient for recall. See

24
OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DETERMINE
SUFFICIENCY OF RECALL CHARGES – Page 8
Case No. 20-2-13314-1 SEA

 1

Inslee, 194 Wn.2d at 575 (incidental use of public facilities while campaigning in support of a

2

ballot measure found to be de minimus conduct insufficient for recall). Yet the Petition fails to

3

identify any specific alleged conduct involving the use of City resources for other than City

4

purposes. This claim, too, must fail.

5

Finally, while the Charge alleges conclusorily that Sawant violated RCW 42.17A.635,

6

Petitioner has not made any factual allegations regarding any instance where Sawant allegedly

7

engaged in lobbying, such as the dates of such lobbying, the content or nature of the alleged

8

lobbying communications, the location of such alleged lobbying, or the identifies of the public

9

officials she allegedly lobbied. Absent such details, this aspect of the Charge is also plainly

10
11

deficient.
C. Ch arge C fai
lsb e caus
e Sawant di
d not cle arly vi
olate any s
tandard, rule , or law
b y p arti
ci
p ati
ng i
n a BLM rally i
ns
i
de Ci
ty Hall.

12
While Petitioner alleges that Sawant violated various proclamations and rules, he does
13
not make allegations with sufficient particularity to shed light on what laws or rules he believes
14
Sawant violated, or how she violated them. See Pet. at 4-5. RCW 29A.56.110 requires that a
15
petition “clearly identify the legal violations and the facts that support those violations” in order
16
to be deemed legally and factually sufficient. Wasson, 149 Wn.2d at 792. Without specific
17
reference to the laws, duties, rules, or standards which the Petitioner is alleging Sawant violated,
18
she is unduly denied an ability to offer an informed response to the charges against her. Herron,
19
28 Wn. App. 552. On this basis, Charge C is factually insufficient. Id.
20
Sawant can only speculate that Petitioner’s reasoning for the inclusion of Charge C is a
21
belief that Sawant violated the Governor’s and Secretary of Health’s orders by hosting a large
22
political rally at a time when other kinds of large gatherings had been prohibited. On April 27,
23
the Governor’s Proclamation 20-25.2 amended Proclamation 20-05 and prohibited “public and
24
OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DETERMINE
SUFFICIENCY OF RECALL CHARGES – Page 9
Case No. 20-2-13314-1 SEA

 1

private gatherings and multi-person activities for social, spiritual and recreational purposes.”

2

Iglitzin Dec., at Ex. G.

3

However, Governor Inslee did not identify political demonstrations as a type of public

4

gathering which he intended to ban. Under the rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius,”

5

“when a statute specifically designates the things or classes of things on which it operates, an

6

inference arises in law that all things or classes of things omitted from it were intentionally

7

omitted by the legislature.” State v. Swanson, 116 Wn. App. 67, 75, 65 P.3d 343 (2003).

8

Eliminating any doubt that political demonstrations were not within the scope of the

9

proclamation, on May 30, 2020, just ten days prior to the demonstration at issue here, the

10

Governor stated, with regard to just such a rally, “As people gather today to protest the unjust

11

death of George Floyd, I hope they do so peacefully and safely. Everyone has the freedom - and

12

the right - to demonstrate and speak their mind…. I fully support the right to free speech and

13

peaceful assembly….” Iglitzin Dec., Ex. A. Two days later, the Governor stated that peaceful

14

demonstration “is enshrined in our Constitution; the ability to petition one’s government for

15

redress of grievances is actually a constitutional right and we ought to respect that and

16

understand it in that context.” Iglitzin Dec., Ex. B. And the Governor’s office has never cited the

17

political demonstration at City Hall, nor indeed any of the many other BLM protests taking place

18

across Washington State, as violating the proclamations. The Governor’s silence in speaking out

19

against the BLM demonstrations is fully consistent with the notion that the proclamations do not

20

ban political protests.

21

Moreover, while the Petition suggests that Sawant acted improperly in allowing citizens

22

into City Hall after hours, City councilmembers are free to invite guests to their place of work at

23

any time they choose, with no restrictions on their discretionary decision-making imposed by law

24
OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DETERMINE
SUFFICIENCY OF RECALL CHARGES – Page 10
Case No. 20-2-13314-1 SEA

 1

or otherwise. Sawant Dec., ¶ 9. A recall petition may not be predicated on an official’s use of

2

discretion unless it is manifestly unreasonable and an attack on an official’s judgment in

3

exercising discretion is not a proper basis for recall. Bolt, 177 Wn.2d at 174. Recall petitions are

4

legally insufficient where the alleged conduct at issue involved a public official’s exercise of

5

discretion. See Inslee, 194 Wn.2d at 572; Bolt, 177 Wn.2d at 174; Cole, 103 Wn.2d at 283. With

6

the Petitioner having failed to allege violation of any specific rule prohibiting her from doing so,

7

Sawant’s involvement in allowing citizens into City Hall after hours was a permissible

8

discretionary decision.

9

Even if allowing citizens into City Hall had been in violation of a rule or law, the Petition

10

would still be factually insufficient because Petitioner is required to demonstrate “not only that

11

the official intended to commit the act, but also that the official intended to act unlawfully.” In re

12

Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wn.2d 756, 765, 10 P.3d 1034 (2000). “Intent to violate the law

13

may be inferred from the circumstances. The inference must not, however, be ‘too conjectural.’”

14

In re Heiberg, 171 Wn.2d 771, 778–79, 257 P.3d 565 (2011). Indeed, even an alleged admission

15

of criminal activity does not amount to sufficient context from which to infer unlawful intent. In

16

re Ackerson, 143 Wn.2d 366, 20 P.2d 930 (2001). Accordingly, challenges have been dismissed

17

where the Petitioner alleged that an official committed an unlawful act, but failed to include any

18

facts demonstrating the official’s “knowledge and intent.” Levine, 194 Wn.2d at 110 (allegation

19

that official falsified a police report factually insufficient absent evidence of “intent to violate the

20

law or engage in willful criminal conduct”).

21

Here, Petitioner has alleged no facts to support the conclusion that Sawant intended to

22

violate any rule or law, particularly in light of Sawant’s knowledge of the regularity with which

23
24
OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DETERMINE
SUFFICIENCY OF RECALL CHARGES – Page 11
Case No. 20-2-13314-1 SEA

 1

guests and citizens were allowed into City Hall, even outside of normal hours. This is yet another

2

reason why this claim is legally and factually insufficient.

3

D. Ch arge D h asno b as
i
si
n law and fai
lsto alle ge unde rly i
ng factsre gardi
ng
Sawant’satte ndance and re m arksat a BLM rally .

4
Charge D does not identify the particular standards, laws, or rules that Sawant ostensibly
5
violated; rather, the Petitioner simply points vaguely at whole sections of the Code and the
6
Municipal Charter, assuming that something will be applicable to the facts he alleges. See Pet. at
7
5-6. On this basis alone, the allegation is insufficient. Charge D is also factually insufficient
8
because it does not describe any specific actions by Sawant. A charge is factually insufficient
9
where it fails to provide sufficient facts to identify the acts which Petitioner is asserting to be a
10
basis for recall, and is therefore facially insufficient. Jewett v. Hawkins, 123 Wn.2d 446, 447-48,
11
868 P.2d 146 (1994). Charge D’s allegations that Sawant led a demonstration and encouraged
12
people to do improper or unlawful things and did so “using her official position” is also legally
13
insufficient because it contains no allegations from which one could infer that Sawant was acting
14
on June 28 in any capacity other than that of a private citizen. See Pet. at 5-6. The allegation that
15
Sawant “possibly” improperly allowed her staff to act in some improper way is equally vague
16
and not supported by any specific factual allegations. Id. For these reasons, Charge D is legally
17
insufficient under RCW 29A.56.110. Wasson, 149 Wn.2d at 792.
18
19

E. Ch arge E fai
lsto e s
tab li
s
h p ri
m a faci
e cas
e for m i
s
fe as
ance , m alfe as
ance , or
vi
olati
on of th e oath of offi
ce .

20

Charge E asserts that Sawant “[Used] Her Official Position” to lead a march and rally to

21

Mayor Durkan’s home, but does not describe how leading a demonstration implicates Sawant’s

22

position or any special responsibilities arising therefrom. See Pet. at 6-7. These vague assertions

23

fail to meet the requirement to identify why the challenged conduct, if true, constitutes a

24
OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DETERMINE
SUFFICIENCY OF RECALL CHARGES – Page 12
Case No. 20-2-13314-1 SEA

 1

violation of the oath of office, malfeasance, or misfeasance, as set forth in Wade, 115 Wn.2d at

2

548-549.

3

Malfeasance, as pled by the Petitioner, requires the “commission of an unlawful act.”

4

RCW 29A.56.110(1)(b). Under RCW 9A.46, a person is guilty of harassment if, without lawful

5

authority, they threaten another. Taken as true, the facts alleged by Petitioner demonstrate that

6

Sawant was acting with lawful authority—expressing her First-Amendment right to protest on

7

public streets. See Pet. at 6-7. Similarly, RCW 9A.76.180 requires that the accused “threaten” the

8

alleged victim. Charge E is devoid of any facts which would establish a prima facie case that

9

Sawant engaged in any kind of threatening behavior. Wasson, 149 Wn.2d at 791.

10

Moreover, Charge E is factually insufficient in that it does not demonstrate that Sawant

11

had intent to commit an unlawful act. Lindquist, 172 Wn.2d at 132; Inslee, 194 Wn.2d at 568.

12

The Petitioner fails to include any facts to underlie his claim that Sawant led the march, as

13

alleged, nor that she knew or revealed Mayor Durkan’s address. See Pet. at 6-7. In fact, she did

14

not know the Mayor’s home address, Id., making clear that Petitioner’s allegations are based on

15

nothing more than speculation. Matter of Ritter, 194 Wn.2d 85, 93, 448 P.3d 755 (2019)

16

(affirming finding of factual insufficiency where only admissible evidence disproved allegation;

17

“[t]his was not an impermissible weighing of evidence; it was a proper determination that the

18

allegations were speculative.”).

19

F. Ch arge F lacksany le galor factualb as
i
swh ats
oe ve r.

20

The final charge listed in the Petition, Charge F, alleging that Sawant created a “criminal

21

toxic environment” in Capitol Hill, endangered residents and business, and devalued their

22

properties is legally insufficient in that it fails to identify a standard, law, or rule that Sawant’s

23

alleged conduct would have violated. Bolt, 177 Wn.2d at 174; Ackerson, 143 Wn.2d at 377.

24
OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DETERMINE
SUFFICIENCY OF RECALL CHARGES – Page 13
Case No. 20-2-13314-1 SEA

 1

III.

Eve n i
f th e Court we re to de te rm i
ne th at s
om e p orti
on of th e p e ti
ti
on i
sle gally and
factually s
uffi
ci
e nt, th e p rop os
e d b allot s
y nop s
i
si
si
nade quate .

2
In addition to considering the factual and legal sufficiency of the charges, the trial court
3
reviews “the adequacy of the ballot synopsis” and “correct[s] any ballot synopsis it deems
4
inadequate.” RCW 29A.56.140. For the reasons discussed above, the Petition is insufficient and
5
should be dismissed. However, were the Court to conclude that any aspect of the Petition is
6
sufficient to continue with recall proceedings, Sawant respectfully requests 48 hours to submit a
7
proposed alternative ballot for the Court’s consideration.
8
CONCLUSION
9
10

For the foregoing reasons, Councilmember Sawant respectfully requests that this Court
dismiss the Petition.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

I certify that this memorandum contains 4,154 words, in compliance with the Local Civil
Rules.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 11th day of September, 2020.
s/Dmitri Iglitzin
Dmitri Iglitzin, WSBA No. 17673
s/Danielle Franco-Malone
Danielle Franco-Malone, WSBA No. 40979
BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT LLP
18 W Mercer St, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98119
(206) 257-6003
(206) 257-6038
iglitzin@workerlaw.com
franco@workerlaw.com

20
Attorneys for Councilmember Sawant
21
22
23
24
OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DETERMINE
SUFFICIENCY OF RECALL CHARGES – Page 14
Case No. 20-2-13314-1 SEA

 DECLARATION OF SERVICE

1
2

I, Jennifer Woodward, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of

3

Washington, that on the date set forth below I served the foregoing document, in the manner

4

noted, on the following parties:

5

PARTY /COUNSEL

6

Jennifer Atchison
King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office
900 King County Administration Building
500 4th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Jennifer.atchison@kingcounty.com

Hand Delivery
Certified Mail
Facsimile
E-mail
U.S. Mail
E-Service

John McKay
Chris Morley
Jordan Harris
920 Fifth Avenue, suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
johnmckay@dwt.com
chrismorley@dwt.com
jordanharris@dwt.com

Hand Delivery
Certified Mail
Facsimile
E-mail
U.S. Mail
E-Service

7
8

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

DATED this 11th day of September, 2020, at Shoreline, Washington.

17
By:
18

Jennifer Woodward, Paralegal

19
20
21
22
23
24
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
Case No. 20-2-13314-1 SEA