Washington Supreme Court Throws Out Recall Petition Against Secretary of State Steve Hobbs
The Washington State Supreme Court unanimously upheld the dismissal of a recall petition against Secretary of State Steve Hobbs yesterday, dealing a legal defeat to Tim Eyman.
In a decision filed Thursday morning, April 30, the state’s highest court ruled that Eyman’s petition was legally insufficient, clearing Hobbs of allegations that he violated his oath of office or committed misfeasance.
The dispute stems from the passage of Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1296 during the 2025 legislative session.
The bill, which aimed at “promoting a safe and supportive public education system,” included an emergency clause in Section 603.
An emergency clause is a legislative tool declaring a bill necessary for the “immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety,” allowing it to take effect immediately and explicitly exempting it from the state’s referendum process.
Following the bill’s passage, Eyman attempted to file a proposed referendum measure targeting section 501 of ESHB 1296. The Secretary of State’s elections division refused to process it, citing that the emergency clause shielded the legislation from a referendum.
Eyman initially sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to force Hobbs to file the referendum, but the court ruled that the legislature’s emergency clause was valid.
Undeterred by that loss, Eyman filed a recall petition against Secretary Hobbs on May 23, 2025.
Eyman alleged that Hobbs violated RCW 29A.72.040 by failing to assign a serial number to the referendum and failing to transmit it to the Attorney General, thereby interfering with the people’s constitutional right to a referendum.
A superior court initially dismissed the petition after a hearing, determining that it was both legally and factually insufficient. Eyman appealed, bringing the case back to the State Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Ruling
Writing the opinion for the court, Justice Mungia explained that for a recall petition to be legally sufficient, the elected official must have committed an act of misfeasance, malfeasance, or violated their oath of office.
Eyman argued the law created a mandatory, non-discretionary duty for Hobbs to process the referendum regardless of the circumstances. However, the court highlighted that the state constitution explicitly exempts laws with valid emergency clauses from the referendum process entirely.
“Because a majority of the court determined that the emergency clause in ESHB 1296 is valid, the law is exempt from a referendum,” wrote Justice Mungia. “Therefore, Mr. Eyman’s petition is legally insufficient.”
The court concluded that Hobbs correctly followed the law and had no mandatory duty to process Eyman’s proposed referendum.
Because Eyman failed to identify any conduct amounting to misfeasance or a violation of the oath of office, the trial court’s dismissal of the recall petition was affirmed.