Background
The Washington legislature enacted ESHB 1296 in 2025, legislation relating to education policy. The bill contained an emergency clause stating it was necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health, or safety. Tim Eyman filed a proposed referendum on section 501 of the bill, but the Secretary of State’s elections division refused to process it, citing the emergency clause exemption from referendum.
Eyman first petitioned the Washington Supreme Court for mandamus in Eyman v. Hobbs, seeking to compel Secretary Hobbs to file the referendum. The court denied the petition, with a majority upholding the validity of the emergency clause. Eight justices agreed the legislature’s emergency determination was valid, making section 501 exempt from referendum.
On May 23, 2025, Eyman filed a recall petition against Secretary Hobbs, claiming he violated his oath of office or committed misfeasance by refusing to transmit a copy of the referendum measure to the attorney general as required by RCW 29A.72.040. The superior court dismissed the petition as legally and factually insufficient. Eyman appealed to the state supreme court.
The Court’s Holding
The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, finding the recall petition legally insufficient. The court held that because ESHB 1296 contains a valid emergency clause—previously upheld by the court in Eyman v. Hobbs—the law is exempt from referendum under the Washington Constitution. The emergency clause makes the law outside the scope of the referendum power reserved to the people.
The court stated that under Washington law, a legislative declaration of emergency is conclusive unless it is “obviously false and a palpable attempt at dissimulation.” Because the majority had already determined the emergency clause in ESHB 1296 is valid, the Secretary of State had no mandatory duty to process the proposed referendum. Therefore, Eyman’s claim that Secretary Hobbs violated his oath of office by failing to transmit the measure to the attorney general fails as a matter of law. The court noted that Eyman overlooked the constitutional emergency clause exception to the referendum right.
Key Takeaways
- The Washington legislature’s declaration of an emergency is presumed valid and receives substantial deference; it can only be overturned if obviously false and a palpable attempt at dissimulation.
- When a bill contains a valid emergency clause, it is exempt from referendum, and the Secretary of State has no duty to process a referendum petition on it.
- Recall petitions must be both factually and legally sufficient to survive dismissal; they cannot succeed when based on actions the official was constitutionally permitted to take.
- Recall cannot be used to challenge or revisit legal determinations already decided by the courts, including the validity of an emergency clause.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Washington legislature’s broad authority to exempt laws from referendum through valid emergency clauses and establishes that judicial review of those emergency declarations is final. It prevents the recall mechanism from being used as an end-run around substantive constitutional or legal rulings. The ruling maintains separation of powers by declining to second-guess the legislature’s emergency determination through a different procedural vehicle after the courts have already upheld it.
For public officials, the decision clarifies that they cannot be recalled for faithfully administering the law as the courts have interpreted it, even when a citizen disagrees with that interpretation. It also signals that the recall power, while available for genuine misfeasance or malfeasance, is not a tool for revisiting settled legal questions or objecting to discretionary enforcement decisions that comply with law.