SEATTLE — The Washington State Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling on Thursday, April 30, dismissing a recall petition aimed at Secretary of State Steve Hobbs. The decision marks a final legal setback for Tim Eyman, whose challenge had argued that the Secretary of State failed in his official duties regarding a specific education bill.
The legal conflict originated during the 2025 legislative session with the passage of Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1296, legislation designed to foster a safe and supportive public education environment. Section 603 of the bill contained an emergency clause, a provision that declares a statute necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health, or safety. By including this clause, the bill took effect immediately and was explicitly shielded from the state’s standard referendum process.
Following the bill’s enactment, Eyman moved to file a proposed referendum targeting Section 501 of the legislation. The Secretary of State’s elections division declined to process the measure, citing the protective nature of the emergency clause. Eyman initially pursued a writ of mandamus to compel Hobbs to file the referendum, but the Supreme Court rejected that effort, validating the legislature’s use of the emergency clause.
Despite that earlier ruling, Eyman filed a recall petition against Hobbs on May 23, 2025. The petition alleged that Hobbs violated RCW 29A.72.040 by refusing to assign a serial number to the referendum or transmit it to the Attorney General. Eyman contended that this inaction interfered with the public’s constitutional right to initiate referendums.
A superior court judge reviewed the petition after a hearing and dismissed it, finding it lacked both legal and factual merit. Eyman appealed the decision, which brought the matter back before the state’s highest court.
In the opinion, Justice Mungia wrote that a recall petition must demonstrate that an elected official committed an act of misfeasance, malfeasance, or breached their oath of office. While Eyman argued that the law imposed a non-discretionary, mandatory duty on Hobbs to process the referendum regardless of other factors, the Supreme Court noted that the state constitution specifically exempts laws with valid emergency clauses from referendum procedures.
Justice Mungia stated that because the majority of the court had previously determined the emergency clause in ESHB 1296 was valid, the law was exempt from referendum. Consequently, the petition was deemed legally insufficient. The court concluded that Hobbs acted in accordance with the law and did not have a mandatory obligation to process Eyman’s proposed measure. With no conduct identified that rose to the level of misfeasance or an oath violation, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the recall effort.