Charges Round II


  1. Charge One: Illegal vetoing of legislation.
  2. Charge One Statement of Facts:

In 2019, the Washington Legislature passed ESHB 1160, titled “AN ACT Relating to transportation funding and appropriations.” In section 220, the legislature appropriated moneys to WSDOT to issue transportation-related grants, subject to a number of “conditions and limitations.” Section 220 first lists six accounts and the amount of moneys appropriated from each. In the 15 numbered paragraphs that follow, the bill specifies that certain amounts of the total appropriation must be used “solely” for nine specific grant programs. ESHB 1160. With regard to seven of those nine grant programs, the bill mandates that “Fuel type may not be a factor in the grant selection process.” LAWS OF 2019, ch. 416, §220; ESHB 1160, § 220(1)(a), (b), (2), (3)(a), (5)(a), (7), (9) (the “fuel type condition”). Governor Inslee vetoed this fuel type condition each of the seven times it appeared on May 21, 2019 at the Office of the Governor in Olympia, Washington.

  1. On November 10, 2021, the Washington Supreme Court ruled in Washington State Legislature v. Inslee, 198 Wn.2d 562 (2021), that Governor Inslee violated his constitutional veto power when he vetoed the fuel type condition in the seven times it appeared. “Governor Inslee exceeded his article III, section 12 veto power by striking the fuel type condition, which formed only one part of each appropriation item in which it appeared.” Id. at 526.
  2. Charge I Statement of Knowledge of Facts:
  3. I, ______________, have read the November 10, 2021, the Washington Supreme Court decision in Washington State Legislature v. Inslee, 198 Wn.2d 561 (2021), where the Court concluded that Governor Inslee’ violated his constitutional veto power when he vetoed the fuel type condition in the seven times it appeared. Specifically, the Court concluded: “Governor Inslee exceeded his article III, section 12 veto power by striking the fuel type condition, which formed only one part of each appropriation item in which it appeared.” Id. at 526.
  4. From this Court decision, I know that in 2019, the Washington Legislature passed ESHB 1160, titled “AN ACT Relating to transportation funding and appropriations.” In section 220, the legislature appropriated moneys to WSDOT to issue transportation-related grants, subject to “conditions and limitations.” Section 220 first lists six accounts and the amount of moneys appropriated from each. In the 15 numbered paragraphs that follow, the bill specifies that certain amounts of the total appropriation must be used “solely” for nine specific grant programs. ESHB 1160. With regard to seven of those nine grant programs, the bill mandates that “Fuel type may not be a factor in the grant selection process.” LAWS OF 2019, ch. 416, §220; ESHB 1160, § 220(1)(a), (b), (2), (3)(a), (5)(a), (7), (9) (the “fuel type condition”). Governor Inslee vetoed this fuel type condition each of the seven times it appeared on May 21, 2019 at the Office of the Governor in Olympia, Washington.
  5. I, __________________________, am personally aware of the preceding facts because I read the legislation prior to its veto and after its veto on the Washington Legislature’s website at https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1160&Year=2019. I also read the Washington Supreme Court’s decision as recorded in Washington State Legislature v. Inslee, 198 Wn.2d 561 (2021).
  6. Charge 1: Grounds for Recall:
  7. The Governor’s illegal veto constitutes misfeasance and malfeasance in office because it was wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of his official duty in his constitutional legislative process. Even if vetoing legislation is viewed as the performance of a duty, as indicated by the Washington Supreme Court Governor Inslee’s vetoes of parts of ESHB 1160 was conducted in an improper manner and constitutes and unconstitutional or unlawful act.
  8. The illegal vetoes of parts of ESHB 1160 also constitute a violation of the oath of office because it constitutes neglect or knowing failure by Governor Inslee to perform faithfully a duty to exercise veto authority in a manner consistent with the Washington constitution as required by RCW 43.01.020.
  9. Charge Two: Illegal vetoing of legislation.
  10. Charge Two Statement of Facts:
  11. On April 25, 2020, the Washington State Legislature enacted HB 1579, which was titled “relating to implement recommendations of the Southern Resident Killer Whale Task Force related to increasing chinook abundance.” Section 13 of the bill provided for construction of three suction dredging projects in Whatcom, Snohomish, and Grays Harbor counties to aid in floodplain management strategies. Section 8(1)(a) of the bill provided:

If section 13 of this act is enacted into law by June 30, 2019, the department may levy civil penalties of up to ten thousand dollars for every violation of this chapter or of the rules that implement this chapter. If section 13 of this act is not enacted into law by June 30, 2019, the department may levy civil penalties of up to one hundred dollars for every violation of this chapter or of the rules that implement this chapter. Each and every violation is a separate and distinct civil offense.

  1. On May 8, 2019, Governor Jay Inslee vetoed Section 13 and Subsection 8(1)(a) of HB 1579, at the Office of the Governor in Olympia, Washington. Article III, section 12 of the Washington State Constitution provides that “if any bill presented to the governor contain several sections of appropriation items, he may object to one or more sections or appropriation items while approving other portions of the bill: Provided, That he may not object to less than an entire section, except that if the section contains one or more appropriation items he may object to any such appropriation item or items.” Subsection 8(1)(a) of HB 1579 is neither an entire section, nor an appropriation item.
  2. For the same reasons expressed in Washington State Legislature v. Inslee, 198 Wn.2d 561 (2021), Governor Inslee has exceeded his Article II, section 12 veto power by vetoing only a part of HB 1579, namely Subsection 8(1)(a).
  1. Charge Two Statement of Knowledge of Facts:
  2. I, __________________________, am personally aware of the facts stated in paragraphs 14-15 because I read the legislation as it existed prior to the Governor’s veto and after his veto on the Washington Legislature’s website at https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1579&Initiative=false&Year=2019I also read the Washington Supreme Court’s decision as recorded in Washington State Legislature v. Inslee, 198 Wn.2d 561 (2021).
  3. Charge 2 Grounds for Recall:
  4. Article III, section 12 of the Washington State Constitution provides that “if any bill presented to the governor contain several sections of appropriation items, he may object to one or more sections or appropriation items while approving other portions of the bill: Provided, That he may not object to less than an entire section, except that if the section contains one or more appropriation items he may object to any such appropriation item or items.” Subsection 8(1)(a) of HB 1579 is neither an entire section, nor an appropriation item.
  5. For the same reasons expressed in Washington State Legislature v. Inslee, 498 P.3d 496 (2021), Governor Inslee has exceeded his Article II, section 12 veto power by vetoing only a part of HB 1579, namely Subsection 8(1)(a).
  6. The Governor’s illegal veto constitutes misfeasance and malfeasance in office because it was wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of his official duty in his constitutional legislative process. Even if vetoing legislation is viewed as the performance of a duty, as indicated by the Washington Supreme Court, Governor Inslee’s vetoes of parts of HB 1579 was conducted in an improper manner and constitutes and unconstitutional or unlawful act.
  7. The illegal vetoes of parts of HB 1579 also constitute a violation of the oath of office because it constitutes neglect or knowing failure by Governor Inslee to perform faithfully a duty to exercise veto authority in a manner consistent with the Washington constitution as required by RCW 43.01.020.
  8. Charge 3: Violation of First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
  9. Charge 3 Statement of Facts:
  10. On March 23, 2020, Governor Inslee issued Proclamation 20-25 which prohibited all people in Washington State from participating in social, spiritual and recreational gatherings of any kind regardless of the number of participants. Violations of Proclamation 20-25 were punishable as crimes pursuant to RCW 43.06.220(5). Proclamation 20-25 violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  11. As the Governor of the State of Washington, Governor Inslee knew or should have known that that meeting for religious purposes is part of the free exercise of religion and is specifically protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Governor Inslee’s action in issuing Proclamation 20-25 violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States and constitutes misfeasance or a violation of his oath of office to uphold the United States Constitution.
  12. Charge 3 Statement of Knowledge of Facts:
  13. I, ______________________, am personally aware of the facts in paragraphs 25-26 because I read Governor Inslee’s Proclamation 20-25. Gathering with people of similar religious views is essential to the exercise of my religious faith. Because of Proclamation 20-25, I was unable to do so during the time the Proclamation was in effect because Proclamation 20-25 specifically prohibited me from doing so without running the risk of incurring criminal penalties.
  14. Charge 3 Grounds for Recall:
  15. The Governor’s unconstitutional interference with the free exercise of religion constitutes misfeasance and malfeasance in office because it was wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of his official duty in protecting and upholding Constitutional rights. Even if issuing Proclamation 20-24 is viewed as the performance of a duty, the exercise of such duty was conducted in an improper manner and constitutes and unconstitutional or unlawful act.
  16. The violation of the free exercise of religion also constitutes a violation of the oath of office because it constitutes neglect or knowing failure by Governor Inslee to perform faithfully a duty to exercise authority in a manner that supports the United States Constitution as required by RCW 43.01.020.
  1. Charge 4: Discrimination against those with religious exemptions from vaccination.
  2. Charge 4 Statement of Facts:
  3. On August 9, 2021, Governor Inslee issued Proclamation 21-14, requiring State employees to be vaccinated for COVID-19 and on October 18, 2021, fired 402 Washington State Department of Transportation employees who were exempt from the vaccine mandate on medical or religious grounds. However, the Governor has discriminated against those who are exempt from the vaccine mandate for religious reasons as opposed to those with medical reasons. High level staff in the Governor’s Office, such as Kathryn Leathers, General Counsel to the Governor, indicated in a email dated August 3, 2021, to other staff that the exemption for medical reasons would be “for sure” but for “religious” reasons, “if we have to; if yes, as narrow as possible.”
  4. The Governor’s attorney’s representation that employees with religious exemptions would be treated differently than those with medical exemptions was implemented in the firing of WashDOT employees on October 18, 2021. Out of the 150 Washington Department of Transportation (WashDOT) employees who had a medical exemption from the vaccine mandate, 132 were accommodated and did not lose their job representing 88% of those with medical exemptions. There were 18 unvaccinated employees who were exempt for medical reasons who were not accommodated and did lose their job, representing 12% of the employees with exemption for medical reasons for not being vaccinated.
  5. Those with religious exemptions lost their jobs at a glaringly different rate demonstrating disparate treatment consistent with the email referenced above. Out of the 467 WashDOT employees who were exempt from the vaccination requirement for religious reasons, 50 did not lose their job (10.7%) and 417 did lose their job (89.3%). The Governor has discriminated against those employees with religious reasons for not being vaccinated evidenced by the wide disparity of impact on state workers within WashDOT.
  6. Charge 4 Knowledge of Facts:
  7. I, _________________, am personally aware of the facts in paragraphs 34-36 because I have read the email referenced above that shows Kathryn Leathers on the email. I have also read an excel spreadsheet that was provided by the State in response to a public records act request identifying the number of WashDOT employees who received accommodations and identifying whether they had a medical exemption or a religious exemption. I am one of the persons who had a religious exemption from the vaccination requirement and was not accommodated.
  8. Charge 4 Grounds:
  9. Discrimination against employees based on their religious beliefs is contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As such, engaging in such discrimination is wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of his official duty in protecting and upholding Constitutional rights as the chief executive officer of the state. The exercise of his executive function was conducted in an improper manner and constitutes and unconstitutional or unlawful act.
  10. The violation of the free exercise of religion also constitutes a violation of the oath of office because it constitutes neglect or knowing failure by Governor Inslee to perform faithfully a duty to exercise authority in a manner that supports the United States Constitution as required by RCW 43.01.020.