Court Rejects Recall Petition Against Prosecutor Justices Say Campaign Against Adams County Prosecutor Has No Merit; Ill Feelings Remain Among Other County Officials

The state Supreme Court killed a petition Thursday to recall Adams County Prosecutor David Sandhaus, saying the petition lacks enough facts or evidence to justify a recall attempt.

The nine-member court said three claims made against Sandhaus by his opponents are not adequate reasons to hold a recall election.

Sandhaus - appointed by county commissioners in 1994 - became the target of a recall effort last August when his opponents contended he had overspent his annual budgets, failed to represent the county in civil actions and failed to post a performance bond in 1996.

By law, all elected officials must obtain a $5,000 bond to insure their job performance.

“I’m gratified by the decision and want to send my heartfelt thanks to those who have stood by me and my family during these difficult times,” Sandhaus said.

Sandhaus, who plans to run for election this fall, contends the recall effort came from a group of Adams County officials who have established a cozy “good old boys” arrangement that used to include the prosecutor’s office.

After being appointed, Sandhaus said, he refused to follow the long-standing tradition of plea-bargaining most criminal cases.

County officials say Sandhaus has been his own worst enemy, alienating county commissioners and overreacting when others don’t support his goals.

The recall was the best way to resolve that dispute, said former county Auditor Leon Long.

“There will be a lot of disappointed people in the county,” Long said. “Now we’ll just have to wait for the election.”

Also signing the recall petition were county Commissioner Shawn Logan and Assessor Jerry Crossler.

Last fall, a lower court ruled that the allegations are sufficient to justify a recall election, but the high court disagreed.

The Supreme Court said the charge that Sandhaus had failed to provide legal counsel to the county commissioners simply lacked enough facts to back up the assertion. “A petition must state in detail the acts complained of,” which was not the case with this petition, the court ruled.

The petition failed to “state with specificity or detail any instances in which Sandhaus had refused to provide legal counsel,” the court said.

The justices said the charge that Sandhaus had failed to obtain a bond was “neither factually nor legally sufficient.”

The court noted evidence that Sandhaus properly had assumed that the county auditor would handle the securing of all bonds, and the court also said the petitioners had failed to dispute the defense. It also noted that Sandhaus eventually did obtain a bond that was retroactive to cover his term.

And the contention that Sandhaus had overspent his budget in violation of the law appears “factually sufficient” but “legally insufficient,” the court said.

The court noted that petitioners asserted that Sandhaus’ over-expenditures had caused the county to illegally incur liabilities, but “the only apparent reason the county incurred liabilities is that the auditor issued warrants for Sandhaus’ over-expenditures with the county commission’s approval.

“This itself may have violated” the law, “which imposes upon auditors and county commissioners liability for four times the amount of any over-expenditures approved or paid by warrant,” the court said.

, DataTimes