Supreme Court rules on petition to recall Thurston Co. Commissioner Emily Clouse

The Washington State Supreme Court dismissed a recall petition against Thurston County Commissioner Emily Clouse in an opinion released Thursday.

The court backed a lower court ruling that the charges against Clouse did not meet the legal standard for a recall.

“We conclude that none of the charges are both factually and legally sufficient,” Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis wrote in the majority opinion. “Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision to dismiss the petition.”

Arthur West, an Olympia resident and open government advocate, filed the recall petition in Thurston County on Dec. 12, 2024, as Clouse faced the fallout from a workplace investigation into her relationship with an executive aide that year. About a month later, a visiting Superior Court judge denied the recall petition, prompting West to appeal to the state Supreme Court. West’s recall effort against Clouse has now ended with this final dismissal.

“I respect the court’s decision,” Clouse told the Olympian Thursday afternoon. “I really appreciate the clarity it provides and the affirmation that the recall petition did not meet the legal standard required to move forward.”

The dismissal came as Clouse is gearing up for her reelection campaign. She’s up for election this fall. Clouse registered on Jan. 5 as a Democrat and has raised about $3,530 as of Thursday, according to the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission.

She appears to be facing Nicolas Dunning, a sitting Lacey City Council member. The PDC reports Dunning filed on Feb. 20 and has contributed $10,000 to his own campaign so far.

When reached for comment Thursday, West said he did not regret how he presented the charges against Clouse.

“There was a formal censure by the county commissioners and there was a (Human Resources) report,” West said. “I don’t think it could have been presented any more clearly. It’s just that the odds are stacked against the citizen filing a recall petition.”

West said he disagrees with the court’s decision, but respects the legal process.

“We have clarity now in the fact that if a county official wants to hire their boyfriend, wife or sweetheart to work for them as an aide with benefits, then that’s perfectly OK. The law advances and we’ve got clear precedent on that.”

It’s now been over a year since the Board of County Commissioners censured Clouse and the county agreed to pay her former aide $300,000 in a settlement agreement.

“I recognize that my first year was difficult for many people,” Clouse said. “I’ve taken the concerns raised really seriously, reflected on them, worked to strengthen boundaries and internal processes in my office. Public trust matters, and I remain committed to upholding that public trust.”

When asked what motivated her to run again, Clouse said her mission hasn’t changed.

“As I begin my reelection campaign, my focus remains the same as it always has, on delivering results for Thurston County through transparent budgeting, fiscal responsibility, environmental stewardship, housing stability and accountable public service.”

Clouse said she looked forward to facing Dunning in the election.

“I respect anyone’s right to run for office,” Clouse said. “I think every elected official should expect to have an opponent during reelection, and I’m looking forward to (the contest) year.”

Clouse said the recall process is an “important tool in our democracy,” then turned her focus back toward the upcoming election.

“I respect anyone’s right to use that tool,” Clouse said. “At the same time, elections are where voters ultimately decide who should serve and there’s important work ahead. I’m committed to doing it with integrity and focus alongside county staff, my seatmates and the community.”

In his petition, West accused Clouse of “malfeasance, misfeasance or violation of oath of office.” Specifically, he alleged five charges.

Charges one and two, as amended by the trial court, alleged Clouse hired someone with whom she had a personal relationship, continued the relationship after hiring him and accepted $1,550 and other items from them for her personal use without saying whether she would repay them.

Charges three, four and five alleged Clouse benefited from the relationship while creating a risk for the county, failed to proactively limit that risk and acted in a way that violated the requirements and expectations in the county’s internal ethics policy.

Before a citizen may vote on a recall petition, a court must evaluate whether the charges are both factually and legally sufficient.

“In a recall proceeding, the court acts as a gatekeeper to ensure elected officials are not subject to frivolous, harassing or unsubstantiated charges,” the Supreme Court opinion reads.

The trial court judge deemed charges one and two factually sufficient after amending them to include specific dates and rephrasing the charges. The judge then deemed charges three, four and five factually insufficient because they lacked any specific acts, dates or times.

The judge then found charges one and two were legally insufficient. The Supreme Court opinion backs that finding.

“While charges one and two are factually sufficient, they are legally insufficient because they fail to identify how Clouse’s actions rise to the level of misfeasance, malfeasance or violation of the oath of office, necessary to support a recall action.”

To establish legal sufficiency, West should have identified a “standard that renders Clouse’s conduct wrongful,” show that her conduct was “manifestly unreasonable” or state how her conduct affected her performance of official duties, according to the opinion.