High court rejects Eugster’s appeal of recall

Local activists who wanted to oust Mayor Jim West did not jump the gun when they gathered signatures last summer to put their recall proposal on the ballot, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In an unsigned opinion, the justices rejected the appeal of a lawsuit by former City Councilman Steve Eugster, who had claimed the signatures shouldn’t have been collected before the high court published written opinions on West’s unsuccessful challenge of the language in the petitions.

The court had ruled against West in an emergency session on Aug. 24, during its summer recess. After listening to arguments from West’s attorneys, as well as recall author Shannon Sullivan and her attorney, the court gave the green light to recall supporters in a briefly worded decision issued that same day.

Sullivan and a small army of volunteers began gathering signatures within the week and had more than enough names to qualify for the ballot by mid-September.

But the court didn’t publish the full-blown opinions to explain its 8-1 decision until Oct. 26, after the signatures had been certified and the recall election already scheduled. Eugster had argued the signatures had been gathered prematurely, and everything that happened in the recall process after that was invalid. He lost that argument in Spokane County Superior Court and appealed it to the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, voters recalled West in a special election on Dec. 6, with nearly two-thirds voting in favor of the proposal.

The court said the words “opinion” and “decision” are sometimes used interchangeably, but in this particular case, the order handed down after the emergency session was sufficient to allow the signature-gathering to start.

“Given the urgent nature of the proceedings, this court intended the August 24 order to be its operative act,” the court said. “The signatures supporting the recall were not collected prematurely.”

Eugster could not be reached for comment on the decision. He also has a case pending against the state Supreme Court for its failure to issue an opinion before Oct. 26.

Sullivan said she wasn’t surprised the Supreme Court turned down Eugster’s appeal, which she called “an extreme waste of time.”

She was disappointed, however, that the court turned down a request by her attorney, Jerry Davis, to make Eugster pay “sanctions” for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Filing costs were about $400, and Davis spent more than 60 hours on the appeal, she estimated.

“It cost us money we don’t have,” said Sullivan, who now works as a legal assistant for Davis. “I wish he (Eugster) would just let dead dogs lie.”

The court also rejected Eugster’s request to assess sanctions against Sullivan and Davis for asking to dismiss his appeal, which he said was a way of blocking his participation in a public process.

“We conclude neither party’s filings are frivolous,” the court said.

A deputy attorney general representing the court has argued that Eugster’s lawsuit against the court is frivolous, but that case is still pending.