Case Name: Janelle RIDDLE, Yakima County Clerk, Petitioner, v. David A. ELOFSON, Kevin S. Naught, Michael G. McCarthy, Douglas L. Federspiel, Blaine G. Gibson, Ruth E. Reukauf, Gayle M. Harthcock, and Richard H. Barthfield, Judges of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Yakima County, Respondents.
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 2019-04-25
Citations: 439 P.3d 647
Docket Number: No. 95959-5
Parties: Janelle RIDDLE, Yakima County Clerk, Petitioner,
v.
David A. ELOFSON, Kevin S. Naught, Michael G. McCarthy, Douglas L. Federspiel, Blaine G. Gibson, Ruth E. Reukauf, Gayle M. Harthcock, and Richard H. Barthfield, Judges of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Yakima County, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 439
Pages: 647–660

Head Matter:
Janelle RIDDLE, Yakima County Clerk, Petitioner,
v.
David A. ELOFSON, Kevin S. Naught, Michael G. McCarthy, Douglas L. Federspiel, Blaine G. Gibson, Ruth E. Reukauf, Gayle M. Harthcock, and Richard H. Barthfield, Judges of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Yakima County, Respondents.
No. 95959-5
Supreme Court of Washington.
Filed APRIL 25, 2019
Oral Argument Date: November 13, 2018

Opinion:
WIGGINS, J.
¶1 This case concerns the statutory authority of superior court judges to order a county clerk to procure a supplemental bond as a condition for maintaining her elected office. The Yakima County Superior Court bench ordered Yakima County Clerk Janelle Riddle to obtain an additional bond and warned that failure to comply would result in the court's declaring her office vacant. Riddle sought a writ of prohibition from this court to prevent enforcement of the order.
¶2 We deny the writ of prohibition. The Yakima County judges did not exceed their jurisdiction by issuing the supplemental bond order, and Riddle could have availed herself of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law-an injunction. Thus, prohibition will not lie. Further, we deny the Yakima County judges' motion to supplement the record.
FACTS & PROCEDURE
¶3 Riddle was elected clerk of Yakima County in 2014. Her term of office ran from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2018. The month she took office, Riddle obtained a public official's bond, issued by Western Surety Company, of $ 200,000.
¶4 Riddle's tenure as clerk was not without conflict. In addition to a recall attempt, In re Recall of Riddle, 189 Wash.2d 565, 403 P.3d 849 (2017), the state auditor issued reports in 2015, 2016, and 2017, detailing financial deficiencies in Riddle's office. The reports identify, among other things, monthly bank account reconciliation problems and unbilled jury services estimated at $ 44,500; untimely transmittals of child support orders, resulting in $ 206,500 lost reimbursement to the county; and misappropriation of funds.
¶5 Based in part on the auditor's reports and concern that Riddle's existing bond was insufficient to cover potential claims against the clerk's office, a majority of the Yakima County Superior Court bench (the Judges) issued an ex parte order requiring Riddle to "secure and provide proof" of an additional bond for $ 200,000, increasing her office's bond coverage to $ 400,000. Accompanying the order was a letter from presiding Judge David Elofson, advising Riddle that failure to comply by June 6, 2018, would result in the superior court's declaring her position "vacant" under RCW 36.23.020.
¶6 Riddle's counsel wrote to the Judges, arguing that the order was without legal authority. Riddle asked that the order be withdrawn or vacated. Presiding Judge Elofson responded that the clerk's office would be declared vacant unless a supplemental bond was secured.
¶7 In June 2018, Riddle filed in this court for a writ of prohibition against the Judges. The petition asserted that the supplemental bond order exceeded the superior court bench's statutory authority and that its ex parte issuance deprived Riddle of proper notice and opportunity to be heard, in violation of due process. Riddle also moved to stay the order pending a decision on her petition and for accelerated review, which was granted.
¶8 On accelerated consideration, Supreme Court Commissioner Michael Johnston dismissed Riddle's action for failure to show the superior court lacked jurisdiction or acted in excess of its jurisdiction to warrant a writ of prohibition. We granted discretionary review and retained the petition for determination, maintaining the stay issued by our commissioner. Riddle and the Judges submitted an agreed statement of facts and record. The Judges submitted a nonagreed statement of facts to which Riddle objected. We passed determination of the Judges' motion to the merits.
BACKGROUND
¶9 We are asked to decide whether to issue a writ of prohibition against the Judges of the Yakima County Superior Court. The state Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in prohibition actions against state officers. WASH. CONST. art. IV, § 4 ; RAP 16.2(a). A superior court judge is a state officer for the purposes of original prohibition jurisdiction. State ex rel. Edelstein v. Foley, 6 Wash.2d 444, 448, 107 P.2d 901 (1940) ; WASH. CONST. art. IV, § 4. A county clerk is also the clerk of the superior court. WASH. CONST. art. IV, § 26.
¶10 Prohibition is an ancient writ, dating from the 12th century. JAMES L. HIGH, EXTRAORDINARY LEGAL REMEDIES 707 (3d ed. 1896). It has survived as one of the few remaining artifacts of the English writ system. WASH. CONST. art. IV, § 4 ; RAP 16.1(b), 16.2 ; RCW 7.16.290 ; HIGH , supra, at 707. A kind of " 'common-law injunction against governmental usurpation,' " the writ of prohibition is a legal order typically issued from a superior court to prevent an inferior court from exceeding its jurisdiction. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1405 (10th ed. 2014) (defining "writ of prohibition" (quoting BENJAMIN J. SHIPMAN, HANDBOOK OF COMMON-LAW PLEADING § 341, at 542 (3d ed. 1923) ) ); Winsor v. Bridges, 24 Wash. 540, 542, 64 P. 780 (1901) ; see also HIGH , supra, at 715; David W. Raack, A History of Injunctions in England before 1700, 61 IND . L.J. 539, 545 (1986).
¶11 The writ is an extraordinary remedy to be used with "great caution and forbearance, for the furtherance of justice and to secure order . in judicial proceedings." HIGH , supra, at 709. Washington courts have issued these writs to prevent an official from encroaching on the jurisdiction of others and to "enlarge the powers of their positions." County of Spokane v. Local No. 1553, Amer. Fed'n of State, County & Mun. Emps., 76 Wash. App. 765, 769-70, 888 P.2d 735 (1995). The writ is preventive rather than corrective. HIGH , supra, at 710. It issues to arrest execution of a future, specific act and not to undo an action already performed. Local No. 1553, 76 Wash. App. at 769-70, 888 P.2d 735; HIGH , supra, at 710-11.
¶12 Whether a writ will issue is a narrow inquiry. A court looks not to the nature or extent of injury but to the question of power and jurisdiction of an inferior court. HIGH , supra, at 714. A writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent the commission of error, take the place of an appeal, or serve as a writ of review for the correction of an error. State ex rel. N.Y. Cas. Co. v. Superior Court, 31 Wash.2d 834, 838-39, 199 P.2d 581 (1948) (citing cases in support).
ANALYSIS
¶13 With these historical considerations in mind, we turn to merits of the issues presented. We first determine whether Riddle has met the requirements for a writ of prohibition to issue. As explained below, we hold that she has not. Accordingly, we deny her petition. In addition, we decline to reach Riddle's due process argument because we can resolve the case on nonconstitutional grounds. Finally, we deny the Judges' motion to supplement the record.
I. Writ of Prohibition
¶14 We begin our analysis with the elements of prohibition. Courts may issue a writ of prohibition "only when two conditions are met: '(1) [a]bsence or excess of jurisdiction, and (2) absence of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the course of legal procedure.' " Skagit County Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 304 v. Skagit County Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 177 Wash.2d 718, 722-23, 305 P.3d 1079 (2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Kreidler v. Eikenberry, 111 Wash.2d 828, 838, 766 P.2d 438 (1989) ). Although the common law writ of prohibition restrains the unauthorized exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power, the statutory writ of prohibition applies to executive, administrative, and legislative acts as well.
Id. at 723, 305 P.3d 1079. The instant petition seeks to restrain judicial action; therefore, we are concerned only with common law prohibition.
A. The Judges did not act in excess of their jurisdiction
¶15 We first consider whether the Judges exceeded their jurisdiction. Both parties offer statutory-based answers to this question: the Judges contend they did not act in excess of their jurisdiction because they had authority under RCW 36.23.020 to issue the supplemental bond order. Riddle responds that such an argument conflicts with RCW 36.16.050. Both arguments evaluate jurisdiction and statutory authority as fundamentally the same concept. Assuming without deciding they are equivalent for the purposes of this case, we must then decide whether RCW 36.23.020 provides the required authority. We hold that it does.
¶16 The application and interaction of RCW 36.23.020 and RCW 36.16.050 appears to be an issue of first impression in Washington. The meaning of these statutes is a question of law, which we review de novo, considering the statutory scheme as a whole. Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wash.2d 1, 9, 43 P.3d 4 (2002).
¶17 RCW 36.23.020 provides,
When the judge or judges of any court, or a majority of them, believe that the clerk of the court does not have a good and sufficient bond on file, or that the bond is not large enough in amount, such judge or judges shall enter an order requiring him or her, within such time as may be specified in the order, to execute and present to them a good and sufficient bond, in such sum as may be fixed by the order. In case of his or her failure to file the bond within ten days from the expiration of the date fixed the judge or judges shall declare the office vacant.
¶18 Riddle counters that RCW 36.23.020 cannot provide unfettered authority to order additional bond coverage when another, related provision, RCW 36.16.050, establishes the maximum amount of a clerk's bond.
¶19 RCW 36.16.050 states,
Every county official before he or she enters upon the duties of his or her office shall furnish a bond conditioned that he or she will faithfully perform the duties of his or her office and account for and pay over all money which may come into his or her hands by virtue of his or her office . Bonds of elective county officers shall be as follows:
.
(3) Clerk: Amount to be fixed in a penal sum not less than double the amount of money liable to come into his or her hands and sureties to be approved by the judge or a majority of the judges presiding over the court of which he or she is clerk: PROVIDED, That the maximum bond fixed for the clerk shall not exceed in amount that required for the treasurer in the same county;
.
(8) Treasurer: Sureties to be approved by the proper county legislative authority and the amounts to be fixed by the proper county legislative authority at double the amount liable to come into the treasurer's hands during his or her term, the maximum amount of the bond, however, not to exceed:
(a) In each county with a population of two hundred ten thousand or more, two hundred fifty thousand dollars.
(Emphasis added.) Here, the Yakima County treasurer's bond is set at $ 250,000. Riddle argues that securing $ 200,000 in addition to her original $ 200,000 bond would result in $ 400,000 in coverage-clearly in excess of the prescribed $ 250,000 "maximum amount" under RCW 36.16.050(3) and (8).
¶20 Riddle also contends that the Judges' use of RCW 36.23.020 renders RCW 36.16.050 meaningless. A bond could be properly approved in the maximum original amount under RCW 36.16.050 and immediately followed by an order to obtain a second bond under RCW 36.23.020 as a condition of remaining in office, thereby flouting RCW 36.16.050 's limit.
¶21 This reasoning, however, ignores the plain language of both RCW 36.23.020 and RCW 36.16.050. "If the statute's meaning is plain on its face, we give effect to that plain meaning as the expression of what was intended." TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 170 Wash.2d 273, 281, 242 P.3d 810 (2010). "Plain meaning 'is to be discerned from the ordinary meaning of the language at issue, the context of the statute in which that provision is found, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole.' State v. Engel, 166 Wash.2d 572, 578, 210 P.3d 1007 (2009). While we look to the broader statutory context for guidance, we 'must not add words where the legislature has chosen not to include them,' and we must 'construe statutes such that all of the language is given effect.' " Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Ass'n, 169 Wash.2d 516, 526, 243 P.3d 1283 (2010) (quoting Rest. Dev., Inc. v. Cananwill, Inc., 150 Wash.2d 674, 682, 80 P.3d 598 (2003) ).
¶22 RCW 36.23.020 does not limit a court's authority to issue a bond order during a specific time period. This provision broadly states that "[w]hen the judge or judges . believe that the clerk . does not have a good and sufficient bond on file," they may order the clerk to "execute and present to them a good and sufficient bond." (Emphasis added.) Simply put, a judge may order a clerk to obtain additional bond coverage at any point in time if that judge subjectively believes a bond to be insufficient. By its plain language, RCW 36.23.020 applies to all county clerk bonds, irrespective of when they were executed.
¶23 Nor does RCW 36.16.050 bind a court's authority on this point. As the Judges note, RCW 36.16.050 explicitly pertains to a public official's bond executed "before" entering office-it says nothing about a bond required after taking office. This statute directs county officials to execute bonds according to certain conditions, such as tying the amount of a clerk's bond to the amount of a treasurer's bond. Further, this statute applies in only one instance: an official bond acquired prior to entering office. RCW 36.16.050(3), (8). The plain language of RCW 36.16.050 speaks only to the duties of county officials and the bonds they must obtain as a precondition upon entering elected office.
¶24 When read together, the provisions do not conflict because they speak to different actors and different subject matter. RCW 36.16.050 focuses solely on county officials and conditions of their first, official bonds. RCW 36.23.020 is directed at judges and provides authority to scrutinize any bond, regardless of whether it was acquired before or after taking office. We will not add limiting language to RCW 36.23.020 where the legislature did not intend it. Lake, 169 Wash.2d at 526, 243 P.3d 1283.
¶25 Here, the Judges properly relied on RCW 36.23.020 to issue their supplemental bond order. Accordingly, the Judges did not act without or in excess of their jurisdiction.
B. A plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the course of legal procedure existed
¶26 We turn next to the second prong needed to obtain a writ of prohibition-that no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists in the course of legal procedure. Eikenberry, 111 Wash.2d at 838, 766 P.2d 438 ; RCW 7.16.300.
¶27 "The question as to what constitutes a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy is not dependent upon any general rule, but upon the facts of each particular case, and its determination therefore rests in the sound discretion of the court in which the proceeding is instituted." State ex rel. O'Brien v. Police Court, 14 Wash.2d 340, 348, 128 P.2d 332 (1942) ; see also HIGH , supra, at 709 (stating that the writ is "one of sound judicial discretion, to be granted or withheld according to the circumstances of each particular case"). A remedy is not inadequate merely because it is attended with delay, expense, annoyance, or even some hardship. State ex rel. O'Brien, 14 Wash.2d at 347-48, 128 P.2d 332. Something in the nature of the action must make it apparent that the rights of the litigants will not be protected or full redress will not be afforded without the writ. Id.
¶28 The complete absence of any "other remedy" is not strictly required.
State ex rel. W. Canadian Greyhound Lines, Ltd. v. Superior Court, 26 Wash.2d 740, 747-48, 175 P.2d 640 (1946). The operative word of the second prong is the "adequacy" of the remedy available. W. Canadian Greyhound Lines, 26 Wash.2d at 749, 175 P.2d 640 (" 'it is the adequacy of the remedy by appeal, not its mere existence, which defeats the right to a writ of prohibition' " (quoting 5 BANCROFT'S CODE PRACTICE AND REMEDIES § 4043, at 5307-08 (1928) ) ). Admittedly, Western Greyhound and Bancroft's Remedies discuss the adequacy of the legal remedy of an appeal specifically, and not remedies generally. Nevertheless, the Western Greyhound court recognized the "adequacy" of a legal remedy as a consideration in prohibition. Id. at 749, 175 P.2d 640 ; see also HIGH , supra, at 719-20 ("if it is manifest than an appeal from the action of the court would afford an inadequate remedy, the right of appeal does not, of itself, afford sufficient ground for refusing relief by prohibition " (emphasis added) ).
¶29 Reviewing the "adequacy" of an alternative legal remedy is underscored by our case law explaining that "what constitutes a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy is not dependent upon any general rule, but upon the facts of each particular case." State ex rel. O'Brien, 14 Wash.2d at 347-48, 128 P.2d 332 (emphasis added). Moreover, the historical writs of prohibition were issued by common law courts to restrain the jurisdictional encroachment of equity courts. See supra at 649-50. Thus, the mere existence of an equitable remedy does not necessarily defeat the common law writ of prohibition. HIGH , supra, at 716 ("it is always a sufficient reason for withholding the writ that the party aggrieved has another and complete remedy at law").
¶30 Here, the Judges do not address whether an alternative legal remedy exists. Riddle asserts without elaboration that she has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available. Pet'r's Suppl. Br. at 7.
¶31 Despite her assertions, Riddle could have sought relief through a preliminary injunction and declaratory judgment. See CR 65 (governing preliminary injunctions); CR 57 ; RCW 7.24.010 -.190 (Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act). These mechanisms could have satisfied the relief Riddle seeks via a writ of prohibition: to enjoin enforcement of the order and determine whether RCW 36.23.020 authorized issuance of the order.
¶32 To obtain injunctive relief, a party " 'must show (1) . a clear legal or equitable right, (2) . a well-grounded fear of immediate invasion of that right, and (3) that the acts complained of are either resulting in or will result in actual and substantial injury.' " Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 96 Wash.2d 785, 792, 638 P.2d 1213 (1982) (quoting Port of Seattle v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 52 Wash.2d 317, 319, 324 P.2d 1099 (1958) ).
¶33 Riddle arguably would succeed in obtaining a preliminary injunction. As a matter of equity, she had the expectation of holding her elected office until the expiration of her term and carrying out the duties for which she was elected. WASH. CONST. art. IV, § 26 ; RCW 36.16.030 (county clerk is elected by the qualified voters of the county); RCW 2.32.050 (powers and duties of clerks).
¶34 Riddle had a well-grounded fear based on the Judges' order informing her that she would be removed as clerk if she did not obtain an additional bond. And the Judges' order, if enforced, would have resulted in actual and substantial injury-her removal from office. See Tyler Pipe Indus., 96 Wash.2d at 792, 638 P.2d 1213.
¶35 Overall, an alternative and adequate legal remedy exists. Riddle could have sought to enjoin the Judges' bond order. While seeking this relief may have proved difficult, likely requiring application to a neighboring county superior court for the injunction, annoyance and some delay do not make a remedy inadequate. State ex rel. O'Brien, 14 Wash.2d at 347-48, 128 P.2d 332. Nor does Riddle's ultimate success on the merits of her claim-whether the Judges had statutory authority to order supplemental bond coverage-show that she had no alternative and adequate remedy. This substantive question of statutory authority would be determined in a declaratory action, which is different from that asked under injunctive relief. The facts of Riddle's case do not show that her rights "will not be protected or full redress will not be afforded without the writ." City of Kirkland v. Ellis, 82 Wash. App. 819, 827, 920 P.2d 206 (1996) (citing State ex rel. O'Brien, 14 Wash.2d at 347-48, 128 P.2d 332 ).
¶36 Because Riddle could have sought the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy of an injunction, the second prong of the writ has not been satisfied. Accordingly, we deny her petition.
II. Due Process
¶37 In addition to her statutory argument, Riddle raises due process concerns with respect to the manner in which she was informed of the Judges' supplemental bond order. We note that the Judges' order allowed Riddle 10 days to respond as provided in RCW 36.23.020, she received conflict-free counsel, and her attorney wrote letters to the Judges advancing her argument that RCW 36.23.020 does not apply.
¶38 Nevertheless, we decline to analyze Riddle's due process argument. It is unnecessary to engage in a constitutional inquiry because Riddle cannot obtain a writ of prohibition in this case. Our inquiry here is narrow, and the statutory analysis alone resolves the only question before us. To obtain a writ, a petitioner must satisfy both requirements: excess of jurisdiction and lack of adequate legal remedy. Skagit County, 177 Wash.2d at 722-23, 305 P.3d 1079. As explained in detail above, the Judges acted within their jurisdiction and Riddle could have sought an adequate alternative remedy. Therefore, a writ will not issue. In light of the limited scope of our inquiry and the limited relief available-issuance of the writ-we opine only on that remedy and do not address due process. Id . ; see State v. Hall, 95 Wash.2d 536, 539, 627 P.2d 101 (1981) (when a case may be resolved on nonconstitutional grounds, the reviewing court need not address the constitutional argument).
III. Motion To Supplement the Record
¶39 The Judges moved to supplement the record, seeking to include two letters from the Board of Yakima County Commissioners. These letters concern notices of claims against the county clerk's office dated June 11, 2018, and July 27, 2018.
¶40 Riddle objected to the motion. She argues that the additional facts were not part of the record before the Judges because the letters were sent after the bond order was issued and were not sent to Riddle's surety, Western Surety Company (Agreed Statement of Facts & R. Pursuant to RAP 16.2(d) at 1). This objection misconstrues the nature of the original action in this court. Riddle seeks a writ of prohibition. The record thus consists of facts necessary for our determination of whether to issue the writ. That the Yakima County commissioners' letters were not before the Judges when issuing their order has no bearing on our decision to grant or deny Riddle's petition.
¶41 The Judges contend the letters are necessary because they show that the commissioners have filed claims against Riddle's bond and therefore impaired it, justifying the order for additional bond coverage. Id. at 3. But whether Riddle's bond was "impaired" ignores the central question before this court, that is: whether the Judges had statutory authority to order Riddle to acquire a supplemental bond and whether she had an adequate legal remedy. Whether Riddle's current bond is impaired or may be deemed insufficient based on these letters is not relevant to our decision on the writ of prohibition. We therefore deny the Judges' motion.
CONCLUSION
¶42 Riddle does not meet the requirements to obtain a writ of prohibition. The Judges did not exceed their statutory authority by ordering Riddle to secure a second, supplemental bond. Moreover, Riddle could have sought other adequate relief in the course of legal procedure. Consequently, we deny her petition. We decline to reach Riddle's due process argument because we resolve this case on other nonconstitutional grounds. Finally, we deny the Judges' motion to supplement the record.
WE CONCUR.
Johnson, J.
Owens, J.
Stephens, J.
The Yakima County Superior Court judges include Kevin Naught, Michael McCarthy, David Elofson, Ruth Reukauf, Gayle Harthcock, and Richard Barthfield. Judges Douglas Federspiel and Blaine Gibson did not sign the order.
English common law courts (the King's Bench and Common Pleas) used the writ to keep other, non-common-law courts (ecclesiastical, Admiralty, and equity) within their jurisdictional bounds. Charles M. Gray, The Writ of Prohibition: Jurisdiction in Early Modern English Law , at vii, xxix (1994); High , supra, at 707.
The extraordinary remedies also include mandamus, habeas corpus, certiorari, and quo warranto.
The complicating factor in this discussion ultimately lies in the Anglo-American court system's procedural unification of common law and equity. 30A C.J.S. Equity § 1 (2007) ("[t]he formalism distinguishing law and equity is largely historical"); In re Welfare of Hudson, 13 Wash.2d 673, 697-98, 126 P.2d 765 (1942) ("the superior courts of this state are courts of general jurisdiction and have power to hear and determine all matters legal and equitable"). The consequences of this unification for the purposes of the common law writ of prohibition have not been comprehensively explored.
Some cases have indicated that all that is required is the existence of an alternative form of relief, rather than the adequacy of the relief. See, e.g., Local No. 1553, 76 Wash. App. at 770-71, 888 P.2d 735 (denying writ when applicants could seek an injunction); Consol. Disposal Servs., Inc. v. Grant County, 51 Wash. App. 652, 657, 754 P.2d 1059 (1988) (quashing a writ of prohibition in part because the petitioner arguably could have obtained damages and injunctive relief). These decisions imply that the correct test for the second requirement for prohibition is not whether a petitioner could be successful in an alternative legal procedure but whether any other legal procedure is available. See Skagit County, 177 Wash.2d at 733, 305 P.3d 1079 (Madsen, C.J., dissenting). In light of our focus on adequacy in numerous other situations, however, this does not appear to be the correct way to evaluate the second prong of the writ of prohibition.
The dissent contends that because the Judges did not address whether an alternative legal remedy existed, Riddle never had an opportunity to respond to our conclusion that she could have sought an injunction instead of a writ of prohibition. Dissent at 658-59. But this misconstrues the requirements of a writ of prohibition. The burden of proof in prohibition rests on the petitioner. Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384, 74 S.Ct. 145, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953) (quoting United States v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576, 582, 19 S.Ct. 286, 43 L.Ed. 559 (1899) (noting that the petitioner failed to meet its burden to issue a writ of prohibition) ). The petitioner must show that the public official against whom the writ is sought acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and that no adequate alternative remedy existed. Skagit County, 177 Wash.2d at 722-23, 305 P.3d 1079. Thus, the question is not whether Riddle had an opportunity to respond to the conclusion that she should have sought an injunction-it was her burden to show her lack of an adequate alternative remedy in the first instance to justify issuance of the writ.
The dissent also takes issue with our conclusion that Riddle could have arguably succeeded in obtaining injunctive relief. Dissent at 659. The dissent contends that because public officials can be removed from office if they have been convicted of a crime under RCW 42.12.010 regardless of the detriment to those officials, it is unclear whether Riddle has an equitable right to her elected office. Dissent at 659 (quoting State ex rel. Zempel v. Twitchell, 59 Wash.2d 419, 430, 367 P.2d 985 (1962) ). But this is inapposite. Here, Riddle has not been convicted of any crime nor is RCW 42.12.010 at all implicated.
The Judges contend that RCW 36.23.020 provides no procedural safeguards for due process, unlike RCW 42.08.110. This provision states that whenever a surety in the official bond of a county officer becomes "insolvent or insufficient," the board of commissioners must summon the officer to show cause why he or she should not execute an additional bond. RCW 42.08.110. The Judges correctly note that unlike RCW 42.08.110, RCW 36.23.020 provides for no show cause hearing or any other procedure prior to ordering additional bond coverage. While RCW 42.08.110 is informative of a procedure to cure insufficient bond coverage in other contexts, this provision does not control the case at hand.