Court Opinion

ID: 9624289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:56:52.801223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:42.610524
License: Public Domain

Dolliver, J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part) — I have no quarrel with the substance of the majority opinion. *779Plaintiff Sheriff Janovich is properly subject to a vote on his recall from office. Where I do differ from the majority is in my belief that, unless the time of the recall is delayed, the constitutional rights of Sheriff Janovich will be irreparably harmed.
At the present time, Sheriff Janovich has been removed from the conduct of the affairs of his office, and the coroner of Pierce County is performing the actual duties of the sheriff. RCW 36.24.010; 36.28.090. Plaintiff is in San Francisco being tried on federal racketeering charges. The trial, beginning the latter part of March, may continue as long as several months. San Francisco is approximately 800 miles from Tacoma and Pierce County, and it is hardly reasonable to expect Sheriff Janovich will be able to spend much time in his home county campaigning against his recall.
If the federal trial results in the conviction of Sheriff Janovich, the office of sheriff of Pierce County immediately becomes vacant by statute. RCW 42.12.010. The recall issue then becomes moot. In the meantime, since the coroner is conducting the actual affairs of the office of sheriff of Pierce County, any dangers — real or presumed — in having plaintiff continue in office are illusory. He has the husk of the office, but the power is gone.
What are the interests of the citizens of Pierce County? As the majority states, there is an interest in "an expeditious recall procedure." But there are other interests which I would hope are of concern to the citizéns of Pierce County and all citizens of the state: that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law; that in the continuing political debate among officeholders, office seekers and citizens generally, those running for public office have a fair and equal opportunity to present their case; and that courts protect individual rights no matter how loud the public outcry or how unpopular the individual may be.
Under the statute, RCW 29.82.100, the recall election must be scheduled within 45 to 60 days from the date this *780opinion is issued. Those connected with the San Francisco trial predict it may take as long as 3 months. If Sheriff Janovich is not convicted after this trial, he will have no time in which to present his case to the voters of Pierce County. Surely the avidity of those who signed the recall petitions against plaintiff is not so overpowering as to wish to deny him the rights of every other citizen.
What are these rights? They are freedom of speech (U.S. Const, amend. 1; Const, art. 1, § 5); due process (U.S. Const, amend. 14; Const, art. 1, § 3); equal protection under the law (U.S. Const, amend. 14; Const, art. 1, § 12) and free and equal elections (Const, art. 1, § 19). To call for "honest, representative government" as does the majority and then to deny fundamental rights to a citizen in order to reach that goal seems to me wholly inconsistent. The majority says, "The political process will be permitted to continue, unchecked by judicial intervention." — a hollow statement when a key participant is unable to be part of the process.
I believe this court has the power to enforce the constitution and to protect the constitutional rights of those who appear before it. I would delay the recall election until 45 days from the date of the conclusion of the federal trial involving Sheriff Janovich. If he is convicted, the issue is moot and the citizens of Pierce County will be saved the cost of a meaningless election. If he is not convicted, the recall may proceed, and however they vote and whatever the outcome, the citizens of Pierce County can take pride that they will have abided by the dictates of the federal and state constitutions.
Rosellini, Wright, Brachtenbach, and Hicks, JJ., concur with Dolliver, J.
Order Staying Recall Election
In opinions filed today in this matter the court unanimously upholds the validity of the procedures followed in proposing an election to recall appellant from his position as sheriff of Pierce County. A majority of the court, however (Rosellini, Wright, Brachtenbach, Dolliver, and Hicks, *781JJ.), found the constitutional rights of appellant would be irreparably harmed unless the date of the recall election is set after the conclusion of the trial presently under way in United States District Court in San Francisco, California, in which appellant here is a defendant.
Therefore, it is ordered that the recall election may proceed but that the date set for the election, if it is necessary to hold it, shall be no earlier than 45 days from the conclusion of the trial in San Francisco. It is further directed that this order shall be appended to the report of this case in the Washington Reports.
Dated this 30th day of March, 1979.
Robert F. Utter Chief Justice