Printable Format25-4302. Grounds for recall. (a) Grounds for recall are conviction of a felony, misconduct in office or failure to perform duties prescribed by law. No recall submitted to the voters shall be held void because of the insufficiency of the grounds, application, or petition by which the submission was procured.
(b) As used in this section, the term "misconduct in office" means a violation of law by the officer that impacts the officer's ability to perform the official duties of the office.
History: L. 1976, ch. 178, § 16; L. 1987, ch. 130, § 1; L. 1999, ch. 105, § 8; L. 2003, ch. 127, § 1; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Recall of Local Elected Officials in Kansas," Rich Smith and Theresa Nuckolls, 70 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 18 (2001).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Quo warranto—grounds for public office forfeiture—grounds for recall. 88-154.
Grounds for recall of elected officials; sufficiency; petition; alleged violations of open meetings act; county commission district boundary change. 90-120.
Grounds for recall of elected officials; determination of sufficiency of grounds by county or district attorney; constitutionality. 91-59.
Governmental ethics applicable to local governmental subdivisions; making or participating in certain contracts prohibited; member of board of education. 91-114.
Recall of elected officials; review by county attorney to determine sufficiency; electorate determines veracity of allegations. 1999-32.
Recall of elected officials; procedure when more than one is sought to be recalled. 1999-52.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Portion of section relative to submission of recall to voters is plain and unambiguous and must be given effect. Randall v. Seemann, 228 Kan. 395, 397, 398, 613 P.2d 1376.
2. Statutes require specificity when stating grounds for recall of public officer. Unger v. Horn, 240 Kan. 740, 741, 742, 743, 732 P.2d 1275 (1987).
3. Whether recall petition failed to state sufficient grounds for recall examined; county attorney's review responsibility discussed. Cline v. Tittel, 20 Kan. App. 2d 695, 697, 891 P.2d 1137 (1995).
4. Grounds for recall stated in petition insufficient for failure to state nexus between alleged misconduct and official duties. Baker v. Gibson, 22 Kan. App. 2d 36, 37, 39, 913 P.2d 1218 (1995).
5. Cited; omission of the jurat in petition document did not invalidate document; action of sponsors constituted sufficient compliance with K.S.A. 25-4325. Eveleigh v. Conness, 261 Kan. 970, 971, 933 P.2d 675 (1997).