## Facts

- Washington permits recall of elected officials for malfeasance, misfeasance, or violation of oath, using a process that includes judicial review of legal sufficiency before signature gathering and any election.
- If a recall succeeds, Washington law provides for the removed official’s successor to be appointed by a designated governmental body, rather than elected in the recall campaign.
- Washington imposed an $800 limit on monetary and in-kind contributions to political committees making expenditures in recall campaigns.
- State enforcement officials interpreted “in-kind” contributions to include uncompensated professional services, including legal services provided by a law firm to a recall committee.
- Robin Farris organized a political committee to recall Pierce County Assessor–Treasurer Dale Washam and sought contributions and legal services beyond the $800 limit to support the recall effort.
- The plaintiffs alleged the contribution cap materially restricted their political speech and association during a time-sensitive recall campaign.

## Issues

1. Whether Washington’s $800 contribution limit for recall-campaign committees is likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment because the asserted anti-corruption interest is weak in the recall context where successors are appointed.
2. Whether the plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief under Winter v. NRDC (as applied in the Ninth Circuit), including likelihood of success (or serious questions), irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the $800 contribution limit against the plaintiffs’ recall committee pending further proceedings.
- The court held that, on the preliminary record, the contribution limit was likely an unconstitutional burden on First Amendment rights.
- The court agreed that plaintiffs showed likely irreparable harm from the restriction of political speech and association during the recall period.
- The balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction because preventing enforcement of a likely unconstitutional restriction outweighed the state’s limited showing of recall-specific corruption risk.

## Legal Principles

- Contribution limits are evaluated under the “closely drawn” standard: they may be upheld only if closely drawn to serve a sufficiently important governmental interest, typically preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.
- The anti-corruption rationale supporting candidate-election contribution limits cannot be assumed to apply with equal force to structurally different electoral mechanisms, such as recall processes where the successor is appointed.
- Restrictions on political contributions and related in-kind support can inflict irreparable injury because loss of First Amendment freedoms for even short periods constitutes irreparable harm.
- A preliminary injunction may issue when the plaintiff shows likelihood of success (or serious questions on the merits) plus irreparable harm, with the balance of equities and public interest favoring relief.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld preliminary relief against Washington’s $800 recall-campaign contribution cap, reasoning that the state’s corruption-based justification was attenuated in a recall system where voters do not elect a successor, and that enforcing the limit likely imposed unconstitutional burdens on political speech and association.


Farris v. Seabrook, 677 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2012)