Group claims Tim Eyman ‘hijacked’ Mayor Durkan recall effort with fraudulent signatures

The group behind a petition to recall Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan is claiming that former gubernatorial candidate Tim Eyman “hijacked” their effort to gather signatures by distributing “fraudulent” recall petitions of his own.

Petition to recall Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan clears first hurdle

The group, known as “Recall Durkan,” is currently in the middle of a court battle with the mayor, and is awaiting a ruling from the state Supreme Court on whether its petition can move forward into the signature gathering phase.

Concurrently, Eyman announced his own effort to recall Mayor Durkan as part of his gubernatorial campaign in July. Shortly after that, two petition sheets were submitted to the Seattle City Clerk’s office, using the misspelled names of the Recall Durkan group’s organizers without their permission.

“Tim Eyman tried to win over voters by lying to them,” Recall Durkan said in a news release. “Eyman’s petition is fake, the signatures don’t count.”

That saw the group file a cease and desist letter against Eyman, accusing him of “fraudulently misrepresenting campaign authority,” and demanding that he remove his petitions and all related materials from the web.

Recall Durkan also filed a complaint with the state’s Public Disclosure Commission, claiming Eyman had violated campaign reporting requirements with his petitions. Eyman described that complaint as a “nothing-burger” in a statement provided to MyNorthwest, claiming that his petitions represent “protected free speech” and are “absolutely allowed and necessary in a political race.”

Eyman’s lawyer, Stephen Pidgeon, further expanded on the complaint, noting that the petition “did not incur any expenses,” and therefore were not subject to public disclosure requirements typically assigned to campaigns.

SCOW expedites timeline for appeal over Durkan recall petition

“Under the First Amendment, my client has every right to speak in favor of recalling Jenny Durkan and since my client did not incur expenses or solicit donations for it, there is no reporting obligation,” Pidgeon said. “There is no exclusive right to free speech on this subject.”

“That being said, the entries/posts about the recall have been removed,” he added, with Eyman confirming that “the petition link is no longer active.”

On Recall Durkan’s end, the group is concerned that Eyman’s petitions could confuse voters, namely since it’s against the law to sign the same recall petition twice. That being so, it says that its own petition currently under review in court is the “one true petition to Recall Durkan,” and that any signatures it gathers in the future will be valid.

The group expects to get a final court ruling on its petition sometime in early October.

Follow @NickNorthwest