* In re Recall of Ruelas

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Recall of
RACHEL RUELAS, City of Mabton
Mayor.
No. 103542-0
EN BANC
Filed: July 31, 2025
PER CURIAM—Rachel Ruelas, the mayor of the city of Mabton, appeals
from a superior court order upholding two recall charges against her.1 Clerk’s
Papers at 33-36 (Ord. re Sufficiency of Recall Charges and for Approval of Ballot
Synopsis). Because this case is now moot, we dismiss the appeal and remand to the
trial court with instructions to dismiss the recall petition as moot.
1 This is the second recall case against Mayor Ruelas. In August 2024, Ruelas
appealed the superior court’s order upholding some of the first recall charges against her
to this court. We dismissed Ruelas’ appeal after she repeatedly failed to meet filing
deadlines and failed to respond to our clerk’s requests for information. In re Recall of
Ruelas, 4 Wn.3d 565, 567, 565 P.3d 921 (2025). The recall petition proceeded to the
signature-gathering stage, but the Yakima County elections division manager dismissed
the petition as insufficient because the recall proponents submitted signatures past the
six-month deadline stated in RCW 29A.56.150(1). See Letter from Kathy A. Fisher,
Yakima County Elections Division Manager, to Sophia Sotello et al. (May 13, 2025),
https://kimatv.com/resources/pdf/000c0064-ee37-4caf-8970-a9b4e3afa1f2-
recallsignatures_Ruelas_determination.pdf [https://perma.cc/LQ43-8G7R].
THIS OPINION WAS FILED
FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON
JULY 31, 2025
SARAH R. PENDLETON
SUPREME COURT CLERK
FILE
IN CLERK’S OFFICE
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON
JULY 31, 2025
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

In re Recall of Ruelas, No. 103542-0
2
“A case is moot if the appellate court can no longer provide effective relief.”
State v. Enriquez-Martinez, 198 Wn.2d 98, 103 n.1, 492 P.3d 162 (2021) (citing
State v. Gentry, 125 Wn.2d 570, 616, 888 P.2d 1105 (1995)). This appeal is moot
because, at this point, there is no possibility that the recall can move forward under
the applicable statutory time limit stated in RCW 29A.56.150(1):
The sponsors of a recall demanded of any public officer shall stop
circulation of and file all petitions with the appropriate elections
officer not less than six months before the next general election in
which the officer whose recall is demanded is subject to reelection.
(Emphasis added.)
Mayor Ruelas has filed to run for reelection. The next general election for
mayor of Mabton is in November 2025. That is less than six months away from
today’s date. As a result, Mayor Ruelas “is subject to reelection” in the November
2025 general election within the meaning of RCW 29A.56.150(1).2 Therefore,
even if we affirmed the superior court, the recall sponsors would be unable to
comply with this statutory time requirement for gathering signatures and the recall
issue would not be on the ballot in November. See In re Recall Charges Against
Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 Dir., 162 Wn.2d 501, 506 n.2, 173 P.3d 265 (2007). For the
2 Accord Letter from Kathy A. Fisher, supra.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

In re Recall of Ruelas, No. 103542-0
3
same reason, granting Ruelas the relief she seeks—dismissal of the charges—
would have no real-world effect.3
We therefore dismiss this appeal as moot and remand to the trial court with
instructions to dismiss the recall petition as moot.
3 We note that should Mayor Ruelas be reelected, our constitution and recall
statutes “‘contemplate that officials may be recalled for misconduct during a prior term of
office.’” In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wn.2d 756, 780, 10 P.3d 1034 (2000)
(quoting Janovich v. Herron, 91 Wn.2d 767, 776, 592 P.2d 1096 (1979)).
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.