The Washington State Supreme Court has affirmed the dismissal of a writ of mandamus petition filed by A Better Richland, a political action committee, against Benton County Auditor Brenda Chilton in her official capacity. The unanimous per curiam decision, filed Jan. 29, 2026, resolved a dispute over municipal charter amendment procedures and election timing under state law.
The case centers on Washington's municipal charter amendment process, which allows qualified voters in municipalities that have adopted charters to petition for amendments. Under RCW 35.22.120, when a requisite number of qualified voters petition for a charter amendment, the municipality must submit the amendment to voters "at the next regular municipal election, occurring thirty days or more after said petition is filed."
The legal dispute arose when A Better Richland submitted a petition for a charter amendment to the county auditor in October 2024. Benton County Auditor Brenda Chilton subsequently decided to place the amendments before voters at the November 2025 election, a decision that apparently prompted the political action committee's legal challenge.
The court noted that the phrase "next regular municipal election" has not been defined by the legislature in either chapter 35.22 RCW or Title 29A RCW, creating interpretive questions about the timing requirements for placing charter amendments on ballots.
A Better Richland initially petitioned the Benton County Superior Court seeking relief, though the specific nature of their complaint is not detailed in the available court records. The superior court apparently dismissed their writ of mandamus petition, prompting the political action committee to appeal to the state's highest court.
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy that compels a government official to perform a duty required by law. Political action committees and other organizations sometimes seek mandamus relief when they believe election officials have failed to comply with statutory requirements for ballot access or election procedures.
The Supreme Court's per curiam decision represents a unanimous ruling by the justices, though the brief opinion format provides limited insight into the court's reasoning. Per curiam opinions typically summarize the votes of justices in cases where there may be multiple concurring or dissenting viewpoints, though this case appears to have resulted in unanimous agreement to affirm the lower court's dismissal.
The timing of charter amendment elections can be critical for political organizations seeking to influence municipal governance. The statute requires amendments to appear on the "next regular municipal election" occurring at least 30 days after the petition is filed, but without legislative definition of this phrase, courts must interpret when such elections occur and whether county auditors have discretion in scheduling.
Benton County, located in southeastern Washington, includes the cities of Richland, Kennewick, and Prosser. The county auditor serves as the chief election official, responsible for conducting elections and maintaining voter registration records. In this role, auditors must interpret election laws and make decisions about ballot placement and timing that can significantly impact political campaigns and civic initiatives.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between political action committees and election officials over procedural requirements and timing in the electoral process. Charter amendments can address fundamental questions about municipal governance, from city council structures to budget processes, making the timing of such elections politically significant.
A Better Richland's unsuccessful challenge suggests the court found no legal error in the auditor's decision to schedule the charter amendment vote for November 2025. This timing presumably gave the county sufficient time to verify petition signatures, prepare ballot language, and conduct the election in compliance with state law requirements.
The Supreme Court's affirmance of the dismissal effectively ends A Better Richland's legal challenge and validates the county auditor's authority to make scheduling decisions within the parameters established by state law. The ruling may provide guidance for future disputes over charter amendment timing, though the limited details in the per curiam opinion leave many interpretive questions unresolved.
This case demonstrates the complex interplay between state election laws, local government procedures, and political advocacy. While the specific outcome favored the county auditor's position, the underlying questions about statutory interpretation and election timing remain relevant for future charter amendment campaigns across Washington state.
The decision also underscores the importance of clear legislative guidance in election law, as the court noted the absence of statutory definition for key terms that govern when charter amendments must appear on ballots. Such ambiguities can create uncertainty for both election officials and political organizations seeking to participate in the democratic process through charter reform initiatives.