08/21/2026
On August 20, 2026, the Washington State Supreme Court released its full written opinion formally explaining its July decision â a unanimous, en banc ruling by all nine justices â affirming that the recall charges against the Port of Benton commissioners are legally and factually sufficient.
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1052537.pdf
This published opinion is the Court putting its full reasoning on the record, and it strongly validates the recall effort we've already been running.
What the Opinion Says
Two passages from the Court's reasoning stand out, and now supporters can see them in the Court's own words:
1. The commissioners tried to hide behind "discretion" â the Court rejected it.
The commissioners argued that suspending Howard and firing Myers were simply personnel decisions within their discretion, and therefore couldn't support a recall. The Court disagreed:
"The commissioners argue that personnel decisions are discretionary and, hence, cannot form the basis for recall... We reject that argument here, as we did in Hatcher, because retaliation constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion."
2. The Court spelled out Keller's conflict of interest.
On the financial disclosure charge against Keller, the Court's opinion goes further than a procedural ruling â it explains exactly why the concealment mattered:
"[T]he fact that Keller owned a[n] LLC that in turn held a leasehold interest with the public entity where he was a Commissioner is exactly the type of information the... Public Disclosure Commission was created to disclose." Because Keller's ground lease with the Port is in the name of his LLC, and because Keller failed to disclose his ownership of the LLC, the public may not realize that Keller acted on both sides of the lease deal. Notably, as executive director, Keller allegedly executed the ground lease at a rate lower than the rate that the Commission had approved.
That last detail matters: the Court is pointing directly to evidence that Keller sat on both sides of a Port lease deal at a below-market rate â and then left his ownership stake off his mandatory financial disclosures.