Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recall Petitions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Canvassers reject second Faust recall petition alleging use of government resources
Summary
The Board of State Canvassers unanimously found a second recall petition filed Feb. 27, 2025 by Paul Faust against Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson not factual and not sufficiently clear, saying the petition did not identify dates or details and that the alleged press conference used a public lobby space.
The Board of State Canvassers unanimously determined that the reasons for recall printed on a second petition filed Feb. 27, 2025 by Paul Faust against Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson are not factual and not sufficiently clear.
Counsel for Secretary of State Benson told the board the petition’s allegation that Benson used government resources for personal benefit concerned a January 22 press conference and that Benson attended in a personal capacity as a candidate for governor, not in her official capacity.
Rowan Conybeare, appearing for Secretary Benson, told the board that the press conference was held in the Richard Austin Building’s first-floor public lobby, a common area used by public visitors, and that many candidates and ballot committees have used that lobby for press conferences. “Secretary Benson was not acting as an officer at that time,” Conybeare said, arguing the recall statute requires the alleged conduct to have occurred while the named officer was acting in office.
Conybeare also argued the petition lacked required specificity and did not provide dates or details necessary to meet the court of appeals’ clarity standard for recall petitions. Board members echoed concerns that the petition did not identify which announcement was referenced and that the term “government owned resources” in the petition was imprecise.
A motion to find the petition reasons not factual and not sufficiently clear was moved, seconded and approved unanimously. Board staff and members noted that separate campaign finance complaints and inquiries, including some described in the discussion as still open with the attorney general’s office, remain matters for other investigative authorities and were not resolved as part of the board’s statutory sufficiency review.
The board’s vote addressed only the statutory sufficiency of the petition; it did not adjudicate any underlying complaints or investigations mentioned in the petition or in public discussion.
