addition, respondents are free to ask this court to exercise its discretion to consider
charge 6 despite their failure to appeal the ruling on that charge. As mentioned above,
we denied that request; but the respondents were free to make it.
Appellants’ third motion to strike gives three reasons to strike respondents’
answer to the appellants’ second motion to strike. The appellants’ first and third
reasons rehash appellants’ second motion to strike (concerning stridency and lack of
record citations). Those arguments lack merit here, too. We grant appellants’ third
motion to strike only as it relates to the new proposed exhibit that respondents proffer
in their answer to the appellants’ second motion to strike. Despite respondents’
suggestion to the contrary, the extra record information in the newspaper article does
not assist us in ruling on appellants’ second motion to strike.
23
In re Recall of William O’Neil et al., No.105253-7
We deny appellants’ fourth motion to strike and motion for sanctions and
attorney fees. As noted, most of appellants’ motions to strike lack merit, and “a
motion to strike is typically not necessary to point out evidence and issues a litigant
believes this court should not consider.” Id. We further deny the motions for
sanctions against respondents and for attorney fees for appellants.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court in full. Charges 12 and 13 are factually and legally
sufficient to support the recall of Keller, O’Neil, and Stevens, and charge 7 is
factually and legally sufficient to support the recall of Keller. Charges 12 and 13
shall proceed to the voters for Keller, O’Neil, and Stevens. Charge 7 shall also
proceed to the voters for Keller.