In the week since Bourbon County Clerk Susan E. Walker filed suit to block the recall petition against her, the lawsuit has narrowed substantially. As of May 28, Walker has dismissed the three recall committee members as defendants, withdrawn her emergency request to stop signature-gathering, and re-cast the case as a narrower procedural challenge against the County Attorney. The recall petition continues to be circulated.
For background on the original filing, see the prior story: Clerk Sues to Block Her Recall.
What changed since the original story:
- Who is still being sued. Only Bourbon County Attorney James Crux remains a defendant. The three recall committee members — Kyle R. Parks, Kevin Wagner, and Lyle K. Owenby — have been dropped.
- What Walker is no longer asking for. She has withdrawn her request for a Temporary Restraining Order, the emergency court order she had been seeking to stop the petition from being circulated.
- What Walker is still asking for. She still wants the court to declare the recall petition legally invalid (because, she says, the County Attorney never issued the written sufficiency determination required by K.S.A. 25-4322(b) for the version now being circulated), and to block any certification of signatures and any recall election based on the petition.
Timeline since the original story:
- May 22 — Walker filed her original petition and an application for an ex parte temporary restraining order (an emergency order issued without first hearing from the other side) asking the court to halt signature-gathering immediately. The recall committee members were named as defendants alongside County Attorney Crux.
- On or around May 26 — While no written order is shown on public site, it appears the court denied the original ex parte TRO request. The denial is referenced in Walker’s later filing. Her counsel writes that an email “notified Defendant Crux the Court rejected Plaintiff’s request for an ex parte TRO” and asked about scheduling a hearing.
- May 26 — Walker filed an amended TRO application (25 pages, up from 17), expanding her irreparable-harm claims. The new filing alleges that “members of the public are photographing Plaintiff and her family to post online with untrue claims,” and that circulation of the petition “causes continuing irreparable harm to the Plaintiff’s ability to perform her duties as Bourbon County Clerk.”
- May 27 — Attorney Patrick B. Hughes of Adams Jones Law Firm in Wichita entered an appearance for defendant Kevin Wagner.
- May 27 — Wagner filed a motion to strike Walker’s entire petition under Kansas’s anti-SLAPP statute, K.S.A. 60-5320. Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) laws protect against lawsuits that target their protected speech, petitioning, or association on public issues. Notably the law shifts attorney fees to the losing plaintiff.
- May 28 — Walker filed an amended petition (20 pages, down from 28) removing the three recall committee members as defendants. Only County Attorney Crux remains. The new filing drops the request to stop circulation of the recall petition. Instead it only asks the court to declare the petition invalid and block any steps that would occur after collecting signatures.
- May 28 — Walker filed a Motion to Dismiss Defendant Recall Committee formally dropping Parks, Wagner, and Owenby. The motion states plainly: “Plaintiff withdraws and will not argue its motions for a temporary restraining order restraining Defendant Recall Committee’s recall petition from being circulated.”
Where things stand:
The case is now significantly narrower and no longer names the people who filed the recall petition. Walker also no longer seeking to stop signature-gathering. What remains is a procedural dispute between the county clerk and the county attorney over whether the recall petition was properly approved for circulation in the first place.
Since Wagner’s anti-SLAPP motion was filed before Walker’s pivot, it isn’t clear if Wagner’s motion just goes away or if it still requires a ruling.
County Attorney Crux, the only remaining defendant, has yet to file any type of response.
Court filings cited above are public records. Descriptions of communications between counsel and individual defendants come from Walker’s own court filings and have not been independently confirmed. FortScott.biz will continue to follow the case.