An unusual legal dispute has emerged from La Pine, where William Harry Minnix, chief petitioner behind the recall effort targeting Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, has taken his case from the federal district court to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Minnix contends that the Oregon Secretary of State’s office issued an incorrect form for his statewide recall petition, effectively derailing months of volunteer work and threatening to void every signature collected before the October 27, 2025 deadline.
The controversy began in early August, when the Secretary of State’s elections division approved Minnix’s recall petition but allegedly attached the wrong cover sheet. The form provided was intended for county-level recalls rather than a statewide gubernatorial recall, which required specific legal wording and instructions for voters. According to the filings, the mix-up caused confusion among potential signers and disrupted efforts to collect the required number of verified signatures within the ninety-day window allowed under state law. When Minnix requested correction of the form on August 7, he says the Secretary’s office advised him to start the process over, effectively nullifying weeks of petition circulation.
By late October, as the signature-collection deadline approached, Minnix filed an emergency motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon seeking a temporary restraining order that would have extended the deadline or validated the signatures already gathered. The court denied the motion on October 26, 2025, concluding that Minnix had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success or shown that the harm could not be addressed later. While the ruling left open the possibility of future relief, it did not halt the expiration of the petition window.
The following day, Minnix filed a formal notice of appeal, taking the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. His latest filing seeks an emergency injunction pending appeal, arguing that without immediate court intervention, the recall petition will expire and the right of Oregonians to exercise their constitutional recall power will be lost. He maintains that the harm is irreparable because it stems from an administrative mistake rather than a failure to comply with election law.
Minnix’s appeal raises a question that has not previously been addressed in Oregon: whether a state agency’s issuance of an incorrect official petition form can violate constitutional protections of free speech and political participation under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. His legal brief argues that the defective cover sheet discouraged participation, chilled political expression, and prevented citizens from engaging in the recall process.
Citing prior Supreme Court and appellate decisions that protect petition circulation as core political speech, Minnix asserts that government actions that create confusion or impede participation can constitute an unconstitutional burden. His argument likens the state’s mistake to extraordinary circumstances recognized in other cases where courts eased ballot-access requirements, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, when certain procedural rules were relaxed because compliance had become impossible. In Minnix’s view, the issuance of the wrong form by the Secretary of State created similarly impossible conditions, making literal compliance with Oregon’s recall statute unattainable through no fault of the petitioner.
The filings further note that Minnix is representing himself and has been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without payment of filing fees due to financial hardship. The motion emphasizes that he withheld submitting the petitions to preserve their integrity and prevent additional confusion until the appellate court decides whether to extend the collection period or validate the existing signatures.
In requesting relief, Minnix asks the Ninth Circuit to extend the signature-gathering period for at least thirty days or to order the Secretary of State to accept all signatures collected on the defective form while the appeal is pending. His goal, as described in the filing, is to protect the constitutional rights of both petitioners and voters, ensuring that technical or clerical errors by state officials do not erase legitimate political participation.
The case now places the Ninth Circuit in the position of determining whether the alleged administrative error rises to the level of a constitutional violation. It also raises broader questions about how state agencies manage election materials and whether procedural mistakes can be remedied after statutory deadlines have passed. The appellate court’s decision could set new precedent for Oregon and potentially influence how future recall and ballot-initiative petitions are handled when administrative irregularities occur.
As of this week, the Secretary of State’s office has not yet filed its formal response to the appeal. Minnix continues to assert that the issue is not partisan but procedural, focusing on the rights of voters to participate in an orderly and lawful recall process. For now, his emergency motion remains pending, and Oregon’s political observers are watching closely to see whether the federal appeals court will step in to keep the petition alive or allow the recall effort to expire with the missed deadline.