I Developments in Washington's Law of Law-Making - Gonzaga ...
I Developments in Washington's Law of Law-Making - Gonzaga ...
I Developments in Washington's Law of Law-Making - Gonzaga ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
2008/09]<br />
WASHINGTON'S LAW OF LAW-MAKING<br />
dismissed these claims as nonjusticiable, reason<strong>in</strong>g that no remedy was available to<br />
what was essentially a political dispute. 67 After Amalgamated Transit (2000), <strong>in</strong><br />
which the court rejected a "universal referendum" not unlike 1-601's vote <strong>of</strong> the<br />
people requirement, the validity <strong>of</strong> the latter fell <strong>in</strong>to doubt. 6 8<br />
In two recent cases, the court was asked to rule on the constitutional validity <strong>of</strong> I-<br />
601's statutory restrictions on the law-mak<strong>in</strong>g power. Wash<strong>in</strong>gton State Farm<br />
Bureau v. Gregoire asked whether the <strong>in</strong>itiative could constitutionally condition<br />
legislation on a statutorily compelled vote <strong>of</strong> the people, assum<strong>in</strong>g that the legislature<br />
had <strong>in</strong> fact raised taxes <strong>in</strong> order to spend above the limit. 69 Brown v. Owen asked<br />
whether a statute, whether adopted by the voters or by the legislature, may impose a<br />
supermajority vot<strong>in</strong>g threshold on tax legislation. 70 Thus, both cases deal with<br />
whether our system <strong>of</strong> representative democracy may enact statutes that operate as a<br />
rope to b<strong>in</strong>d the law-mak<strong>in</strong>g power-and <strong>in</strong> both cases, the court decl<strong>in</strong>ed to reach<br />
the substantive constitutional question.<br />
A. Farm Bureau: Slipp<strong>in</strong>g Through the Loop<br />
Wash<strong>in</strong>gton State Farm Bureau Federation v. Gregoire <strong>in</strong>volved challenges to<br />
2005 budget and tax legislation. 71 The Farm Bureau pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs argued that the<br />
legislature and the state Expenditure Limit Committee (ELC) had manipulated<br />
certa<strong>in</strong> expenditures and transfers <strong>in</strong> the 2005 budget to unlawfully <strong>in</strong>flate the state<br />
expenditure limit, with the result that certa<strong>in</strong> tax <strong>in</strong>creases levied revenues <strong>in</strong> excess<br />
<strong>of</strong> the expenditure limit, thereby trigger<strong>in</strong>g 1-601's requirement for voter approval <strong>of</strong><br />
taxes <strong>in</strong> excess <strong>of</strong> the limit. 72 Shortly before the trial court <strong>in</strong>validated the legislative<br />
actions and ruled that the tax legislation should have required a vote <strong>of</strong> the people, the<br />
2006 legislature passed a law stat<strong>in</strong>g that the fiscal year 2006 limit was the limit as<br />
established by the 2005 ELC and was subject to specified further adjustments. 73 To<br />
add further complexity to the case, the state supreme court's 2000 decision <strong>in</strong><br />
16199187. Second, that the vote <strong>of</strong> the people requirement conflicted with article II, section 1, which<br />
establishes requirements for referendum bills and measures. Id. at 21-28. Third, that the expenditure<br />
and tax limitations conflicted with the legislature's <strong>in</strong>herent power to enact tax legislation under<br />
article VII, section 1, which specifies that "[t]he power <strong>of</strong> taxation shall never be suspended,<br />
surrendered, or contracted away." Id. at 28-34. Fourth, that the tax and fee restrictions amended<br />
other sections <strong>of</strong> law without sett<strong>in</strong>g them forth <strong>in</strong> full. Id. at 34-39.<br />
67. Walker, 879 P.2d at 927.<br />
68. Amalgamated Transit Union 578 v. State, 11 P.3d 762, 792 (Wash. 2000).<br />
69. Wash. State Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Gregoire, 174 P.3d 1142, 1145 (Wash. 2007).<br />
70. Brown v. Owen, No. 81287-0, 2009 WL 564432, at *34 (Wash. Mar. 5,2009).<br />
71. Fann Bureau v. Gregoire, 174 P.3d at 1144.<br />
72. Id. at 1144,1148-50 (Wash. 2007).<br />
73. 2006 Wash. <strong>Law</strong>s ch. 56, § 7 (codified as amended at WAsH. REV. CODE § 43.135.025).