I Developments in Washington's Law of Law-Making - Gonzaga ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

GONZAGA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 44:3 was further amended by various bills under various titles before Morin filed suit in 2005. 23 9 Morin claimed that the title of the 1988 initiative failed to reflect the initiative's elimination of an exemption to the minimum wage laws for "domestic service. ' 24° Relying on Pierce County II, the Morin court noted that all subsequent amendments to the section maintained the exclusion wrought by the 1988 initiative, thereby curing any title-subject defects in that law given that there were no challenges to the titles of the subsequent amendatory acts. 241 While this author is reluctant to deprive the court of any tool that it may use to uphold legislation, aspects of these rulings require further scrutiny. First, if the "original" title is defective, does subsequent amendment under any title cure this problem, or must the disputed subject matter fit within the "new" title? For example, assume the following amendments to a hypothetical section: 2007 legislation: AART Dogs: Sec. 1. RCW 16.01.000 and c 3 s 4 2003 are each amended to read as follows: All ((eats-and-degs)) pets must be licensed as required under this chapter. 2008 legislation: AART Dangerous dogs: See. 4.RCW 16.01.000 and 2007 c 55 s 1 are each amended to read as follows: All pets must be licensed as required under this chapter. In addition, dangerous dogs are subject to the further licensing requirements of chapter 16.02 RCW. Arguably, the 2007 legislation contains a title defect: the title pertains to dogs, but the amendatory changes apply to "pets." The 2008 legislation uses as its "base" the section as amended by the 2007 law, yet the 2008 law is amending these sections under an even narrower title. If a ferret owner is fined for failure to license his pet, does the 2008 legislation cure the 2007 title problem? True, the legislature has assumed the constitutionality of the 2007 changes and relied on them as the basis for the subsequent amendments, but neither bill's title is broad enough to encompass changes to "pets" generally, so it is unclear how the further amendments adopted in the 2008 law could "cure" the defect in the 2007 law. The second issue requiring further scrutiny concems reenactment. Reenactment is a term of art in the Washington legislature. Courts and commentators use the term 237. The state, as amicus curiae, also argued that laches barred a procedural challenge to an initiative where the challenge came near twenty years after its enactment and where there were multiple intervening legislative amendments of the statutes in question. Brief of State of Wash. as Amicus Curiae at 4-9, Morin v. Harrell, 164 P.3d 495,496 (Wash. 2007) (No. 79971-7). 238. 1989 Wash. Sess. Laws ch. 1, § 5(b). 239. See WASH. REv. CODE § 49.46.010 (Historical and Statutory Notes) (after amendment by 1-518, this section was amended by 1993 Wash. Sess. Laws ch. 281; 1997 Wash. Sess. Laws ch. 203; and 2002 Wash. Sess. Laws ch. 354). 240. Morin, 164 P.3d at 497. 241. Id at 499.
2008/09] WASHINGTON'S LAW OF LAW-MAKING "reenactment" in different yet generic senses-either to mean recreation after repeal 242 or an active re-affirmation of the entire section. 243 Pierce County , for example, considered the 1994 amendments to have cured and ratified any defect in the 1993 law as if the legislature were affumatively re-adopting all of the changes contained in the "base" version of the section. 244 In the parlance of the Washington state legislature, however, the introductory "jingle" 245 that describes the effect of a section of session law uses the term "reenacting" in two narrow circumstances: to incorporate prior double amendments of the same section into a single section of session law 246 and to reenact a section or sections-without further amendment-where questions had arisen about procedural 247 defects. But in amending a section other than in these circumstances, the legislature does not declare that it is "reenacting" the section: "The portion of the amended sections which are merely copied without change are not to be considered 242. See 1ANORMAN J. SINGER, STATuTEs & STATUTORY CoNsTRuCrION § 23:29, at 555 (6th ed. 2002) (reenactment of repealed statute invalidates repeal and restores statute to effective operation); J.G SUTHERLAND, STATUTES & STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 134, at 172 (1891); cf 73 Am. JUR. 2d Statutes § 271 (2001) ("[Wlhere a statute is repealed without a reenactment of the repealed law... the repealed statute, in regard to its operative effect, is considered as if it had never existed."). E.g Wash. Citizens Action of Wash. v. State, 171 P.3d 486, 495 n. 5 (Wash. 2007) (citing Amalgamated Transit Union Local 287 v. State, 11 P.3d 762, 804-05(Wash. 2000)). 243. See SINGER, supra note 242, § 23:29, at 555-57 ("reaffirmation of the statute in its original form"); 73 AM. JuR. 2D Statutes § 278 (2001) (reenactment as an affirmation of the original provision); see also Morin, 164 P.3d at 499; Pierce County v. State, 148 P.3d 1002, 1016 (Wash. 2006) (Pierce County II). 244. Pierce County 1, 148 P.3d at 1016. 245. See WASH. OFFICE OF THE CODE REVISER, BILL DRAFTING GUIDE pt. II, § 2, at 3-4 (2009) [hereinafter BILL DRAFriNG GUIDE]; see e.g., id. § 2(c)(i), at 4 ("Sec. 1. RCW 15.13.480 c 144 s 30 are each amended to read as follows:..."); id § 2(d), at 5 ("See. 1. RCW 19.28.161 and 2006 c 224 s 2 and 2006 c 185 s 6 are each reenacted and amended to read as follows: ..."). 246. Id. § 10(j) at 19. The declaration of reenactment is used to enact a corrected version of the double amendment. This term is used both when the Code Reviser has merged the double amendments pursuant to RCW 1.12.025(2), and when such merger has not taken place. Id If further amendments to the section are proposed at the same time, the "jingle" says that each section is "reenacted and amended." ld; see State v. Stannard, 142 P3d 641, 644 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006) (referencing legislative actions consistently with legislative usage, where a section addressed a prior double amendment and made further amendments). 247. See Orgnal Acts, supra note 153 at 46-47. The legislation at issue in Batey, discussed above in Section IV.A, is an example of the latter type of reenactment. Batey v. Employment Sec. Dep't 154 P.3d 266, 268-69 (wash. Ct. App. 2007), aff'd on other grounds sub nom Spain v. Employment Sec. Dep't, 185 P.3d 1188 (Wash. 2008); see also Or-ginalActs, supra note 146, at 48 n.77 (for example, certain sections of the Insurance Fraud Act, 1995 Wash. Sess. Laws ch. 285, were invalidated on procedural grounds by State v. Thomas, 14 P.3d 854, 857 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) and then later reenacted without further amendment by the legislature to correct the procedural deficiencies).
Page 1 and 2: Grasping for the "Elephant in the C
Page 3 and 4: 2008/09] WASHINGTON'S LAW OF LAW-MA
Page 29 and 30: 2008/091 WASHINGTON'S LAW OF LAW-MA
Page 33: 2008/09] WASHINGTON'S LAW OF LAW-MA
Page 81: 2008/09] WASHINGTON'S LAW OF LAW-MA

I Developments in Washington's Law of Law-Making - Gonzaga ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?